idk why theres like 40% dislikes, your not doing anything wrong. A dislike shouldn't be equal to a disagreement, but when a video has bad arguments or is bad faith. I don't see much of either half way through.
No, he’s not smart. He’s smarmy. Being good at rhetoric or manipulating others is not the kind of intelligence we’re talking about. He has no intellectual rigour, he is not curious or circumspect, he doesn’t make solid arguments and only uses the appearance of logic rather than actual logic. In other words, an idiot.
I was born and raised SDA and I stand by the separation of church and state, in fact the SDA church has traditionally been opposed to getting into politics and government business and would rather not get involved.
Great video! One thing which is under appreciated by many people is that Christian Nationalism seeks to establish a theocracy. Perhaps you could do a video on this?
"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be, or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his five points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world, but a daemon or malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams I suspect Jefferson especially didn't like "unconditional election."
I only need to know this much about a Christian Nationalist: They would pray and celebrate Jesus Christ's return, but the moment He does appear, we can start a clock on _these very same people_ demand for his Crucifixion because He's not turning those _they_ claim are their oppressors into pillars of salt and set up a califate with _them_ on top ruling. It's why I catch myself praying that God _keeps delaying in His coming_ until I die, because I don't want to see it happening.
I will say something that may sound bizarre. I don’t believe in God, but sometimes I wish he were real, just so that these “Christian” nationalists feel the vindictiveness of his wrath. I’ll get mine too for sure, but I wanna see the look on their dumb faces as their ideology falls apart
That's a deranged interpretation of human nature. I think it smells of sour grapes rather than observation. but what would you want as a foundation? Do you want IS Lam as the foundation of our morals? we'll have their morals? You know what they do to gay people and women? IN their heaven it's mostly men and it's eternal se xx. Eternal erection is what the Quran promises them. The feeling of the religions are very different. Christians believe we sleep until Christ comes back to judge... and heaven has no sex. We're not going to an eternal orgy. On Earth Christians make liberal democracies, whereas Isla m makes tyrannies. Which one do you choose? They tried making a woke religion. We even have flags everywhere and schools teach the ideology but people will reject it. It won't last because it's too openly demented and self destructive. Your choice is Christianity or Is lam. If you choose leftist I s l a m you lose every right, unless you submit to I s l a m. Christians WILL allow you to not be Christian. The FRench turned Christianity tyrannical but they always move towards tyranny. I think they just want make sure our system of right and wrong remains. In Saudi Arabia if a woman gets graped they go to jail or marry the man. do you want that? People can't function without religion. We see from the woke religion.. they will make up a religion if they have no religion. Do you choose leftist Isl am? Is that why you despise the Christians?
There is no such critter as a "christian intellectual". My heart tell!s me so. The one thing your heart cannot do is think. My advice to the world is use what!s between your ears to think.
You seem quite intelligent, I'm looking forward to seeing your future content. I'm curious if you have a particular way of researching and learning about these topics or you just go with whatever interests you in the moment. Also just wanted to say that there definitely are a decent number of progressives including myself who actually mean literally abolish the police, although explaining the position to ordinary people can be a challenge.
@@iron_pickaxe Thanks! Glad you liked it! Thanks for sharing your perspective on the police abolition part, certainly there are people who do thoughtfully advance that position, definitely didn’t mean to imply that nobody actually means it haha. In terms of learning about these topics - I went to college for government and history, and that background for sure comes through in my some of my videos. I also read more than average I think. I actually pick topics based on whatever I happen to be thinking about lately. Thanks again for the comment! Hope that all makes sense.
Glad I found this channel. Hope your next videos have a jump in popularity like this one had in relation to the previous ones. The web has a lot of space for more people that show what critical thinking looks like.
Hey, I thought this was a well-made video overall. I was really interested in the Treaty of Tripoli, which you mentioned. I was wondering if you saw the "NOTE REGARDING THE Barlow TRANSLATION" on the Avalon Project page. It says the following: Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. You excerpted Article 11 of the Barlow translation for use in this video at 16:29. I am assuming you did not realize the unique situation regarding this treaty's translation, but do you think that you would alter what you say about it? I am not asking if you would change your overall position, just what you say about John Adams and this treaty. Thanks.
Hi! You’re right, article 11 doesn’t appear in the Arabic version. From my understanding though, article 11 does appear in the English version that was signed by Adams/approved by the senate. It is interesting that article 11 doesn’t appear in the Arabic version, but since the English version was what was approved in the United States, I don’t believe it changes the argument. It is an interesting historical point though, thanks for opening the discussion on that.
@@RyanGeddie that is a good point. I agree the English version that Congress and the president approved is more important to us as 21st century Americans than the Arabic version.
