Transcript

Welcome to the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio

Abraham Hamilton III: Darkness is not an affirmative force. It simply reoccupies the space vacated by the light.

Abraham Hamilton III: This is the, Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.

Abraham Hamilton III: It should be uncomfortable for a believer to live as a hypocrite, delivering people.

Abraham Hamilton III: Out of the bondage of mainstream media and the philosophies of this world.

Abraham Hamilton III: God has called you and me to be his ambassadors, even in this dark moment. Let's not miss our moment.

Abraham Hamilton III: And now, the, Hamilton Corner.

Abraham Hamilton III: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Hamilton Corner. My name is Abraham Hamilton iii. Joined by the corner contingent right across from me today is our friendly neighborhood woodaholic, perpetually in recovery, none other than Mr. Marty Sparks. Ladies and gentlemen, we are joined by producer extraordinaire, often imitated, never duplicated. The real J. Mac is in the building and we're ready to rock and roll with today's edition of the program.

What goes on in your home is far more important than what happens in White House

At this very moment, many of you, if not most of you, are making your transition from your part time jobs where you generate an income, to your full time jobs where you cultivate an outcome. And as you do so, I want to remind you to do so with intentionality, understanding the primacy that God places on family, welcoming that primacy to guide and govern, your engagement, and recognizing that what goes on in your house is far more important than what goes on in the White House. I continue to beat that drum because with all of the things that are happening and swirling all around us, it's very easy to be so consumed by those things where we can, neglect what is happening in our homes. I want to remind you, if you are in the life stage with young children in your home, this is not a forever stage. On one hand, some of you are like, woo, thank you, Lord. On the other hand, some of you are like, whoo. That, which I must do, I must do swiftly because this is one of the things where we only have one shot. And so I offer this encouragement daily to invite you to take full advantage of the opportunity and the time that you have. There are lots of things you can do, but this one thing we have been commanded to do. Every believer is called to execute the Lord's commission. If you have the privilege of having young ones in your home, you have the opportunity to execute that right at home. Not neglecting other places, other contexts, other stages, but certainly, certainly not stepping over those in your immediate vicinity in an effort to win the world. You know, I reflect on this now. I now have two teenagers in my own house. Goodness gracious, when did that happen? When did that happen? And it just shows man that time, time is of the essence. We have to make sure we take advantage of what we have before us. The first human institution that God established was the family. The first command that God gave to mankind was issued within the familial context certainly. And I want to be informed. I keep up with things that are happening. That's part of a, part of my job of course. but I don't want my national giving attention to national affairs to cause me to be absent. Absent minded or neglectful in my home will never be able to out politic deficiencies that abound in the home. That's just a simple fact. That's just a simple fact. If each family, each home, one person at a time, one family at a time will take the responsibility to obey what God commanded us to do in our families, man, there's no telling. There's no telling what could happen in our country. There's no telling. The press of the world very often is to get us to divert that attention to give significance to everything else. Everything outside of the home is so important. Everything all over the country is so important. Everything all over the world is so important. But some of us don't have a clue what's in our own children's cell phones. I'm not even going to get on the fact should they really even have a. Oh yeah, yeah, we call them cell phones but they really are micro computers that have texting and calling features. But the main thrust of what is done with them ain't ah, necessarily calling, just something to consider to the word of God we go.

The scripture bears out speaking freely or more, more particular speaking is central

