Is God In the Declaration of Independence? - Michael Knowles
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 мар 2024
- Watch the full episode now on Patreon: / early-access-is-100005659
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
The full episode with Michael Knowles, "Is America a Christian Nation?" is available right now on Patreon: www.patreon.com/posts/early-access-is-100005659
The US state religion is capital. It's a death cult where they sacrifice Arab children to their dark god: Lockheed Martin. It has shit all to do with the teachings of Christ.
Will this ever be free to see? I would love to see this but I have an assumption ( I could be wrong) that knowles did not want this to be seen for free?
To be fair, the US doesn't do its own sacrificing. That's currently outsourced to Israel. Also I'm pretty sure the US has multiple dark gods, which is why it needs to sacrifice so many.@@squirrel_slapper
@@macmac1022 You're wrong. Knowles has no say in when this gets seen or for how much. Alex is beginning Early Access privileges for his patreon members, meaning this will be released free eventually, but for now it's just a perk for his financial supporters.
@@damarcuscolfer1485 SWEET. I really want to see it. As I openly admitted, I could be wrong.
There's a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence.
I'm gonna steal it
THE ONE PIECE!?!?!?!?!?
@@timmy3982im gonna eat it
Boromir will get it before anyone else
It's true, they even made a movie about it.
So Knowles ended up saying he doesn’t care what the founders believed, we’re a Christian nation because of the constitution… the document that doesn’t mention Christianity once but actually provides freedom for all religions.
The Declaration of Independence is THE Founding document - the Constitution is the operating document which works from the principles laid out in the DOI. The DOI acknowledges our rights from GOD, not man. The Bill of Rights spells out freedom of religion;however, contextually, it was for the Judeo-Christian denominations, not others, especially Islam, which is a "religion" that dictates Sharia law.
@@sandypidgeon4343 no. The Declaration of Independence is nothing. It has no weight of law. The constitution is everything but of course being a Christian nationalist you hate the constitution.
This comment section is embarrassing. Knowles specifically said "lower case 'c' constitution," meaning not the document but the actual make up of the country.
While I agree with your overall sentiment, I think it's pretty important that the bill of rights is made up of amendments, as part of how to convince the colonies to accept the main portion.
@@blondesleftcleavagemoleBut they didn't write the Constitution. And it was written just for them.
My man finished with Shapiro and is setting his sights on Knowles lol okay King
sights*
@@jorbdan6305 thanks for the correction
@@RayAtchley no don't thank me! i meant to be annoying and pedantic! lol
I wish him the best of luck. I'd say Ben Shapiro is like Iron Monger, Knowles would be kinda like Mysterio (edit: in terms of power and difficulty to defeat)
@logans.butler285 are we power scaling guests now?
The God of the Constitutional Gaps
😂😂😂😂😂
Best reply
Another non-American telling an American what America is founded on. Only an atheist can be that arrogant and ignorant
This deconstruction you atheists keep pulling is exactly why your new atheist movement is fighting amongst it's woke self and guys like dillahunty are dating dudes.
You have no foundation for anything.
Regarding Knowles last comment, I think an important distinction has to be made between a country that is systematically Christian and a country with a majority Christian population. These are clearly not the same and it seems to me that Knowles is providing evidence for the second when the topic is about the first.
I commented something similar. Knowles claimed that Alex made his point for him but I think it's the opposite. Knowles highlighted the reason that the founders wrote the constitution, et al, the way they did. That America is majority Christian is a very good reason to explicitly protect the rights of the minority. Of course, we all know that, even if America was to become a theocracy, the persecution wouldn't end because all the different Christain sects would then be vying for supremacy. There always has to be an "other" and, if everyone's Christain, other Christians will do just fine. We've seen it elsewhere and that's exactly what the original settlers were trying to escape. Trust the religious right to openly fight for exactly what they claim to oppose.
Knowles quickly backed out of his weak argument and ran back to a stronger to defend argument that was a complete deflection from the initial discussion. He is a slippery one.
I thought the same
For sure! Let aside his views and moral conducts, his debating skills are astonishing.
Well put, I think most Christians who make the same argument are doing the same.
I audibly exclaimed "what the hell" when I saw this 😂 was not expecting this but glad to see it!
They met before to talk about Latin Mass.
The patience you have for these people...
You should have the same amount of patience
I wish I did, I can't and will never claim I do. At this point in my life, I avoid any debates with delusional theists. It's useless.@@llamahguy7229
@@llamahguy7229 how?
@@llamahguy7229 Why would I ... have you seen this guy talk with Ben Shapiro and his little group of hate preachers? They do nothing but dehumanize and throw fear and hate on those they disagree with... I don't have patience for this
@@MaleINTP I disagree. Michael and Ben are far from being far right extremists. They are just a bit right to the center, while Alex is a bit left to the center.
The amount of mics dropped by Alex is astonishing, a microphone company that builds microphones that don’t break should sponsor him
... or a company that makes basketballs should sponsor Alex so that if he drops the mic, he doesn't even have to bend over to pick it up as it will bounce right back.
Whereas Knowles is the exact opposite..mic companies will never sponsor him lol
Regardless of the musings of the founding fathers and their declarations and treaties, we are who we are now which is a not-Christian nation, with a constitution which is vague enough to allow a lot of room for interpretation regarding religion. Except the only mention of religion at all is that people should be free to practice it how they want, and I think the interpretation that includes "or how they don't want" is undoubtedly implied. What doesn't get mentioned in the Constitution or any laws in the United States that are legal, is "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "the resurrection" or "Mary" or "the apostles" or "the gospels" or "love" or...