The purpose of nationalism is to create a unified political order on the basis of common traits across a region, such as race, religion, or language. Think of Hitler annexing Austria or Italian nationalism unifying the Papal States, Kingdom of Naples, and Sicily. So when a nationalist pundit like Knowles points to evidence of historical Christianity in America, he is not really stating that America has always been a Christian Nationalist polity, he is advocating to the Christian majority today for the creation of one on the basis of cultural roots. The dishonest or at least ignorant/misinformed part is that he hides the fact that nationalism is inherently revolutionary against the established order by identifying the Democrats, the "Deep State," the Left or anything else not in agreement with him as the establishment, while hiding that his ideology is also opposed to the Constitution and even the conservativism of a few decades ago.
Nationalism has taken many forms, revolutionary and conservative, religious and secular, socialist and capitalist. Everyone from Francisco Franco to Gandhi to Nelson Mandela to Ho Chi Minh could be described as "nationalist" in some sense. Figures like Wilson and Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy were liberal nationalists, proudly patriotic and often willing to use religious rhetoric. That certainly isn't anything new on either the Right or the Left in the United States. Eleanor Roosevelt disagreed with the disallowing of Bible-reading in public schools, for example. The arch-liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas famously said, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952). Most liberals and leftists may find that rhetoric embarrassing or old-fashioned, but it's hardly a recent invention of Michael Knowles and the Daily Wire. It wasn't a threat to the Constitution when Justice Douglas wrote it, and it's not a threat now, either. Many also forget that distinguished politically liberal constitutional scholars like the late Alexander Bickel and Justice Felix Frankfurter supported judicial restraint and objected to the Supreme Court standing in the way of New Deal legislation. They thought it was important for the High Court to let the elected branches of government deal with controversial matters of policy, morality, and economics. The conservative justices today are leaving controversial moral issues to the democratic process. What is so threatening about that? If you read American conservative writers like Russell Kirk or Whittaker Chambers or the conservative critiques of the Warren Court in the 1950s and 1960s, I think you'll find a lot of continuity between the conservatism of yesteryear and that of today. Ronald Reagan was saying forty years ago essentially what Michael Knowles is saying now: "There are, these days, many questions on which religious leaders are obliged to offer their moral and theological guidance, and such guidance is a good and necessary thing. To know how a church and its members feel on a public issue expands the parameters of debate. It does not narrow the debate; it expands it. The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive. A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state. If you practice a religion, whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or guided by some other faith, then your private life will be influenced by a sense of moral obligation, and so, too, will your public life. One affects the other. The churches of America do not exist by the grace of the state; the churches of America are not mere citizens of the state. The churches of America exist apart; they have their own vantage point, their own authority. Religion is its own realm; it makes its own claims. We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions. I submit to you that the tolerant society is open to and encouraging of all religions. And this does not weaken us; it strengthens us, it makes us strong. You know, if we look back through history to all those great civilizations, those great nations that rose up to even world dominance and then deteriorated, declined, and fell, we find they all had one thing in common. One of the significant forerunners of their fall was their turning away from their God or gods. Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" (Remarks at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast in Dallas, Texas, August 23, 1984).
I agree with you that you can't ultimately have morality without God and that America is culturally Christian historically. I don't think you addressed the main points of the video or mine that Christian Nationalism as such isn't remotely part of the American Constitution and wasn't an intention of the Founding Fathers who were actually separating Christianity from government compared to what it had been. The tolerance of religion you cited as an American ideal was at odds with Christian governments of the time which is why the Pilgrims had to flee here in the first place. While I agree that Christian principle can and should be incorporated into modern government that respects the right to worship, I don't believe that could last very long in a Christian nationalist government because by definition nationalism unifies a nation by common traits, and there are many historical examples of the persecution of minorities of all kinds under nationalist governments. I think you did sort of acknowledge that nationalism is revolutionary by nature with some of the examples you gave, which is the big contradiction of modern American Christian Nationalism. They are attempting to overturn the US government, which hasn't been explicitly Christian since it's founding, but under the guise of returning to America's historical Christian roots
I am surprised you did not mention that individual States within America had blasphemy laws on the books and officially established religions at the time of and beyond the founding. It actually wasn’t until 1940 that the prohibition on federal laws circumscribing speech and religion was officially extended to the States as well in Cantwell v. CT.
Hi! This is something I probably should’ve been more clear about. I only alluded to this, rather than mentioning it outright, for the sake of time. It would’ve opened up a whole other can of worms about why the 1st amendment didn’t apply to the states at that time and incorporation doctrine, so I decided to limit the scope to the national government. It probably would’ve been a good point to mention explicitly though to bolster the claims about why having a national religion would’ve been difficult. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
Hi everyone! Thanks so much for watching. This video is longer than what I normally put out, but I thought it was really fun to make. Hope you enjoy it. The channel is almost to 200 subscribers, which is super cool. Feel free to leave a comment, I enjoy seeing what people think.