Acts chapter four. Acts chapter four. I want to begin the program here. and these are, this is a foundational concept. but I, I don't think many of us recognize why this should be foundational to us individually and more importantly to our body politic. Because the scripture bears out speaking freely or more, more particular speaking is central to being a disciple of Jesus Christ. In Acts chapter four, what we have is Peter and John were arrested after they'd healed a man, a man who had been lame. And they healed him M and the Sanhedrin, the same Sanhedrin that shortly before led to Jesus's crucifixion, the same Sanhedrin, in an effort to kind of snuff out the popularity of the followers of the Way, the followers of the Way of Messiah, they arrested Peter and John. And we're going to peer into a portion of this account in Acts chapter 4 verses 13 through 20. And this is what the word of God says now, as they observed that there is a Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin here. Now, as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they, the Sanhedrin were amazed and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they, the Sanhedrin had nothing to say in reply. But when they had ordered them to leave the council, they began to confer with one another. That's the Sanhedrin confirmed with one another, saying, what shall we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy miracle has taken place through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But so that it will not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name. And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge. For we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard. As you navigate that text, you'll notice that Peter and John healed the lame man, but in addition to the healing. Because the healing is what contributed to their expanded popularity. But in addition to the healing, notice what the Sanhedrin sought to do. Speak no longer in this name of Jesus. Speak no longer in this name of Jesus. Don't speak anymore. To which Peter and John responded. For you, you'd consider whether it's more prudent for us to obey you or to obey God. Because as far as we concerned, we're concerned we cannot stop speaking about what we've seen and heard. I've explained to you guys that one of the objectives of the implementation of verbiage, such as politically correct speech, is a Gramsian, Marxian tool, frankly, to limit discussion. And if you make certain ideas and certain verbiage Persona non grata, so to speak, then you eliminate the capacity for persuasion. But what I want us to narrowly focus on right in this moment is the consistency within this passage and all throughout the Scripture with which the body of believers is compelled over and over and over and over again to speak, speak up, cry aloud, and spare not, continue to talk, continue to verbalize, continue to speak. What's happened in recent times is that many believers have been kind of intimidated to self censorship. I can't say that in public. Ah, you know, oh man, I don't want to deal with the backlash if I say that you know, a part of the reality. I've been talking about this ever since it happened. The bullet to Charlie Kirk's neck was an effort to say, shut up. We don't want to hear this anymore. The projectile version of what the Sanhedrin attempted to do to Peter and John. Shut up. Don't speak anymore in this name. And I want to say with every ounce of conviction that I have by the spirit of God that indwells me to compel my brothers and sisters in Christ to refuse to be quiet, refuse to dumb down, refuse to put your light under the. Under the bushel. Remember that. This little light of mine I'm gonna let it shine this little light of mine I'm gonna let it shine this little light you remember everywhere I go Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine. Would I put it under a bushel? No. I remember the hand gestures in children's church. No, I'm going to let it shine. We must let the light shine. For far too long, and I've been saying this, I'm going to continue to beat this drum as well, that the most desperate need we have in our nation is repentance. The gospel must be proclaimed. In many places, it's far easier to talk, you know, politics to talk, civic engagement to talk policy issues. Don't stop proclaiming the gospel. Don't stop proclaiming the gospel. All too often we have too many of the family of God who are willing to allow the gospel to be excluded from our conversation. We can talk about all of these other things, but we will not proclaim the gospel. And to say it, just as the scripture bears it out, that proclaiming the gospel ultimately comes to needing to speak. You know, I understand what's meant by, you know, preach the gospel, if necessary, use words. I know what people mean by that. but let me just be clear. The gospel requires words. We must use words. Now, the expression preach the gospel, if necessary, use words simply means make sure our lives are lived consistently with the gospel that we dare proclaim. But that old adage is incomplete. We must. We must proclaim the gospel. Proclaim it. We have to proclaim it. The idea of the church efforts being to push the church to the margins of society. Guys, that has been a feature that has been consistent ever since the Lord established his church. But if you notice something in scripture, the more oppressive tactics are employed, the more the gospel spreads. Because what invariably is demonstrated is that Christ following is not a fair weather phenomenon, that our Conviction and commitment to follow the King persists regardless of the circumstances surrounding us. Repeatedly in this portion of Scripture, when they had summoned them, they commanded him not to speak. Don't speak. Don't speak any longer. In the name of Jesus. Warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name. But their response was. We cannot stop speaking. We cannot stop speaking. Which must be our heart's condition. We cannot stop speaking. We cannot stop speaking. We must proclaim the only name under heaven by which men must be saved. Man, I'm going to tell you plainly. Satan doesn't care if you want to talk about lower taxes all day long. Satan doesn't care if you want to talk about the debt limit all day long. You know what he cares about if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed. Now don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I understand policy issues. They're very important. I talk about those things on this show.

Abraham Hamilton III: Speaking is a necessary component to Christ following

But the thing that the spirit of Antichrist wants more than anything else is for people who know the Lord to refuse to proclaim his name. To refuse to connect the egregiousness of of men's behavior to the reality. Then mankind has inherited a sin nature from Adam. And that there's only one remedy for man's sin. Proclivity. And that's the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the finished work of the cross. Speaking is a necessary component to Christ following. We still today. Last I checked before I came in the studio. Marty. Yep. The first Amendment is still in the Constitution. The first Amendment exists to support and bolster our ability in our country to proclaim freely. We must refuse to self censor or to allow the oppress of the culture to cause us to be intimidated away from proclaiming the one name under heaven by which men must be saved. Speak. Speak. Speak.