AMEN!!
separation of church and state as a constitutional amendment exists
The 1st amendment is a direct foil to the 1st commandment.
Which they don't respect
The idea that this is a Christian nation, rather than a secular one designed to make all beliefs safe, is frankly nauseating. Sure, most if not all of the framers had some sort of deist or theist angle - but almost everyone did back then. Thus is PRECISELY why the constitution was written to protect these things. Many of the original settlers came here to escape religious persecution, only to have different beliefs - all under a Christian banner - persecute each other. I need not remind you, dear reader, of Jefferson's letter to the baptists of Danbury, illuminating a separation of church and state, who were being persecuted by the congregationalists of Danbury. To say that "the framers were Christian, therefore we claim this as a Christian nation, is nothing short of intellectual gaslighting - and should be rebuked as such in the strongest fashion.
Very true. Not to mention, the fundamentalist, evangelical Christian nationalist claptrap that Knowles espouses is dramatically different from the predominant Christian beliefs during the early republic.
there is no such thing as "secular" AND "making all religions safe"
these are contradictions. a truly secular nations does not welcome any religion.
@@Senumunu google "secular nation" and read what it says. I did and found this: "In a secular republic, people are free to practice religion or non-religion in peace; church and state are separated; people of differing faiths are treated equally before the law; and religious tests and oaths are not required to vote or hold office."
@@Senumunu First off, yes, secular is not an imaginary term, lol. As a Catholic-educated atheist I agree that a secular nation does not need religion: but a secular humanist nation would not outlaw it either.
@@Senumunu - well, I agree. In a secular, fascist state no form of religion would be welcome. Much as in the early 20th Century Communist states also were hostile to religion. However, I would like to think a secular, liberal, democratic state does not interfere with the rights of its citizens to form their own religious or non-religious beliefs and to conform their personal behavior to those religious beliefs, so long as they do not pose an active threat to the society of the state in general.
Some people are just unlikeable by their personality and way of carrying themselves. Michael Knowles is one of these people. Everything about him comes off as artificial, which makes him untrustworthy.
All you have to do is read the DOI for yourself and you will notice that Christianity isn't mentioned. If this was meant to be a "Christian" nation is the sense that Knowles wants you to believe they would have made that clear. As Alex said, any Christian implication is vague on purpose, so that any U.S. citizen could feel comfortable with the DOI and at the same time so that it couldn't be used to prop up any specific religion in government.
I disagree
Zero arguments provided from the op and the reply. Incredible scenes
what do you mean, artificial?
@@Lareuel
You have that right.
@@joeysmith3475
Phony. As if he is acting. Sociopath putting on a fake personality. Like he doesn't know exactly how to act like a human, but can do a vague imitation.
The references on our founding documents are made only to a god. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and a majority of non-religious people all believe in a god. There is no reference specifically to Christ or Christianity, and the principle of freedom of religion is stated crystal clear, making ours the first country in the history of the world founded on a secular constitution. We are a country founded by people who were in large part Christians but who were wise enough not to once again make the mistake of creating a government ruled by one religion. That is precisely what our founders were fleeing and rebelling against. Brilliant humans, they were and great country, we are. 🇺🇸🧠☀️⚖️
Excellent commentary! We Americans are granted freedom of religion, and at the same time freedom from religion.
@@darlenegriffith6186 Thank you! Well said! Amen! 😉🏆🏆🏆🇺🇸🙏🏻
How can one be non-religious and believe in a god? Isn't that a contradiction?
@@DavidAguileraMoncusi The non-religious people referenced are also known as "nones" (who are on a meteoric ride in the US). They are known for not participating in traditional religious institutions, often embracing more "spirituality" than an Abrahamic God concept.
With this understanding, it is not mutually exclusive.
@@DavidAguileraMoncusi In surveys of beliefs, there are lots of people worldwide who say they don't ascribe to the specific beliefs of any religion but nevertheless believe in the existence of a supernatural creator being. I have friends who describe themselves this way. This is the group I refer to.
I know one thing for a fact, my ancestors would have been repulsed of a Catholic trying to force his beliefs on the constitution.
This was very respectable debate and I appreciate that there are people able to have a good sit down with one another. Thank you for making this happen 🎉🙌
I love this and your message of hiking your own hike! Can't wait to see how your adventure unfolds!
So hyped to listen to the full convo!
The great lengths some are willing to stretch logic never ends with Christians afraid of their God. God is waiting for this to stop any time now.
"In short, one may say anything about the history of the world--anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can't say is that it's rational. The very word sticks in one's throat." -Dostoevsky
The soviet union banned all religion and starved millions...because of "logic and rationality"
Tell me, would you kill one innocent to save the world? Either you kill the innocent or you destroy the world. Your "rationalism" will tell you to kill an innocent "for the greater good".
It's people like you that make the world shittier through your hubris
Right back at you atheist!
@@parchment543
That doesn't make sense. 🤷🏼♂️
@@parchment543that is moronic.
The absence of belief required no protection Luke the beliefe in mythology does.
@@parchment543 most definitely a Theist.
Oh man, a man I hate , I'll have to watch this podcast
Hate is a strong word. Do you really hate him?