Hey, loved the video! I enjoyed the methodical dissection of Knowles’ arguments, as well as the genuine good faith you brought to the table. You’ve earned a subscriber! Hope to see more stuff like this in the future!
Very nice video! I agree with all your rebuttals. It's important to have nuanced view of America's history with and attitudes toward religion, which unfortunately is not common among those professing Christian Nationalism.
Kudos to the good-faith definition of "nation". Its refreshing to hear a counterargument that properly begins at this point. I've heard it differentiated as civic nation vs ethnic nation. I will use the term "ethnic nation", but "ethnic" does not fairly capture all of the categories: Shared Lived Experience, Cultural and Historical Bonds, Inclusion of Ethnic Minorities, etc. I think you catch Knowles in highlighting Plymouth over Jamestown. This may dispel the exaggerated degree of founding souls that were escaping religious persecution, but the degree to which they were Christian remains unchallenged. Jamestown was still overwhelmingly Christian, and these settlements were the foundation of the "nation's" Christian ethos. In fairness, Knowles would have included this in your list of evidence @3:35. I get the Motte and Bailey model you presented, and I acknowledge that it may be a fallacy in this case, but I can also see how it could be a false positive; Defining a group of people as an ethnic nation in this way is often going to be all-over-the-place by nature. The uncertainty of the fallacy is what makes Christian Nationalism "an opinion piece" (5:18) when its justification lies within the vagueness of an ethnic nation. Every instance of Nationalism is unique. I gather that it is a blend of ethnic and civic for Knowles and his group. An ethnic nation can exist as a precursor to a civic nation as well as shape it. (9:20) When presenting his belief system, Knowles is still right to point out that Jamestown(/Plymouth) was majority ethnically Christian, even if the "nation" he is concerned with solidified closer to 1776. I don't really have a problem with the Michael Knowles version of Christian Nationalism, nor do I see a way to objectively prove or disprove it. What I find problematic is the branch of Christian Nationalism that exaggerates its historical justifications (you do a good job of keeping this in check) and/or introduces divine justification. These type of Christian Nationalists that seek to override (15:36) Article VI, Clause 3, and they are on the rise. Knowles is milquetoast in comparison.
About the conflicts between christians in that epocque, I don't think Knowles disputes the fact that north America was conquered and founded by (majoritally) protestant Christians, and in this case the US would be a christian protestant nation. That doesn't make the christianity ambiguous, as you imply, because that conflict isn't that complex: after Luther and Calvin Europe was devided between Catholics and Protestants, and the US would be on that protestant brunch at least when it comes to identity.
Hi! Thanks for leaving a comment. My claim is not that Christianity is ambiguous, my claim is that the founders intending for the United States to be a generic “Christian nation” without regard for differences in denomination does not match with the historical realities of religious conflict in that era. This is why I have a problem when Knowles and other Christian nationalists claim that the founders intended America to be that way, or worse - attempt to impose a 21st century understanding of Christianity onto the founding fathers. As you rightly point out, there was major religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants. This is why many of the founders were very anti-Catholic. John Jay was a descendant of French Huguenots, who were purged from France, for example. But there was also conflict among Protestants! And the existence of state churches in the revolutionary era was hugely oppressive to minority Protestant denominations. The famous “wall of separation between church and state” quote was written in response to these very conflicts in the American colonies. Thanks again for the comment. Appreciate your thoughts.
@@RyanGeddie That's what I'm saying, is clear that those who were christians were clearly not on the Catholic side (also many were mason "humanists", whom main enemy was also the Catholic church). I think the opposite arguement can be made, the fact that despite the denominations they were all christians: that's why it's "christian nationalism" and not "christian calvinist nationalism" or something like that. But your strongest arguement is the separation of church and state and the disregard of any official religion, which I suppose christian nationalism would be for. Also you make the arguemet that it doesn't matter the origin of the nation or the country, because things can change. I guess that's also an arguement for some kind of de-secularization of the country, it goes both ways.
@@brunosm.l2267Well, I wouldn’t say there were no Catholics. Charles Carroll comes to mind, and certainly there were plenty of Catholics in Maryland, they just weren’t the majority. I’m saying that one of the reasons the founders avoided the idea of a broad “Christian” state religion is because the idea of a Christian nationalism that includes all Christian denominations is a 21st century idea, not an 18th century one. I do make the argument that nations can change over time. It could be possible that Christian nationalists get their way and remake the nation in their image. My complaint is with their claim that this move would be historically justified, because I do not believe it is. Thanks so much for engaging on the topic!