Abraham Hamilton III: A discipleship minute with Joseph Parker.

Joseph Parker: The Word of God is a book full of truth. Yet truth is always meant to be learned and applied. We're to read the Word of God and act like it's true because of course it is. Will not receive the blessing and benefits of the Word of God when we fail to obey and act on it fully. We are called to be mighty warriors in the army of God. Our main weapon is the Word of God, the sword of the Spirit. Let's be wise enough to take our sword, the powerful Word of God, into battle every single day. And let's be wise enough to use the Word strategically, skillfully and aggressively. This is how we can walk in victory every day of our lives. Lord, open our eyes to the wonderful gift of your word. Open our eyes that we may see wondrous things out of your law. In Jesus name we do pray. Amen.

Abraham Hamilton III: Shining light into the darkness. This is the Hamilton Quarter on American Family Radio.

Abraham Hamilton III: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. Abraham Hamilton III here. And I am grateful to have in the studio with me AFA's Research Fellow of Church and Culture, the author of Dangerous Affirmation, the Threat of Gay Christianity, and producer of the award winning documentary In His Image, Delighting in God's Plan for Gender and Sexuality. My guest is none other than Maryland Perkins, MD. Thank you for joining me here on the Hamilton Corner.

Md Perkins: Good to be with you again, Abe.

Abraham Hamilton III: Oh man, it is my pleasure. I wanted you here because you just published an article that's available on afn.net titled Free Speech, Double Standards and the Assassination of Charlie Kirk. And when I read it, I thought it was an excellent, technical exposition of how we've gotten to the double standards concerning speech and why it's important within our body politic to understand, why the moniker hate speeches are often employed. You know, I talked earlier this week in a program walking through the Communist Manifesto explaining how. No, no, no, the reason why you have people that are saying, hey, notice there were no cities burned, no stores looted, no violence offered in retribution following Charlie Kirk's murder. Because when you have people who profess to be, you know, somewhat constitutionalist oriented, violence is a violation of their worldview and belief system versus those who I describe unaffectionately as regressives. Violence is a tactic that they employ in order to accomplish their civic objectives. And so that's why you see so often there's a certain comfort level with the utilization of violence. It's like, oh, oh, somebody died, somebody got punched in the face, somebody got slapped, somebody got shot, go home. so, how about those universal, basic income, you know, now will we get it now? Now, because it's essential to, their worldview, unfortunately.

Why did you find it important to diagnose in the fashion that you did

Abraham Hamilton III: Why did you find it important to diagnose in the fashion that you did, which is excellent, the necessity of understanding free speech and the double standards concerning it?

Md Perkins: Well, on the day that Charlie Kirk was assassinated and we were watching this whole drama unfold, of course we were burdened immediately by just gravity of the situation. The personal loss, the tragedy there, the atrocity of it. And then what does this mean for our nation? But then there was immediately the question that emerged, which is, why are there people celebrating this? And also, why am I not Surprised about that. M. And so that question, how did we get here where there's some attempt to justify an atrocious act of evil and an unwillingness to even just call it that on its face, all of these little ways of like, well, I didn't fully agree with him, but.

Abraham Hamilton III: He.

Md Perkins: Kind of asked for it in a way, is what the sentiment that kept getting put out there. And so where did this concept come from? Where would that justification be? And just within God's providence. I was teaching a class in my church talking about this social concern of expressive individualism. The idea that, you are your feelings and the way that you express the true meaning of life is really expressing who you are on the inside. And that thought of that, expressing who you are and feeling like I have to get out this thing and match that with the idea that. That this notion that words are violence, that words themselves have become the equivalent of violence. So then when Charlie Kirk said something that I disagreed with, that was basically inciting a violent retaliation against him, when it was just words, he didn't act in a way that was violent. He didn't incite people to violence. He wasn't calling people to violence. He wasn't trying to evoke that. He was arguing and presenting facts and opinions and, commenting on things. So that's kind of the mix of how I got to this article.

Antonio Gramsey writes about redefining hate speech

Abraham Hamilton III: So let's walk through that, because I think a lot of us know kind of intuitively what's happening. We feel it. You know, what you just described, many, almost everybody in the audience right now will probably say, yeah, I've heard people say, you know, words are violence. You're attacking me via your hate speech. And that literally your words are synonymous with a violent act. how did you break it down? And would you walk us through the approach that you laid out in this article that's on AFN Net?