@@AxeMain favourite quote from Michael Knowles "we must eradicate transgenderism from public life completely"
Why do you hate Alex?
@@animalchang Michael Knowles isn't a good man
@AxeMain a strong dislike , Michael Knowles is a person who brings a lot of nonsensical hatred into the world
I thought this would be a response video. Surprized to see you had him on the show.
The treaty was presented to the Senate for ratification as required by the Constitution. The Senate had no issue with the language of the treaty.
The problem for Knowles is that his concepts of the deity and what was Christianity is dramatically different from the Christianity of the 1700s or early 1800s. Hence the concerns of the Baptists who wrote to Jefferson during his presidency.
Could you expand a bit on what you mean when you say "The problem for Knowles is that his concepts of the deity and what was Christianity is dramatically different from the Christianity of the 1700s or early 1800s. Hence the concerns of the Baptists who wrote to Jefferson during his presidency."?
Sorry, but I'm rather unfamiliar with the surrounding historical context.
@@Wuke04 The Christianity of the later 18th Century and early 19th Century was different in view and style from the view and style of modern American Christianity. First, most colonialists in the 1700s were not members of an established church of any stripe. Depending on the colony it ranged from 4% in North Carolina while South Carolina and New Hamshire had the highest rates of membership of around 16%. Many, if not the majority, of the Founders were Deists and very much adherents of the Enlightenment. In their view, some deity might have created the world but once it did so, it wandered off and left its creation to its own devices. The Episcopal Church, Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Quakers were the big players at the start of the Revolution. Around 1790 or so, the Great Awakening started and the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians started growing in number.
In the early 1800s, there was a massive upheaval in religion in the US. Preachers, often with little formal education, wandered around preaching. When John Nelson Darby hit the scene with his Dispensationalism and Futurism in the 1830s things were even wilder. Darby is the one who gave Protestants the idea of the "rapture" based on his complete lack of education in common Greco-Roman culture and Paul's use of tropes from that culture in his writings. Then Roger Miller came along and took Darby By 1840, a significant minority of the Christians in the US firmly believed that Jesus was going to return sometime between March 1843 and March 1844.
I mention all of that because it had and still has a profound impact on Christianity as it is practiced today by many of the more conservative, evangelical churches. Additionally, there has been a movement that has grown out of the belief in exceptionalism, the idea that the US is some sort of New Jerusalem, or a similar concept regarding it as being under the control of some deity and having a special role in human events. This has also given rise to a group of religious beliefs that have grown quite strong over the past seventy years or so. They are often referred to as Christian nationalism or Christian dominionism. There are various different branches of this though but in common they believe that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation and the Constitution and secular laws of the United States must be conformed and interpreted in light of the biblical laws as interpreted, of course, by whatever particular group you are referring to.
Knowles is a Roman Catholic but he is a follower of an extremely conservative branch of that church that does not agree with the current pope and frankly has not agreed with much of anything that has happened since Vatican II back in the 1960s. Knowles has his RUclips show, his speaking engagements, and has published at least two books. The essential theme of Knowles's worldview is simple. There is an overarching paradigm of morality and ethics based upon a particular and highly conservative set of Christian dogmas. That paradigm is not subject to criticism and anyone not on board with it must be silenced and sanctioned, if need be. Any book, philosophy, movie, song, or other media that challenges the paradigm must be censored. All behavior, public and private by anyone, anywhere, must conform to the paradigm. Knowles's view of religion is based on concepts not developed until after the period of the Founders and in nature very close to those of the established churches, such as the Church Of England in effect, i.e., any idea or person not in conformity with the established church is to repressed, violently if need be.
Thank you so much for such a thoughtful, in-depth response. I understand better now.@@johnpetry5321
Superb conversation Alex. thank you.
The beliefs of the founders had no real bearing on the DoI or the Constitution or they would have been plastered all over the documents. It's also noteworthy to point out the DoI is not a legal document holding sway over us. That would be the Constitution, where no mention of a creator or god is mentioned. They kept their beliefs private and out of the official workings of the gov't.
DOI mentions "Creator" and not "God" and that was for a reason. The idea was that no specific religion was supposed to be the basis of the laws.
Knowles don't like that lol
Creator is a title given to God, since he created the universe... hence the name. When people say "Meet our Maker" do they mean any maker? No, they have a specific entity in mind and is used in a specific context.
@tylere.8436 different religions have different creator gods. To say "God" would mean establishing the beliefs and teachings of the Abrahamic God, which would go against the establishment of a single religion
Alex is awesome. His ability to speak to people of different beliefs than his own never ceases to amaze me. Keep up the good work and one day people will become more tolerant to each other.
Jesus came divide not tolerate heathens
The best Knowles did there was to argue that America was a nation of mostly Christain people. If you're happy with that, more power to you but the writings of the founding fathers specifically protect the rest of the people from having those Christians' views forced upon them. That's really what the whole "Christain nation" argument is about and Knowles did nothing to forward his side of that. He's obviously keen to foist his Christain morality on others but he made no case to justify doing that.
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches"
Benjamin Franklin
"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it"
John Adams
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"
Thomas Jefferson
Me likey 😊
1. Franklin didn't say that.
2. Adams taken out of context.
3. Jefferson gonna Jefferson.
@@blondesleftcleavagemole 1) True, it is a misquote of "“Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house." which is a much more lyrically pleasing way to say the same.