Not to mention it takes about 5 seconds of googling to find out that literally 90% of Americans were Christians less than 50 years ago lmao maybe he could take a look at a dollar bill and wonder who the "GOD" theyre talking about is lmao
@@RyanGeddie You sound like a smart kid, unfortunately just a bit confused. I encourage you to do the slightest bit of research and debunk your own claims. There is nothing in our founding documents about a separation of Church and state lmao That was in a PRIVATE LETTER that was written in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE CHURCH FROM THE GOVERNMENT lmao
Sub #239. Glad I came across this. Robust analyses, sources cited and those used by your opposition are interrogated, script is clearly not AI written, and you have a good narrating tone! Reminds me of Sarcasmitron. Only ‘critique’ is I think you’re being a too complimentary of Knowles’ rhetorical skills. His audience has effectively nil media literacy, so he’s a propagandist preaching to the choir; argumentative atrophy, you could say, not that his position has much going for it to begin with!
How exactly did he strawman Knowles’ arguments? He seems to be remarkably good faith in addressing them, even taking the time to properly define Knowles’ conception of what a ‘nation’ is.
@@Clueman778 He's bad faith right from the start because he claims Michael's position is bad faith Motte and bailey tactic, when Michael is very clear and never tries to hide what he believes .. Motte and Bailey is a leftist technique. It's not a right wing technique. Leftism is 'progressive." this means it is always changing... this means they always have a future target so when they say one thing they don't tell you what they want it to become. Progressive makes motte and Baileys about every topic because by the very nature of making plans that will change, pitmans you have the result to hide. Conservatives say exactly what they want because they are the opposite of progressive. What they say,,, they mean. So the speaker is unable to interpret conservative thought because he thinks conservatives think like left wingers. His insistence Michael has a secret agenda makes it so he can't understand Michael. Michael talks about this elsewhere and he';s very clear. Thi sis because conservationism is very clear with what they want and they don't want it to change. I think Michael would like to have the 1950s. that was when the disparity between rich and poor was the most even in America. We are getting more and more Is lamia people and our morals are changing to mlotrals that are anti Chstrian. Mus lims are allowed to grape captives if they aren't muslim and it isn't a sin. This is why women wear headgear to identify themselves as women that they can't grape. Do you want his? Michael just doesn't;t wan this but the speaker is paranoid so can't get the obvious. Christian countries always make liberal democracies. the eft is bad faith because they think Chsrianity creates tyrannies when the left creates the biggest tyrannies known in human history. The Naz is were the "people's socialist party" -leftist identity politics, censorship, took guns away, , centralized power...etc. They weren't right wing! Right wingers don't want to give up guns. the Germans were left wing. Na sis were just not Marxists but they were communists.. The left creates tyrannies and Chsrianity creates liberal democracies... in history. so yah this guy is so bad faith or he's so out of touch he doesn't know how to see outside of his narrow view.
I'm not about making our government Christian run, or in other words, a theocracy. The Muslim faith is more about governing than being a religion. That's why the Muslims were worried about America because they see religion as a means of governmental control. Now, as a Christian, I recognize our founding was on Christian values. But Christians should be more concerned about being ambassadors to America vs trying to run America. If people are forced by government to serve, then it negates the relationship God wants with us through His son Jesus. It has to be choice and our founding fathers knew that.
America was not founded on Christian values. The ideals that formed the cornerstone of America were straight out of The Enlightenment. Enlightenment philosophy was about as far from Christian theology of the day as one could get in ANY colony of a European power in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. We're talking about the philosophical legacy that allowed Europeans to free themselves from Christianity. America was the first secular western country the world had seen since before the rise of feudal monarchies.
@@JasonS42 so, when our founding fathers wrote our founding document that all men are created equal and endowed with our rights by God, they were talking about the God of enlightenment? Got it.
@@UndgnfiedWrshpr It sure wasn't the God of the Bible. Historically speaking, Christians have rarely insisted the all men are created equal. To the contrary, Christianity regularly pushes the idea of "God's chosen". It's also worth pointing out here that "God" is also a common refrain in the English language. Taking references like this literally may not have any more justification that insisting that an atheist who uses the term "godamnit" isn't actually an atheist.
@@JasonS42 except it was the God of the Bible because they quoted the Bible all the time and the Constitution is based on Biblical principles. It was Christians that finally abolished slavery. I get it, you're a revisionist of history, but a poor one at that.
