Kirk Cameron seeks to answer an age-old question: Why do bad things happen to good people?

On radio this morning, Glenn spoke to actor Kirk Cameron about his new documentary Unstoppable. Kirk’s first film, Monumental, explored America’s founding principles, and his latest endeavor tackles a more theological theme that revolves around one of the most frequently asked questions: Why does God let bad things happen to good people?

Unstoppable is set to show in partnership with Liberty University at theaters across America for one night only on Tuesday, September 24 (information and tickets can be found here).

Read a rough transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: I am proud to call as a friend Kirk Cameron who is just a great, great guy. We worked with him on his movie Monumental, and we urge you to go see that. And if you haven't seen it yet, go rent it. Go buy it. Monumental, it's phenomenal. He's got a new movie out coming September 24th called Unstoppable, and it's based on the idea of, how can there be a God? How can he possibly let all these things happen? And where is your faith? Kirk Cameron, welcome to the program. How are you, Kirk?

KIRK CAMERON: Good morning. I'm doing great, Glenn. Nice to be talking with you.

GLENN: So tell me what tell me the motivation behind the movie that you've made.

KIRK CAMERON: Boy, you've still got me thinking about all these things you were just talking about before, before we started talking. I've got to switch gears here. The reason that I made Unstoppable was because this is this is something that's been gnawing at me lately because one of my very good friends, a 15 year old boy, Matthew Sangren, just passed away and died of cancer. In fact, last night I was in the emergency room with my grandfather who's just had a couple of heart attacks, and we're praying and we're singing and other families are weeping and wailing because of tragedy in their life, and this has just hit so close to home for me recently that I wanted to get to the bottom of this, of this faith wrecking question: Where is God in the midst of tragedy and suffering. And I'm trying to approach the subject without just an intellectual apologetic treatise connecting the dots between a loving god and the real existence of evil and tragedy but offering a holistic, emotional and spiritual answer that is nourishing to people's faith and helps them come out the other side of trials with their faith stronger rather than shredded and destroyed.

GLENN: I will tell you, Kirk, I am really concerned because I think we have such a lack of understanding, as a society and whole, a lack of understanding of who God is and how He works and how tragedy fits into that and everything else and, you know, just exactly what you're addressing. And I really, truly believe that with the dark days that could be on our horizon that they will be dark days because too many people will say, "Well, there can't be a God, and He's just..." and there will be others that say, "Well, He's angry at us" and everything else. No. No. God is there to comfort and to guide. And as we go astray, we will have the punishments ourselves because we are our walking on the wrong path will be our own punishment. He is always is there and He's always loving. And too many people I just saw it in our own circle of friends. Somebody passed away and they were inconsolable. The family was inconsolable. And Tania and I walked away and we said, you know, they claim they're Christians, but they don't really even understand the real† they will say, "Well, we're going to see him again," but they don't believe it. And that's the difference. If you really believe it, if you really apply it, tragedy can become something that is uplifting in a strange sort of way.

KIRK CAMERON: Well, I think that so much of what you're saying resonates in all of us. We understand that God has a plan for things and- but often we're just wrestling and struggling to understand what that plan is. And my approach in dealing with this question is I'm thinking, wait a minute. If maybe maybe I'm so close to my pain that I can't see past it. But if I could climb up into heaven's balcony and if I could have heaven's perspective on tragedy and pain, not just in my lifetime but throughout all of history, and I try to take you as a viewer back to the Garden of Eden where we have the very beginnings, the genesis of pain and suffering, and show you the murder of one brother by his other brother and go into the flood of the entire world and then through the nation of Israel, the crucifixion of the savior and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, you see that the author of the story has allowed tragedy from the beginning and somehow he's been steering all of it to work together for good for those who love Him and produce in you the very apex of the heart toward others when they go through trials.

GLENN: Kirk, I'm going to send you a link to a Man in the Moon because you're describing much of what we just did in a completely different format this summer and you need to see it and watch it with your kids because you'll love it. Your movie comes out on September 24th, Unstoppable. It is a one night event. It's a Fathom event. Go to Unstoppablethemovie.com. See this incredible trailer at Unstoppablethemovie.com. Facebook and YouTube originally blocked the links to this originally, didn't they?

KIRK CAMERON: Yes, they did. And we don't know if that was something that happened internally or simply a result of the safety mechanism that you can press on any video: Hey, click this if you want to report it as spam or unsafe. And if enough people click that, well, they could shut it down. So we had a few million people let Facebook know that they wanted to see it and they put it back up. So we're thankful for that.

GLENN: What a Christian way to answer that question.

STU: (Laughing.)

KIRK CAMERON: You know, it's the Kirk Cameron versus Facebook headlines that I'm standing in line to see.

GLENN: Kirk, it's always good to talk to you and it's always good to see you, and I hope we see you here in a couple of weeks when this is out and we'd love to do something again and try to encourage our audience to see your work because it is it's truly inspiring and it's good to see a good man of faith stand up and speak the truth as much as you do. Thank you very much.

KIRK CAMERON: Well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be talking with you guys and please keep up the good work.

GLENN: You got it. Kirk Cameron, Unstoppablethemovie.com.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.