@@blondesleftcleavagemole "It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man."
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Thomas Paine
All taken out of context… I’m sure
So the Treaty of Tripoli was just a lie, then?
It was a political tool. Low resolution thinking to reduce the argument to such absurdity.
@@FitziCal If the intent of using such a tool was to cause the Barbary States to believe something that isn't true, then the tool is a lie.
Yes ?
I mean a country signing a treaty in bad faith to get what it wants is not a unique occurrence
A major reason for immigration to the Americas was due to unending wars in Europe over both Christian ideologies but also Muslim conquest. It's pretty clear that the founding documents were taking religious conflict into consideration when they formed their government and specifically sought to create a separation between Church and state.
Since most of the discussed sources involve Jefferson, it's easy to understand his intention if you look at the design for the University of Virginia, which he intended as an philosophical model of his vision for the United States embodied in architecture. At the head of the campus where you would traditionally find a Church he instead placed a library that is a copy of the Pantheon in Rome, a reference to pre-Christian classical culture, critical reasoning, and historical knowledge, not a mythology based on the resurrection of a Messiah.
Muslim Conquests? After 1492? The only muslim conquest was in the balkans. I don't think many Serbs would travel to the Americas. The ottomans were pretty chilled when it comes to religious liberties compared to the European Nations.
@@CafeteriaCatholic A lot of the Enlightenment was getting science and math that had been developing in the Muslim world and advancing it in a European context. So even if there wasn't active war between empires there is still a common rational framework between the European continent, North Africa, and the Middle East that would mean the lessons of religious conflict from the Middle Ages are just as relevant to the Enlightenment thought as was Catholic/Protestant/Atheist or even Pagan conflicts that were destabilizing Europe.
I like your work sir. Keep it up.
I absolutely love seeing these half-baked arguments from Knowles and Kirk etc. getting completely fucked 😂
Yup
They’d run circles around you. I’m atheist as fuck but they make good points too. You’re too emotional to listen to anything other than what you agree with. Winning a logic battle against anything religion is one of the easiest positions to take in any conversation.
@@plet774 I listen to daily wire often and they are just another cult
@@Dan16673 it’s all cults now.
@@plet774 😂😂
I hope you ran circles around him as you did to Benny boy 🫡
Recently, I've noticed an increase in "America is a Christian Nation" content. I'm sure it's a pure and total coincidence that it's happening during election season.
Whoa! when does this come out?
Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh advocate for a sort of diet Christian theocracy.
diet?
Idk about that
We literally was known as the 1st secular nation in the history of the world
Definitely not the first
@@codenamepyro2350 then who ?
@@codenamepyro2350Not that I disbelieve you, but, yeah, who?
Christian nationalism is the ultimate "have your cake and eat it too" philosophy. Sad to say it started with Jordan Peterson:
JBP: "This country is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Human beings having inherent value, they are considered innocent till proven guilty; all of these show the underlying Christian foundations".
Regular people: Ok so if I believe people have inherent value, should be kind to one another, innocence of the accused, I don't actually need to believe in Jesus, go to Church or follow any of the religious customs to be Christian?
Christian nationalists: Noooo not like that!
Based on Knowles assertion, couldn't a person of any religion insert their own God into the constitution? Also, let's just assume it's based on Christianity...which form? Which sect? It still doesn't get us anywhere. Not to mention, there have been amendments to the constitution, so its obviously not a perfect document.
If we think of the Declaration of Independence as a form of divorce papers from the English monarchy it would make sense to speak in the language of the Devine right of kings. However, when the founders where laying the ground work for a new nation they chose a secular language. We should not forget that.
I am going to quote from the DOI. The 2 parts that makes reference to God.
"The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This is NOT Christian phrasing. This is Deistic phrasing.
"That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" This is obviously making reference back to Nature's God.
Now, if I were trying to be sneaky I could say that what they mean is the universe itself is God and that the universe (our creator) is where our rights come from. This would be just as dishonest as what the Christians try and imply.
John Adams said U.S. isn't a Christian country
Knowles: He's lying.
Lol
References to God is throughout our constitution, declaration of independence, on our money. In God We Trust, there is no question our nation was created based on Christianity. A treaty does not represent our internal values at the time, it represents our position negotiated on with another nation. This does not mean we are ruled by a theocracy but it does mean our rights our bestowed on the people by God not by the government, that is all it means.
@@UnknownMoses On the money is a 1950s invention that was only approved under the establishment clause by the logic that it is "Ceremonial deism" and not a endorsement of any religion
@@UnknownMoses "The U.S. Constitution never explicitly mentions God or the divine." "In the Declaration there are three references to God, and each one is different. In one reference, Jefferson uses the term "Nature's God." Later, he uses "Creator" and lastly "Divine Providence."" No reference to Christianity or a Christian god. Sadly In God We Trust is on our money but that was done long after the founders. Around the same time "under god" was added to the Preamble.
@@dorothydotson7154spot on
@@UnknownMosesI want to hear what I want to hear
Knowles' set is killing me lol
Honestly it is so refreshing to actually hear people discuss the fact the stories people tell can be pretentious. Analysing truth claims as if the claim is believed is often superfluos. Much of peoples claim to belief exists because people recognise there is profit to pretending we align to what we assume others believe. You only need a very small number of actual believers to maintain a huge web of pretenders, look at what people actually do to know what they believe.