@@UndgnfiedWrshpr I'm the revisionist? Buddy, Christianity did the leg work for supporting the trans-Atlantic slave trade for CENTURIES. There were just as many Bible quoting Christians defending the institution of slavery as those opposed to it. And you're dead wrong about the Constitution being based on the Bible. Once again it was more based on Rousseu, Paine, Locke, and Hobbs. English common law has more to do with the Constitution than the Bible does.
I agree that America may not be a fundamentally Christian nation however that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a Christian nation I think that is the greater concern. I think the constitution is flawed according to what you have stated. You didn't specify what a law is which is fine because that is going to a completely different topic. Laws are not the equivalent to morality or right and wrong, however laws have to be inspired by some sort of religion or a belief system. Overall, the conversation can be taken deeper. I am not accusing Michael Knowles of lying but Lying isn't good, and I think pointing out flaws or clearing up misunderstandings is important. At the end of that day both you and Michael seem like great intelligent guys, great talkers capable of bringing up good points without specifically bashing the other person. And that should be appreciated.
This video is just like when newspapers would put pictures of Marilyn Manson next to articles about shootings. I'm not a christian and I agree with Knowles.
??? If anything, what Knowles is doing is more comparable to what the newspapers you’re referencing did; he’s pointing out that two things have some overlap and saying ‘see, they MUST be inherently tied together’
Not all laws and government are based on religion. You're just wrong on that point. It's also worth pointing out that atheism isn't a system. It's just a lack of belief in a deity. Secular systems neither require an atheistic perspective nor does one need to be an atheist to see the glaring problems inherent in theocracy.
There's a general error in defining the basis of, or claiming a nation is based solely on a religion that can be easily weaponized as exclusive and demanding. A great example of this Rastafarians- but Knowles' historical knowledge that just takes biased dives towards supporting his argument, while just looking away from what doesn't support his claims
Michael is just a failed drama kid. It’s a common pathway for failed drama kids to become grifters. I don’t believe he actually buys any of his own BS.
@@RyanGeddie you should be more worried about the knee you bow to totalitarianism and the woke lefts most commnly debunked talking points. dont deceive yourself. look for the actual truth. And on behalf of the Christians, you're welcome for building the greatest, richest, freest civilization the world has ever seen and creating the fairest justice system and laws in history.
@@xx-knight-xx2119 One way or another, they do. Not saying it has to be (a) God, but anyone thinking that they are the ones holding the rains, are delusional.
idk why theres like 40% dislikes, your not doing anything wrong. A dislike shouldn't be equal to a disagreement, but when a video has bad arguments or is bad faith. I don't see much of either half way through.
Knowles is one of the worst, he makes Shapiro seem smart
You may disagree with his opinions, but don't try to make the argument that he's not smart. It invalidates the rest of YOUR arguments.
No, he’s not smart. He’s smarmy. Being good at rhetoric or manipulating others is not the kind of intelligence we’re talking about. He has no intellectual rigour, he is not curious or circumspect, he doesn’t make solid arguments and only uses the appearance of logic rather than actual logic. In other words, an idiot.
I was born and raised SDA and I stand by the separation of church and state, in fact the SDA church has traditionally been opposed to getting into politics and government business and would rather not get involved.
You are very well spoken and provide a. Excellent rebuttal. Keep working at the channel. Few RUclipsrs have your analytic rigor
Hey! Thanks so much. Really appreciate the compliment!
Great video! One thing which is under appreciated by many people is that Christian Nationalism seeks to establish a theocracy. Perhaps you could do a video on this?
"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be, or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his five points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world, but a daemon or malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
I suspect Jefferson especially didn't like "unconditional election."
I only need to know this much about a Christian Nationalist: They would pray and celebrate Jesus Christ's return, but the moment He does appear, we can start a clock on _these very same people_ demand for his Crucifixion because He's not turning those _they_ claim are their oppressors into pillars of salt and set up a califate with _them_ on top ruling. It's why I catch myself praying that God _keeps delaying in His coming_ until I die, because I don't want to see it happening.
I will say something that may sound bizarre. I don’t believe in God, but sometimes I wish he were real, just so that these “Christian” nationalists feel the vindictiveness of his wrath. I’ll get mine too for sure, but I wanna see the look on their dumb faces as their ideology falls apart
That's a deranged interpretation of human nature. I think it smells of sour grapes rather than observation.
but what would you want as a foundation? Do you want IS Lam as the foundation of our morals? we'll have their morals? You know what they do to gay people and women? IN their heaven it's mostly men and it's eternal se xx. Eternal erection is what the Quran promises them. The feeling of the religions are very different.
Christians believe we sleep until Christ comes back to judge... and heaven has no sex. We're not going to an eternal orgy.