Md Perkins: Well, I started by thinking about just that concept of words as violence. My wife and I were talking about it and she's like, nobody really says that old rhyme we grew up with. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. And as we were thinking about it, it's like, well, there's actually a cultural shift that's happened behind that. Part of that is kind of a therapeutic culture. because, I mean, we all know words hurt. I mean, that was. And so we would always couch things against that kind of rhyme. But the point of the rhyme was to teach our own selves resilience and that words don't have Power over me, like what the bully calls me is not who I truly am. And so like, yeah, it hurts, it stings. I don't like hearing that. But also that's not true. So I don't have to live in light of what he thinks or what he says. And so I can just move on with my life and not be controlled by what the bully says. And that's the whole point of it. But we've so far moved away from this because we believe that somehow words are violent in themselves and that maybe, maybe they're inciting, maybe they're inciting violence in us. And so like the concept of hate speech, like you were saying, I mean, there are hateful words that exist out there. There are ways that you can speak that is hateful in itself. But there's been, this shift that's happened in redefining what hate is, what violence is, what harm is. And then when you start to redefine those terms, then you can fill that with all kinds of things in order to silence opposition, build up your own platform and kind of, you know. So the Christian position often is kept out of this discussion because de facto by the viewpoint that, for example, that homosexuality is a sin, that in itself is deemed as a hateful thought or a hateful comment. And so the article is trying to track through kind of the logic of that as well as the double standards that exist in how we examine these claims of violence. Because it does seem, it's not a symmetry. Yes, there are people on the right who are hateful, who are bigoted and doing bad things, as there are on the left. But it's not really an asymmetry in terms of controlling the speech and using the arguments to try and silence one side against another. And so that's, that's also why I kind of, I lean in pretty heavily on this notion of the double standard. Yeah, that exists.

Abraham Hamilton III: Yeah. You rightly pointed out, that by employing terms and anybody who's following my, work for a while, you remember, you know, I've been on air almost 10 years now. When I'm in my first year on the air, I did, I did several shows talking about why the utilization of this moniker, so called hate crimes, is ultimately going to prove deleterious for society because, you know, which crimes are committed out of love.

Md Perkins: Right, yeah.

Abraham Hamilton III: Ah, you know, so what are they simply trying to do? It was laying the, you know, the breadcrumbs to build this framework of having, ah, civic protected status for particular behaviors. and that also gave rise to the concept of. From hate crimes, we got the idea of hate speech.

Md Perkins: Yeah.

Abraham Hamilton III: You see that, well, you can speak with certain speech has an elevated amount of hatred, but it only applied in, in certain directions. It was categorically applied.

Md Perkins: Right.

Abraham Hamilton III: It wasn't applied across the board. And it had the impact, as you, described it, as further narrowing the already shrinking range of acceptable discourse.

Md Perkins: Right.

Abraham Hamilton III: Which I've shared with my audience here is exactly what Antonio Gramsey in his prison notebooks advocated for by weaponizing language, that you have an ever moving, ever fluctuating notion of an acceptable lexicon, and you weaponize the language in an effort to destabilize society. Because by weaponizing language you actually get, get to change expectations in reality based on verbiage. So would you describe the impact of using so called hate speech as a justification for narrowing acceptable discourse?

Md Perkins: Yeah, I mean, the redefinition of language is in many ways the redefinition of reality, because that's how we understand the world in terms of abstract principles that God gave us the ability to communicate in language. It separates us from animals. There's other forms of communication besides language, but language is clear. It's expressing what you believe, what you think, and being able to express that in some sort of common way. And we all have seen the way that the left and the LGBTQ movement have altered our vocabulary and changed the language in order to control your. Your perception of reality. So, example from my book Dangerous Affirmation, I talk about the emergence of the term homosexuality. And that's describing an internal state. Now, before that, there was a different word that was used that just described the action. And so when you think of homosexuality as an action, the way that you limit it, the way that you talk about it is different. But then when it becomes an internal perception, your ability to regulate that action is limited and it changes. Ah. And that wasn't just an accidental thing that happened. It was people who actually wanted to change sodomy laws in Germany at that time. And so then that becomes a whole shift in language. And so that's how these things work is, I think conservatives have kind of capitulated at different points on language. We've just kind of consented to certain new terminologies and the vocabulary that's been handed to us, thinking that, well, if I just embrace the vocabulary, maybe I'll still be able to win the argument. But you don't realize that the vocabulary was already handed to you with vacated meanings or additional meanings. That were inferred that you didn't recognize, and before you knew it, you've actually undermined your argument and your place by incorporating the terminology, and then you've kind of destroyed your ability to actually gain any ground in the argument.