The fact it isn't often discussed and the fact that people pretend to believe in alsorts is interesting and a sign of an underlying truth that people feel uncomfortable to lack faith in others, people feel the need to be seen as someone with faith. And this applies no matter what the belief, non religious also have faith, many do not actually understand the non belief they claim but rather have faith that someone else understands science and evolution to know to not believe in magical thinking
The Treaty of Tripoli only contains the not founded on the Christian religion clause in the American English translation ratified by the Senate unanimously. It was too make clear the US was a secular nation not ruled by religious dictates
References to God is throughout our constitution, declaration of independence, on our money. In God We Trust, there is no question our nation was created based on Christianity. A treaty does not represent our internal values at the time, it represents our position negotiated on with another nation. This does not mean we are ruled by a theocracy but it does mean our rights our bestowed on the people by God not by the government, that is all it means.
@@UnknownMoses the Constitution makes no reference to God other than there is to be no religious test for office, the declaration only references a creator for rights that those men didn't even believe all people had. In God we trust was only added to our money in 1954 as anti-communism propaganda as well as "under God" to the pledge. The US government was established as secular.
@@UnknownMoses dude god we trust was not the original motto E Pluribus Unum was god we trust wasn't till the 1950's and endowed by our creator is totally ambiguous it encompasses all gods therefore freedom of religion in a truly free nation requires a separation of church and state.
So the copy translated to the Muslims had no mention of Christianity?
@@UnknownMoses but all abrahamic religions worship the God of Abraham, so jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God. Whether you like it or not. If we were to be based on Christian values why not mention the name Jesus christ once?
Very excited for this episode. I used to listen to Knowles’s podcast and now I think he’s just a far right evangelical mouthpiece, but I’ve never seen him in a real discussion.
Watch Knowles literally hand wave away at the immediate mention of the treaty of Tripoli.
This is beautiful. Two people who disagree on a topic, but can have a rational conversation without raising their voices and talking over each other. I love it!
The American declaration of independence was likely largely based on the Dutch Declaration of Independence “plakkaat van Verlatinghe”, as supposedly a number of its texts seem copied from it.
That’s not surprising as quite a large number of influentials/founding fathers came from The Netherlands or stayed there for a while to avoid religious persecution in for example the UK.
The “plakkaat van Verlatinghe” was the Declaration of Independence by the Dutch trying to rid themselves of the Catholic Filips II of Spain in 1581. It was a declaration against poor rule and a declaration against Catholic intolerance and religious persecutions (amongst others by the Spanish Inquisition).
I’d say it’s no coincidence that those who wanted religious freedom made sure their new country would have it.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights unless they are black, Chinese, indentured, or especially not if they are women"
Or ‘savages’ as it said in line 31 or 33
It is in fact a secular nation....
People have the freedom to practice whatever religion they want
Being religious is not a requisite for holding a position in the government
All of our laws are secular
You can't realistically run for office unless you are a Christian. 🤷🏼♂️
A secular nation would have no mention to a creator at all, since secular denotes to having no religious or spiritual basis, so even if you argue America isn’t an explicitly Christian nation, it’s definitely not a secular one. And how can a law be secular? Laws are created from a moral perspective and morals are based in the immaterial and spiritual. Laws have to have a belief system inherently.
@@penguinbro896 The mention of a creator is in the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document, nor is it the framework of our laws. The basis for legislation is The Constitution which doesn't mention a creator at all and in fact the only time religion is mentioned is when it says that the government can't establish it
@@penguinbro896 Laws are created from a moral perspective but they aren't spiritual and the ones in the US are not based on religion. Actual morality is based on preventing people from harming others which is what our laws are based on; harmless things are not criminalized solely because a religion is against it in the way they are in theocratic countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia
@@penguinbro896
Morals aren't spiritual.
What even is spiritual?
Describing the early US citizens as primarily Christian is an oversimplification. While most people likely used the Bible as their base for belief, many were deists, not recognizing any specific god. Only about 11-15% of literate Americans attended a church. This is why there was a Great Awakening in the early 19th century. You can't have an awakening without a sleeping.
Christianity also looked different then than it does now. Believing Jesus Christ died for your sins and was resurrected was not necessary. John Adams himself considered it an abomination, but he was also considered a Christian. Things like folk magic, horoscopes, and elements of Kabbalah were also incorporated into their beliefs. 18th century Americans likely would have related to people today who say, "I'm spiritual, but not religious."
It should also be noted that religious phrases and imagery permeated the English language at the time. We still see remnants of this in phrases like, "goddammit" or "heaven forbid." Use of religious language does not reflect religiosity or belief.
I recommend anyone wanting to learn more about the history of Christianity in America check out the podcast History of the Present. Its an American historian teaching his pastors about history. I also recommend episode #4 of the Sunstone Mormon History Podcast. That episode deals with how magic was a big part of early US beliefs, though it focuses mainly on how that influenced Joseph Smith and later Mormonism.
Christianity is not a monolith, and what being Christian means changes with each generation.
@@billwalton4571 good words, keep posting
It could be possible that John Adams was just trying to tell them that the United States had no animosity nor hatred towards the Muslim religion.
I think Mr. Knowles ought to go back and read Thomas Jefferson's original draft of Declaration of Independence. 2 key points that definitely are a complete departure from his assertion of a Christian God: "...laws of nature..." and "nature's gods." Not even the capital "G" gods! 🤭 Revisionist history at its finest!