On Earth Christians make liberal democracies, whereas Isla m makes tyrannies.
Which one do you choose?
They tried making a woke religion. We even have flags everywhere and schools teach the ideology but people will reject it. It won't last because it's too openly demented and self destructive. Your choice is Christianity or Is lam. If you choose leftist I s l a m you lose every right, unless you submit to I s l a m.
Christians WILL allow you to not be Christian.
The FRench turned Christianity tyrannical but they always move towards tyranny.
I think they just want make sure our system of right and wrong remains.
In Saudi Arabia if a woman gets graped they go to jail or marry the man.
do you want that?
People can't function without religion. We see from the woke religion.. they will make up a religion if they have no religion.
Do you choose leftist Isl am?
Is that why you despise the Christians?
"Jamestown was created to make money" - the true American religion!
There is no such critter as a "christian intellectual". My heart tell!s me so. The one thing your heart cannot do is think. My advice to the world is use what!s between your ears to think.
just randomly found you on my homepage, subscribed. excited to see what else you cook up
good work with this video dude.
Thanks so much! Really glad you liked it.
You seem quite intelligent, I'm looking forward to seeing your future content. I'm curious if you have a particular way of researching and learning about these topics or you just go with whatever interests you in the moment. Also just wanted to say that there definitely are a decent number of progressives including myself who actually mean literally abolish the police, although explaining the position to ordinary people can be a challenge.
@@iron_pickaxe Thanks! Glad you liked it! Thanks for sharing your perspective on the police abolition part, certainly there are people who do thoughtfully advance that position, definitely didn’t mean to imply that nobody actually means it haha.
In terms of learning about these topics - I went to college for government and history, and that background for sure comes through in my some of my videos. I also read more than average I think.
I actually pick topics based on whatever I happen to be thinking about lately.
Thanks again for the comment! Hope that all makes sense.
@@RyanGeddie George Washington was a gay man who had a boyfriend named Thomas Jefferson who was also a gay man and a rapist as well.
Glad I found this channel. Hope your next videos have a jump in popularity like this one had in relation to the previous ones. The web has a lot of space for more people that show what critical thinking looks like.
Thanks! Very nice of you to say that.
Hey, I thought this was a well-made video overall. I was really interested in the Treaty of Tripoli, which you mentioned. I was wondering if you saw the "NOTE REGARDING THE Barlow TRANSLATION" on the Avalon Project page. It says the following:
Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11.
You excerpted Article 11 of the Barlow translation for use in this video at 16:29. I am assuming you did not realize the unique situation regarding this treaty's translation, but do you think that you would alter what you say about it? I am not asking if you would change your overall position, just what you say about John Adams and this treaty. Thanks.
Hi! You’re right, article 11 doesn’t appear in the Arabic version. From my understanding though, article 11 does appear in the English version that was signed by Adams/approved by the senate.
It is interesting that article 11 doesn’t appear in the Arabic version, but since the English version was what was approved in the United States, I don’t believe it changes the argument.
It is an interesting historical point though, thanks for opening the discussion on that.
You might enjoy this article!
www.au.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/joel-barlow-and-the-treaty.pdf
@@RyanGeddie that is a good point. I agree the English version that Congress and the president approved is more important to us as 21st century Americans than the Arabic version.
@@RyanGeddie thanks for the additional reading. I did enjoy it.
Good shit Ryan!!!!
Thanks haha
Great video. Whats with the dislikes? Pretty standard debunking going on here lol
This guy gets it!
I!m glad your in opposition to this fool.
Nope. Don't care. Seen the fruits of your worldview and I'm less than impressed.
yes because nations with an official religion treat their citizens so well huh
@@jessica-si4cx "mm m m uh other countries is mean so we uh need to like um lose ours"
@@zephyrosuav9760yes let’s ignore history and pave a road for americans be subjected to the treatment of uyghurs and christians in rome
The purpose of nationalism is to create a unified political order on the basis of common traits across a region, such as race, religion, or language. Think of Hitler annexing Austria or Italian nationalism unifying the Papal States, Kingdom of Naples, and Sicily. So when a nationalist pundit like Knowles points to evidence of historical Christianity in America, he is not really stating that America has always been a Christian Nationalist polity, he is advocating to the Christian majority today for the creation of one on the basis of cultural roots. The dishonest or at least ignorant/misinformed part is that he hides the fact that nationalism is inherently revolutionary against the established order by identifying the Democrats, the "Deep State," the Left or anything else not in agreement with him as the establishment, while hiding that his ideology is also opposed to the Constitution and even the conservativism of a few decades ago.