Abraham Hamilton III: Yeah, I want to lean in on that for a moment because I've been accused of being like a language police, because I refuse to say certain terms because words have meaning. You don't get to just, unilaterally change the meaning of a word because you don't like it.

Md Perkins: Right.

Abraham Hamilton III: You know, it's one of the reasons why I refuse to say biological male. It's an oxymoron. I mean, not oxymoron. It's a redundant Right. There's, it's a male, this is a male, this is a man, this is a boy. I refuse to say biological female because it's a redundancy. So why would the society want me to begin to use those terms biological male, biological female? Because it is, by my own language, seeding the ground rhetorically to say, well, this is a biological male, therefore they could be what? A non biological male, which is a redefinition of reality only by terms.

The spirit of the age uses deceptive language to trap people in false realities

And. And it's one of the most insidious forms of communication, of information, because it's assumptive.

Md Perkins: Yeah.

Abraham Hamilton III: It assumes something that is false. And so I'm not trying to be hateful or to be demeaning or insulting, but what the spirit of the age does is try to use verbiage to trap us in, oh, Maryland, you're so hateful. Why won't you just be respectful to this person? He's demanding that you affirm his reality. Well, no, what he's demanding of you is for you to lie to him because he's chosen to live self deceived. How should then people respond when you say that in many instances, conservatives and constitutionalists have kind of capitulated to this redefinition of reality even by the words we choose to use.

Md Perkins: Well, I mean, first of all, it's just acknowledging that language matters and seeking to understand the language that's been handed to you. there's lots of ways that this can manifest itself even within the home. The other night, my daughter used the term queen to describe somebody, and I've yet to correct her on it. I have it on my agenda to do because what I want her to understand is that that's a term from gay drag performances. And I know it's kind of gained. This queen. Yeah, this kind of Cultural flair. And now to you it's disconnected from it, but it's still in a sense normalizing this behavior even though you, now the context of that is disconnected to you just as a 16 year old girl in 2025. But, but that's the legacy that it comes from. And so the ways that we can acknowledge this within our own personal lives or our own use of language I think is maybe one of the first steps. Just being aware that when someone wants to change a term or they're kind of, they're rephrasing what you say in a slightly different way. you can kind of test this through ChatGPT, like see how it might adjust your language, you know, how might a liberal describe what I just said, you know, and see what it, what it might spit out and then see what kind of terminology is within that to give you some of those, those code words that might be used out there.

Don Hawkins: You cite Rutgers University survey on assassin culture

Abraham Hamilton III: Now I want to ask you about this. We have about, about two minutes. That includes the bumper music coming to this break you mentioned in your piece. You cite Rutgers University's network Contagion Research Institute and they had a survey there and the survey had some really jaw dropping results concerning what they labeled as assassin culture. We have maybe about maybe 30 seconds, 45 seconds or so to just kind of begin sharing. Why did you employ that study and what are some of the results that came from that survey? I should say, why did you employ that survey in your article and what are some of the results that came from that survey?

Md Perkins: Well, the survey said that it was asking the question, if Donald Trump were to be assassinated, would there be any justification for that? And 56% of those who identified as left of center politically said yes, there would be somewhat justification for that. And 14.1% said that would be fully justified. I think that gives you a confidence context for where people are in this sense that words are violence and that, that murder, outright murder is justifiable if it achieves a bigger end in their mind politically.

Abraham Hamilton III: That is astounding to see that respondents offered that as their position that they.

Md Perkins: And that was after the assassination attempt, by the way that study happened.

Abraham Hamilton III: And Butler, Pennsylvania.

Don Hawkins: Yeah.

Abraham Hamilton III: Wow. Wow. You're listening to the Hamilton Corner. Watching the Hamilton Corner. My guest is MD Perkins. We're going to continue discussing his piece that's available right now on americanfamilynews.net afn.net, free speech, double standards and the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Dr. Jessica Peck: At Wesley Biblical Seminary. We believe God is raising up a movement across our nation and around the world who hold fast to the inerrancy of scripture and the hope of. We do this through bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees, certificate programs, and even training for lay people. So whatever your next step is in being equipped for ministry, we're here for you. And if you believe these are the kind of pastors we need leading churches in the future, we invite you to think about giving to Wesley Biblical Seminary. Learn more about us@ WBS Edu.