You may be misinformed. I looked up Jefferson’s original draft and found this: www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.001_0545_0548/?sp=1
“Nature’s god” is not capitalized, you’re right about that, but here at least it is still in the singular. “Creator” too appears in lowercase and in the singular.
It was intentional of Jefferson to originally keep this lowercase, and I think his intent was never to invoke the “Judeo-Christian God,” whatever that means.
Can’t understand how Michael Knowles has so many followers. He has a much different tune when he’s not on the DW and his opposition can actually respond.
Except that Jefferson is also the champion of the separation of church and state, and Adams also wrote about the US NOT being a "Christian" nation. Also remember that treaties (according to the Constitution): ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND! So, dismissing the wording of a treaty is quite problematic.
I guess Knowles just outed Intelligent Design when he claimed that, when Christians mention a creator/designer, they're actually thinking about the Christian god. I'm shocked that that would be the case.
There’s even greater support for the basis of the American legal system rooted in English common law. Property rights, personal and criminal liability, business and contractual transactions, all determined by the law of the land… no Bible (except to ‘swear or affirm’ testimony), no Jesus, no priest or prayer… just evidence and legal reasoning, derived from english laws originally governing English colonies
Thomas Jefferson commented on this matter at length in a letter that he wrote to Dr. Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814.
@@miskatonic_alumni Thomas Jefferson wasn’t at the constitutional convention… you won’t find his signature on the parchment
@@rortys.kierkegaard9980 Jefferson was on a diplomatic mission in Europe and that's the only reason he wasn't at the convention. Adam's as well.
@@someguy5438 Jefferson refused to go… thought the constitution gave too much power to the federal gov.
@@rortys.kierkegaard9980 Jefferson was in Europe as was Adam's trying to secure allies.
What a pivot. First Michael argues that the Founders were writing from a Christian view. When Alex provides evidence to the contrary, Michael says:
“Alas, this actually proves MY point that the people were Christian. Who cares about the Founders? 😌”
That’s convenient 👍
What matters is that there were a lot of Christians in 18th century Europe and the colonies. Therefore...
I feel like those that left for America just weren't ready to really question their beliefs when they got here, and resorted to what they knew. It's pretty common, and I guess I can't blame them, but the founders did seem to be trying to find a better way.
I'm surprised Knowles isn't out of breath, given how much he is sprinting to move the goalposts during this clip.
These theocrats are so committed to their ideas they won't even pesky little facts get in the way
Why is Michael in Dracula’s castle?
yeah these daily wire schmups always have funny studios lol
Can you make a video about keirkaguard's leap of faith?
Will the full video ever be on RUclips?
"Nature's God" Can be a Deist Creator God or even Nature _as_ God.
The concept of rulership inherently involves a relationship between the ruler and the subjects. Power, in the context of governance, is not just about the capacity to enforce decisions or command respect; it is deeply rooted in the dynamic interplay between those who govern and those who are governed. A ruler's power is significantly defined and constrained by the presence of subjects, because power, in essence, is relational.
At its core, power in governance is about influence, control, and the ability to effect change. However, these elements are fundamentally dependent on the presence of a populace or a community over which this influence and control can be exercised. Without people to govern, the very definition of a ruler is called into question, as the role presupposes the existence of subjects.
The sociological perspective provides further insight into this concept. Max Weber, a prominent sociologist, defined power as the ability of an individual or group to achieve their will, even against the resistance of others. This definition underscores the relational aspect of power-there must be others for one's will to be imposed upon. In the absence of subjects, a ruler may possess nominal titles or theoretical authority, but without the social structures that confer and reinforce such authority, this power is effectively null.
Furthermore, the legitimacy of a ruler's power often comes from the consent, either explicit or implied, of the governed. This is a foundational principle of political theory, articulated in the social contract theories of philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. They argue that the authority of rulers is derived from a tacit agreement with the people, where the governed consent to be ruled in exchange for protection and the maintenance of order. Without a populace to enter into such a contract, the legitimacy of one's rule is inherently lacking.
Additionally, the exercise of power involves not just the imposition of will or authority but also the responsibility of governance, including providing for the welfare of the subjects, ensuring justice, and maintaining order. These responsibilities presuppose a population to care for and manage. A ruler without subjects loses not only the platform to exercise power but also the purpose and responsibilities that give such power meaning and legitimacy.
In conclusion, a ruler without people to rule over lacks the essential relational context that defines and legitimizes power in the sphere of governance. Without subjects, the concept of rulership becomes theoretical and devoid of practical application, as the very essence of power is the ability to affect the lives and conduct of others within a social framework. This underscores the fundamental truth that power, especially in the context of rulership, is deeply interwoven with the presence and participation of the people.
Even if a creator is mentioned, which is true, it’s never defined as the Christian god
creator could also just mean nature
What is a *red* Christian?
It’s just him trying to say the GOP (red, Christian nationalist party) is what the founders wanted.
Read in past tense?
Read, not red. As in "The U.S. president (read Biden) fumbles his words."
Michael's statement is "So why is it that the Continental Congress believed that they had to appeal to broadly religious (read Christian) principles...?"
Are you guys retarded?
Red blooded probably
@@gbeaver57gop wasn't around and it wasn't even red till 1970s.
No.