Nationalism has taken many forms, revolutionary and conservative, religious and secular, socialist and capitalist. Everyone from Francisco Franco to Gandhi to Nelson Mandela to Ho Chi Minh could be described as "nationalist" in some sense. Figures like Wilson and Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy were liberal nationalists, proudly patriotic and often willing to use religious rhetoric. That certainly isn't anything new on either the Right or the Left in the United States. Eleanor Roosevelt disagreed with the disallowing of Bible-reading in public schools, for example. The arch-liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas famously said, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952). Most liberals and leftists may find that rhetoric embarrassing or old-fashioned, but it's hardly a recent invention of Michael Knowles and the Daily Wire. It wasn't a threat to the Constitution when Justice Douglas wrote it, and it's not a threat now, either.
Many also forget that distinguished politically liberal constitutional scholars like the late Alexander Bickel and Justice Felix Frankfurter supported judicial restraint and objected to the Supreme Court standing in the way of New Deal legislation. They thought it was important for the High Court to let the elected branches of government deal with controversial matters of policy, morality, and economics. The conservative justices today are leaving controversial moral issues to the democratic process. What is so threatening about that?
If you read American conservative writers like Russell Kirk or Whittaker Chambers or the conservative critiques of the Warren Court in the 1950s and 1960s, I think you'll find a lot of continuity between the conservatism of yesteryear and that of today. Ronald Reagan was saying forty years ago essentially what Michael Knowles is saying now:
"There are, these days, many questions on which religious leaders are obliged to offer their moral and theological guidance, and such guidance is a good and necessary thing. To know how a church and its members feel on a public issue expands the parameters of debate. It does not narrow the debate; it expands it.
The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.
A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state. If you practice a religion, whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or guided by some other faith, then your private life will be influenced by a sense of moral obligation, and so, too, will your public life. One affects the other. The churches of America do not exist by the grace of the state; the churches of America are not mere citizens of the state. The churches of America exist apart; they have their own vantage point, their own authority. Religion is its own realm; it makes its own claims.
We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.
I submit to you that the tolerant society is open to and encouraging of all religions. And this does not weaken us; it strengthens us, it makes us strong. You know, if we look back through history to all those great civilizations, those great nations that rose up to even world dominance and then deteriorated, declined, and fell, we find they all had one thing in common. One of the significant forerunners of their fall was their turning away from their God or gods.
Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" (Remarks at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast in Dallas, Texas, August 23, 1984).
I agree with you that you can't ultimately have morality without God and that America is culturally Christian historically. I don't think you addressed the main points of the video or mine that Christian Nationalism as such isn't remotely part of the American Constitution and wasn't an intention of the Founding Fathers who were actually separating Christianity from government compared to what it had been. The tolerance of religion you cited as an American ideal was at odds with Christian governments of the time which is why the Pilgrims had to flee here in the first place. While I agree that Christian principle can and should be incorporated into modern government that respects the right to worship, I don't believe that could last very long in a Christian nationalist government because by definition nationalism unifies a nation by common traits, and there are many historical examples of the persecution of minorities of all kinds under nationalist governments. I think you did sort of acknowledge that nationalism is revolutionary by nature with some of the examples you gave, which is the big contradiction of modern American Christian Nationalism. They are attempting to overturn the US government, which hasn't been explicitly Christian since it's founding, but under the guise of returning to America's historical Christian roots
I am surprised you did not mention that individual States within America had blasphemy laws on the books and officially established religions at the time of and beyond the founding. It actually wasn’t until 1940 that the prohibition on federal laws circumscribing speech and religion was officially extended to the States as well in Cantwell v. CT.
Hi! This is something I probably should’ve been more clear about. I only alluded to this, rather than mentioning it outright, for the sake of time. It would’ve opened up a whole other can of worms about why the 1st amendment didn’t apply to the states at that time and incorporation doctrine, so I decided to limit the scope to the national government. It probably would’ve been a good point to mention explicitly though to bolster the claims about why having a national religion would’ve been difficult.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
Hi everyone! Thanks so much for watching. This video is longer than what I normally put out, but I thought it was really fun to make. Hope you enjoy it.
The channel is almost to 200 subscribers, which is super cool.
Feel free to leave a comment, I enjoy seeing what people think.
Hey, loved the video! I enjoyed the methodical dissection of Knowles’ arguments, as well as the genuine good faith you brought to the table. You’ve earned a subscriber! Hope to see more stuff like this in the future!
@@Clueman778hey! Thanks so much. Glad you liked it.
Very nice video! I agree with all your rebuttals. It's important to have nuanced view of America's history with and attitudes toward religion, which unfortunately is not common among those professing Christian Nationalism.
@@ican4ever thanks so much! Really appreciate it and I agree.