Don Hawkins: Hello, I'm Don Hawkins here to tell you about encouragement live. 55 minutes of industrial strength radio encouragement featuring resourceful guests plus practical biblical insights to help you face life's challenges. We'll be taking your phone calls, so plan to join us for Encouragement live Saturdays at 7:05pm Central, 8:05pm Eastern, here on American Family Radio.

Christian worldview host David Wheaton discusses Charlie Kirk assassination on American Family Radio

Joseph Parker: Charlie Kirk Assassination this is David Wheaton, host of the Christian worldview. 31 year old married father of two, Charlie Kirk, perhaps the most influential conservative leader other than President Trump, was assassinated as he spoke at Utah Valley University. Of course, no one should be killed for their speech, but to the modern left, to disagree with them is to be a danger in need of silencing. Charlie will be remembered for his sharp intellect and persuasive debate style. he will also be known for being a forthright Christian. Pray for God's strength and comfort for Charlie's wife and family. Charlie is surely now saying thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Hear our most recent program on Charlie Kirk at thechristianworldview.org and then tune in this weekend for another topic that will sharpen your worldview.

Don Hawkins: Listen to the Christian Worldview with David.

Md Perkins: Wheaton Saturday mornings at 8 Central on American Family Radio.

Abraham Hamilton III: The Hamilton quarter podcast and one minute commentaries are available at afr.net back to the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.

56% of those who identified as left of center say Trump assassination would be justified

Abraham Hamilton III: Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. My guest is MD M. Perkins. We're having a conversation about his article that is up right now on afn.net that's American familynews.net titled Free Speech, Double Standards and the Assassination of Charlie Kirk. And before the break, we began discussing the NCRI survey, Rutgers University's network Contagion Research Institute, in which they, identified or labeled a phenomenon called assassin culture. And I wanted to invite you to continue your remarks on that survey.

Md Perkins: Well, it was just troubling that, 56% of those who identified as left of center, said that the murder of Donald Trump would be in some Way justified. And then 14.1% said that it would be fully justified. And even further, Elon Musk, his murder would be. 10% said that would be fully justified. So even moving beyond just a hatred of the president itself, which obviously Donald Trump, a very polarizing figure for a lot of people, but to move down to somebody else who's. Who's not even an elected politician, just somebody operating in a different capacity with a connection with Donald Trump, but still hated to the extreme, that 10% would say it's fully justified to take his life. And so just that level of justification for murder, like we mentioned, this study happened after the Butler, Pennsylvania assassination attempt on Trump's life, but before the assassination, the successful assassination of Charlie Kirk. And so it just. Demonic in my mind. Yeah, there's just a level of bloodlust that exists among people who are. Where it's not just this is where the words are violence thing. Like, it's an opposition not just to the ideal, but to the person and the person representing a political viewpoint and a political strategy and a political opportunity. But that is so hated that you. That you would actually rejoice and think that it justifies. It's kind of like those. Those, you know, the thought experiments of could you go back and kill Hitler when he was a child? Sort of thing. It's kind of like a different version of that. If you, if you conceive of Donald Trump as, quote, literally Hitler, as some people are claiming, then, yeah, I mean, they think that they are fully justified. If someone were to now, well, I would never do it myself, but, you know, if someone were to do it, I wouldn't be sad.

Abraham Hamilton III: Kind of m. It reminds me of. And you refer to this in your article, this associate professor at the University of Michigan, Charles H.F. davis III, need to get rid of his suffix.

Md Perkins: It's too close.

Abraham Hamilton III: It's too close. Would you share with the audience what this University of Michigan associate professor said?

Md Perkins: Well, remind me of the exact quote.

Abraham Hamilton III: Yeah, well, yeah, well, I have it right in front of me. where he said, quote, even if you believe violence isn't the answer, it is a solution, especially to the violent conditions and violent rhetoric spewed by empowered people that create them.

Md Perkins: See, what he's doing is he's blaming Charlie Kirk for his own death. And because what he's saying is that essentially Charlie Kirk is a racist. A racist is someone who's hateful. A racist is someone who's spewing out these ideas. And because Charlie Kirk had a Platform had influence, was talking to young people, was a political organizer. Therefore, he was doing a lot of things that were really wrong. And so for someone to take out his life, he's hedging it so that he's not saying that it's good. And I think to this point, he's avoided being fired. But, maybe that's changed since I quoted, that. But, anyway. But he's presenting it. Violence is not an answer, but it is a solution. So that same kind of idea, like, if someone were to do this, I wouldn't be too sorry about it, because it still accomplishes an important goal, because it stops him from doing what he's doing.