The word "god" is not in the Constitution. The words "We the people" is.
the word "Creator" with a captial "c" is in the Declaration of Independence. are you seriously going to pretend like you dont know what that the document means when it says that? who are you fooling? yourself?
"Creator" though, is. We the people is great as long as we maintain that the rights are inalienable - not granted by the government.
@@m0RRisC2319Knowles ends up disregarding the Declaration of Independence at the end of the video as says he thinks we’re a Christian nation solely because of the constitution…
@@rauminen4167So one word in one document means Christians in the US get to do as they please and force their bullshit fairy tales on everyone else? Yeah, no. You keep your nonsense away from the rest of us and we'll all be happier.
@@m0RRisC2319 The Declaration is a breakup letter between the colonies and England. It isn't the foundation of our government and laws; that would be the Constitution. And the Constitution does not show favoritism to any flavor of religion.
Alex conceded a little too much on this. The treaty of Tripoli was actually drafted under Washington and signed by Adams. There certainly would have been ways to communicate with the marauders at the time, without having to make such an explicit statement. Knowles Offers absolutely no actual evidence of his contention about the treaty other than his generalized speculation.
The declaration of independence fares even worse for him. it explicitly references which God it is referring to, namely, "natures's God." This is not the "generally Christian God" that Knowles invents. This is a deistic type of god of the enlightenment. And all those dudes signed it. There is no indication that any of the signatories were clamoring to put Jesus, Christian, or Bible in the declaration. They certainly did amend Jefferson's original draft, but not in that way.
I’m not sure I understood. Knowles concluded by saying that the constitution was intended to appeal to Christians by specifically not mentioning god? But it’s implied?
It seems to be that if the founders were Christian’s trying to be crafty with their language in order to appeal to a broad populace, then they only could have been trying to appeal to a deistic or secular one. If not invoking any specific god, but rather the creator, it seems to me that the goal was to deliberately distance themselves from Christianity, and to instead make it clear that religion is not our unifying, founding principle.
No, the US state religion is capital.
Actually our capital is Washington DC 🤓
I KNOW WHERE MICHAEL LIVES
BUILD A HOUSE ON TOP OF HIS HOUSE
Yeah but why my pee pee smell like poo poo?
@@leokruse38 i lived with ur mother for a few weeks
@@asian1599it's true I am the mother
@@jelly.212 IN AN ALTERNATE TIMELINE I FED YOU TO MY PET RAPTOR
Yaron Brook said that conservatives have no concept of the founding fathers and that they were not conservatives, but radical revolutionaries. He was exactly right.
Christopher Hill said its important to remember that the earliest settlers were armed with two surces of reference, one was their bibles, the other was Bunyans 'the pilgrim's progress'. He said it underpins much of what america today is about. It begins with radicalism, much of which was of the religious variety, but not exclusively so.
John Adams was based.
Pane was pretty brutal in regards to his hatred of the bible.
Mike is defo the most far gone of the DW crew with regards to the god delusion stuff
Matt Walsh is also up there.
It's kind of hard to rank them they are all pretty wacky but I feel like Ben is smart enough to know he's full of shit but has to pretend otherwise
@@axelnova123 At least Matt and Michael know what a woman is
@@axelnova123 To be fair modern Walsh has cut back on his references to God, when he ran his show out of his car he was really frustrating. He purposely left it out of his movie/documentary ‘what is a women’ which was great
@@readysoldier6799 gender and sex aren't the same
As the late, great Bob Carlin said
"Keep the religion to thyself!"
If everybody obeyed this one simple "commandment" then we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now....
It doesn't matter if God is in the declaration of independence. The same basic defense he's making for the treaty of Tripoli, applies to the declaration. We were writing to not only the King of England, but also the leader of the English church. While the declaration is an important historic document, it is not the basis of our system of government. That would be the constitution, which makes it very clear that the government shall not recognize any specific religion as the state religion, and that all religious beliefs, or lack there of is acceptable.
why would you debase yourself by talking to this guy?
Alex isn't debasing himself. He is a person of intellectual prowess, and has a willingness and ability to oppose wrong ideas. He is educating his audience, and sometimes that takes communicating with and debating people that might not be especially likeable.
I'm glad he spoke with him . The man isn't Hitler. He's a smarmy toad by my lights but that in no way means people "shouldn't talk to him.
@@bertrandrussell894 he's not literally Hitler, sure, he doesn't have the mustache.
@@darlenegriffith6186 this argument only works if he succeeds in making Michael look sufficiently moronic and evil but if he fails, then he's just lending legitimacy to the guy
@@truthbetold8233You seem to have alot of malice towards Knowles. Are you a transgender?
You need to talk to Jordan Peterson!!
Jordan Peterson = word salad
Yawn. Peterson is a one trick pony. So boring and serious.
@@jamesbennett3521no
Lol he won't debate with someone who can defeat him easily. I remember he backed out of a debate with Richard Wolff
@@jamesbennett3521 You'll have to constitute what word salad means!
How does what “the founding fathers” said matter in this discussion?
Whether the US is a Christian nation/state/whatever depends on what laws get passed and what the general feeling is today
Lol wrong
As long as Carlin's 11th Commandment is kept..."Keep thy religion to thyself".
Bro I actually don't appreciate the Michael Knowles platforming. This guy has said some EVIL things
Micheal Knowles has 1.9 million subs. Conner has about 700,000. We need to be able to talk to and debate these people. Platforming might make sense if it some crazy weirdo with 200 subs, but with as big as the Daily Wire has become; Alex should directly confront their bad arguments.
@@indigo714^^
You have probably said evil things too. Michael Knowles is a good man.
@@indigo714 sure, if Alex is blatantly treating Knowles as opposition, then it might work but that's typically not the tone that he's taken with anyone he's spoken to.
Even in his debate with Shapiro, and in his reflections afterwards, he's done little but legitimise Ben.
@@gulanhem9495 I don't think a "good man" would make his online personality centered around advocating for genocide of marginalized groups
Jesus Christ, Alex comment section makes me feel on Reddit
Fr
Well you are on youtube...
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations ... Source: Wikipedia cira 2024
Are the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Tripoli of the same significance? No, the Treaty of Tripoli was far more important, being an actual legal document until 1912, when the region was annexed by Italy and the treaty became void.
i like your channel, but I can't watch this hack guest.. just not even worth the time
First mistake : thinking Knowles is here in good faith
Ah yes, always assume the worst about the other side. A typical strategy in debates. I'm glad Alex isn't like that, it allows debates to be more civil.
But do tell me, what ulterior motive do you think Knowles has by simply debating Alex on this topic?
@@AverageCommentorWell clearly to these new atheist types that can be found in Alex's comment section. Knowles poisoned our water supply, burnt our crops, and delivered a plague upon our houses.
I have realized over the years that "in bad faith" / "not arguing in good faith" are phrases designed SOLELY to ignore someone you disagree with. There could be a myriad of reasons that feel internally reasonable to someone that they've reached a conclusion you have not. Maybe they're genuinely mistaken, for example, and don't have a piece of information you do. Maybe they're working under a different interpretation. I'm not sating I agree with Knowles here but to disagree with someone you first need to hear them instead of😢work under the immediate assumption they're lying or trolling or grifting.
I really don't need to assume anything, i've been watching many videos of him, and he is clearly a bad faith actor @@AverageCommentor
@@gabri41200 what makes him a bad faith actor?
"Creator", "Nature's God", "Providence" . . . It is in such extra-personal terms that the Declaration of Independence refers to its Deity.
Evidently, along with the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the Creator endowed its Creation with the Right to institute Governments among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed - with no need of Rule by either Noble Class nor Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
Christianity, based, as it is, upon the notion that all Men are intrinsically flawed, runs counter to these Principles.
Great thank you for having Fred Stoller on to talk about why separation of church and state only counts for religions that don’t have churches
Alex, why are you talking to that creep? He's a right-wing grifter; shame on you for giving him more exposure.
I think you might be missing the point of Alex's channel . I'm glad he had him on.
@@bertrandrussell894 if you're sympathetic to Knowles' views, just say so.
Don't hide behind this respectability politics 'marketplace of ideas' nonsense.
@@truthbetold8233Nice job, putting words and ideas into people's mouths.
@@israelp348 well if you reply to the criticism 'maybe don't platform bigoted grifters' by saying no actually that's not only harmless but potentially a good thing, then I'm obviously going to be suspicious.
Especially, if like this guy, you reply it under like 5 different comments.
@@truthbetold8233.
That's because the description of a "bigoted grifter" is inherently subjective and therefore of no importance at all to the discussion.
So the person who said "this is a good thing" is instead saying in essence that interviewing people with different views is good, rather than interviewing bigots is good.
Is this a joke? Who even takes Knowles seriously?
He had a massive subscriber base. I'm so glad Alex had him on, hopefully some of them will see it.
@@bertrandrussell894 this is extremely optimistic.
Jefferson's "Creator" is a deist concept.
Was interesting to watch this after just watching the latest low hanging fruit episode
Knowles is a self described theocratic fascist.
That was Matt Walsh
@@dominickcastillo2419 their beliefs are pretty indistinguishable though
Michael Knowles. Genocidal maniac.
I'd go as far as smarmy git..Where on earth did you get genocidal maniac from?
@@bertrandrussell894 Calling for the "eradication" of a marginalized group sounds like genocide to me
The founding fathers assumed everyone was Christian. Religious freedoms in their minds was to prevent Christian denominations from fighting and one branch of Protestantism being dominant over others. Which is understandable given the time and place.
Exactly. They never intended for Christian morals to be banned from government. They never intended for the nation to be ran as a communist/atheist nation.
A lot of the founding fathers weren't Christian, so why would they assume everyone was Christian?
I am a Christian, but America is not a Christian nation by its founding, it is a Masonic nation in which you can see Masonic principles, concepts and symbolism. You can say America is a Christian nation by the majority of people who profess the belief, but not its constitution and founding. America is the secularist country that Masons were adhering for since the French Revolution.
What a disgusting fascist that you have decided to have on your podcast who wants to genocide trans people. I look forward to watching this, lmao.
@@kenvisvielgern4436
I am gay, that's why I care about all my fellow queer people.
@@kenvisvielgern4436Oh my, he went to college! 😱 😳 I just love how you clowns have tried, and failed, to demonize education.
Average cosmic intellectual right here 💀
I personally can't stand Knowles, mostly for his intellectual dishonesty and his special pleading around xtainity..but trans genocide? When did he ever say that?
@@calebr7199Of COURSE the gay person says he's advocating for "gEnoCiDe". It's such an insult to real genocide to loosely use this term. Tran ideology is objectively and morally reprehensible.