Abraham Hamilton III: What would you say to the person who said, well, yeah, MD but that's just a fringe perspective. Is it really a fringe perspective?

Md Perkins: Well, that was the startling thing about everybody's social media accounts in the days following the Charlie Kirk assassination. You thought it was a fringe opinion. And now you're seeing, this is somebody I went to college with. This is somebody in my family. This is somebody I used to go to church with. This is so and so and so and so. And these aren't just bots. These are people that I know. This is actual. These are actual people who are saying this. And then once you start to get into these stories of doctors and lawyers and school teachers and social workers and.

Abraham Hamilton III: All HR professors, military service across the full gamut of our society, I'm just.

Md Perkins: Walking around with people who are saying, like, murder is a pretty good thing if it hits the right person.

Abraham Hamilton III: Man, that is wild. And you do an amazing job. And I really think this, formula needs to be understood at this technical level, of articulating the paradigm. for example, for people who would say Charlie Kirk is a bigot, that would not be seen as hate speech. But if you say, well, a homosexual man is a sinner, well, that's hate speech.

Md Perkins: Yeah.

Abraham Hamilton III: Would you walk us through that formula? And I don't know if you have it in front of you. I have it right in front of me.

Md Perkins: I've got this one.

Abraham Hamilton III: Yeah. If we walked through this. And I think this is very important for people to understand because, again, many of us probably experienced this anecdote, have experienced this anecdotally, but we may not have recognized what was actually transpiring. So, would you walk us through that kind of paradigm to where they arrived at,

To deny someone's sexual identity is to deny their personhood

Well, your rhetoric is violence toward me.

Md Perkins: Yeah. So the idea is that to not affirm someone's sexual identity is essentially to denial someone's personhood. That's what I was alluding to earlier with the expressive individualism. That's how that comes into this. So denying someone's sexual identity is to actually say that that person doesn't exist or that that person's unimportant.

Abraham Hamilton III: And this is in their mindset. yeah, this is the mindset they've adopted.

Md Perkins: This is how they're seeing things. So to not affirm someone's sexual identity is a denial of one's personhood. And then to deny someone's personhood is to deny someone's existence.

Abraham Hamilton III: That's a big leap.

Md Perkins: Therefore, to deny someone's existence is basically equal to an act of violence. So essentially, someone with that viewpoint has already committed an act of violence against this person, and therefore it's justified to take out a physical act of violence against them so that they can stop their violent rhetoric. You've heard of Charlie Kurt's violent rhetoric, which is just saying stuff like this, that, you're not defined by your sexual identity and all of these sorts of things. no one's born gay. Those sorts of things. That is hate speech in this paradigm. And so that becomes. That's essentially the evidence to justify taking out someone's life. You know, there was a pastor in, I mean, you can put quotes around pastor, maybe here, because, at Alfred Street Baptist Church, I'll just say his name. Reverend Dr. Howard John Wesley spoke of, Charlie Kirk as a weapon of the enemy. And, like the enemy being Satan, but also kind of inferred within that as Donald Trump. And, you know, all of these sorts of things. So therefore, you know, he doesn't have to. He can mourn that he died, but he doesn't have to celebrate his life is what he's saying. But all of that is this subtle justification for the violence that occurred there.

Abraham Hamilton III: And this is coming from a pulpit.

Md Perkins: Yeah, a pulpit. Like, four days after the assassination.

Abraham Hamilton III: This. This is, Man. Because many of you listening and watching, you've heard the term. You're erasing me. This is, you know, this is LGBTQIAP plus erasure. But what they're saying is, is exactly what MD said. That. That you're refusing to affirm the sexual identity. You know, that's why in recent discourse, everything is boiling down. My identity, my identity, how I identify, how I identify. It's like, wait, what happened? Us just being people, and we are evaluated based on what we do. M. Not how you seek to identify yourself. And then the identity always turns on my Sexual expression or conduct.

Md Perkins: Yeah. And I'm sure as a lawyer you see the problem of the self identification versus an actual action. And so this is also, embedding intent on the part of people who are speaking just by the nature of what they are arguing for, a position that they are taking. Now therefore there is this hateful intent behind it because they see it as a troubling outcome or an outcome against them. And so therefore it's an attack personally, beyond what, you know, like, the question that I've had and I've wondered is like, how is my view that homosexuality is a sin? How is that a denial of someone's personhood? How is that an attack on their.

Abraham Hamilton III: Personhood while simultaneously denying that a child is a child in the womb? But that's not a denial of personhood.

Md Perkins: Right.

If words are violence and disagreement is hate, then there is no room for persuasion

Well, and that's another troubling aspect of our national bloodlust is you want to talk about abortion and how this kind of sets the stage for people to be desensitized.

Md Perkins: To it. When you've just, you've accepted it as the termination of a pregnancy and just family planning or pornography, that kind of removes the level of shame about certain things or immersive video games and the violence that's there and the way that you treat it as just an entertainment. All of these things I think are in the bigger picture of where we are right now and the responses that we're seeing and hearing online to the, to the assassination, the murder of a Christian man.

Abraham Hamilton III: And so you, you in kind of building to the crescendo on your argument. In this piece you write, quote, if words are violence and disagreement is hate, then there is no longer any room for persuasion, end quote. And in my view, when you have a society that so narrows the funnel of a acceptable speech. Have you heard that one before? Then it ultimately excludes room for the gospel to be proclaimed. Because ultimately if you are informing people, let's say we've been talking about homosexuality. No sir, you are made in God's image. But the conduct that you're engaging in, unless you repent and turn away from it, it will lead you to hell. But by God's grace, Jesus has already paid the penalty for your sin. That proclamation itself becomes hate speech.

Md Perkins: Absolutely. Where are you going to go with that as a Christian? I mean, think about the value of persuasion. I mean, even just what Charlie Kirk was doing, I mean, his tent set up said prove me wrong. He was inviting people who might disagree or might have questions and are coming to him to engage in this sharing of ideas. And, I actually watched an interview with the guy who was speaking with Charlie Kirk and engaged in debate with him right as he was killed. And the guy is leftist. He comes from this background. He's got a pride flag, a BLM flag, all this stuff hanging up in his apartment. But he's just troubled and devastated by everything that happened, both personally going through this, but also the reactions of his friends and loved ones who are just gloating at the death of this man. And this guy was preparing to come in and actually bring facts regarding something that Charlie had said, you know, about transgender shooters. And he kind of wanted to debunk that or to offer a.

Abraham Hamilton III: Try to.

Md Perkins: Yeah, tried to offer a, take on it, based on what he believed was reasonable evidence, but he believed that he could do this, that they could have this sharing exchange, and that maybe in light of what he said, Charlie might rethink part of his position or at least tamper the way that he was dealing with that issue from a policy, the way that he was thinking about policy on it. And perhaps this guy might even be persuaded of something based on what Charlie might bring. But that goes away the minute the gun comes out.

Abraham Hamilton III: Yeah. Yeah, you build toward the conclusion of your piece. Quote, the deeper reason words are seen as violence is because they carry a weight that feelings cannot. An objective connection to truth. The redefinition of language is a redefinition of reality. We cannot fully escape the edges of actual reality crashing against our perceptions, though we try. And when truth is replaced by emotion, the ability for meaningful discourse disappears. End quote. I really feel like that puts a button on it, and it encapsulates what I've been describing as this clash of worldviews, that violence is a tactic. Categorizing views that one disagrees with as hate speech narrows the scope of acceptable discourse to eliminate the perspective of persuasion. And even when that fails, we'll use violence to enforce that narrow scope of acceptable discourse so that there is a uniform manner of living and engagement with ultimately, you can smell the embers of Hades with that type of disposition. I'll leave the last thought to you.

Md Perkins: Yeah, I mean, it's a troubling situation when you think about the bigger issues of free speech and what that means for. But the ways that our discourse overall is being shaped by what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable and just completely dismissed out of hand. So that where someone is trying to bring in a Christian perspective or the Christian worldview, these established Christian positions that are historical. They're not hateful. They're just part of what God has declared. And the proclamation of the gospel, the proclamation of truth that can actually penetrate the soul and makes someone recognize with fresh eyes the error of their ways. You're trying to remove that from the table so that, the Christian message can't even go out there and be effective. I mean, of course God will get the. Get the win in the end, but, you know, it. It hinders our ability, as Christians here in this life.

Abraham Hamilton III: That's the objective. And, and I wanted to have this conversation so that we can be aware of the tactics, but resolve nevertheless that we're going to do what the scripture says, that we cannot cease speaking in the name of Jesus. We will not be intimidated by these tactics, but we will proclaim the truth, cry aloud, and spare not.

Md Perkins: Amen.

Abraham Hamilton III: The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of.

Don Hawkins: The American Family association or American Family Radio.