Kudos to the good-faith definition of "nation". Its refreshing to hear a counterargument that properly begins at this point. I've heard it differentiated as civic nation vs ethnic nation. I will use the term "ethnic nation", but "ethnic" does not fairly capture all of the categories: Shared Lived Experience, Cultural and Historical Bonds, Inclusion of Ethnic Minorities, etc.
I think you catch Knowles in highlighting Plymouth over Jamestown. This may dispel the exaggerated degree of founding souls that were escaping religious persecution, but the degree to which they were Christian remains unchallenged. Jamestown was still overwhelmingly Christian, and these settlements were the foundation of the "nation's" Christian ethos. In fairness, Knowles would have included this in your list of evidence @3:35.
I get the Motte and Bailey model you presented, and I acknowledge that it may be a fallacy in this case, but I can also see how it could be a false positive; Defining a group of people as an ethnic nation in this way is often going to be all-over-the-place by nature. The uncertainty of the fallacy is what makes Christian Nationalism "an opinion piece" (5:18) when its justification lies within the vagueness of an ethnic nation.
Every instance of Nationalism is unique. I gather that it is a blend of ethnic and civic for Knowles and his group. An ethnic nation can exist as a precursor to a civic nation as well as shape it. (9:20) When presenting his belief system, Knowles is still right to point out that Jamestown(/Plymouth) was majority ethnically Christian, even if the "nation" he is concerned with solidified closer to 1776. I don't really have a problem with the Michael Knowles version of Christian Nationalism, nor do I see a way to objectively prove or disprove it. What I find problematic is the branch of Christian Nationalism that exaggerates its historical justifications (you do a good job of keeping this in check) and/or introduces divine justification. These type of Christian Nationalists that seek to override (15:36) Article VI, Clause 3, and they are on the rise. Knowles is milquetoast in comparison.
About the conflicts between christians in that epocque, I don't think Knowles disputes the fact that north America was conquered and founded by (majoritally) protestant Christians, and in this case the US would be a christian protestant nation. That doesn't make the christianity ambiguous, as you imply, because that conflict isn't that complex: after Luther and Calvin Europe was devided between Catholics and Protestants, and the US would be on that protestant brunch at least when it comes to identity.
Hi! Thanks for leaving a comment.
My claim is not that Christianity is ambiguous, my claim is that the founders intending for the United States to be a generic “Christian nation” without regard for differences in denomination does not match with the historical realities of religious conflict in that era. This is why I have a problem when Knowles and other Christian nationalists claim that the founders intended America to be that way, or worse - attempt to impose a 21st century understanding of Christianity onto the founding fathers.
As you rightly point out, there was major religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants. This is why many of the founders were very anti-Catholic. John Jay was a descendant of French Huguenots, who were purged from France, for example.
But there was also conflict among Protestants! And the existence of state churches in the revolutionary era was hugely oppressive to minority Protestant denominations.
The famous “wall of separation between church and state” quote was written in response to these very conflicts in the American colonies.
Thanks again for the comment. Appreciate your thoughts.
@@RyanGeddie That's what I'm saying, is clear that those who were christians were clearly not on the Catholic side (also many were mason "humanists", whom main enemy was also the Catholic church).
I think the opposite arguement can be made, the fact that despite the denominations they were all christians: that's why it's "christian nationalism" and not "christian calvinist nationalism" or something like that. But your strongest arguement is the separation of church and state and the disregard of any official religion, which I suppose christian nationalism would be for.
Also you make the arguemet that it doesn't matter the origin of the nation or the country, because things can change. I guess that's also an arguement for some kind of de-secularization of the country, it goes both ways.
@@brunosm.l2267Well, I wouldn’t say there were no Catholics. Charles Carroll comes to mind, and certainly there were plenty of Catholics in Maryland, they just weren’t the majority.
I’m saying that one of the reasons the founders avoided the idea of a broad “Christian” state religion is because the idea of a Christian nationalism that includes all Christian denominations is a 21st century idea, not an 18th century one.
I do make the argument that nations can change over time. It could be possible that Christian nationalists get their way and remake the nation in their image. My complaint is with their claim that this move would be historically justified, because I do not believe it is.
Thanks so much for engaging on the topic!
Not to mention it takes about 5 seconds of googling to find out that literally 90% of Americans were Christians less than 50 years ago lmao maybe he could take a look at a dollar bill and wonder who the "GOD" theyre talking about is lmao
@@RyanGeddie You sound like a smart kid, unfortunately just a bit confused. I encourage you to do the slightest bit of research and debunk your own claims. There is nothing in our founding documents about a separation of Church and state lmao That was in a PRIVATE LETTER that was written in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE CHURCH FROM THE GOVERNMENT lmao
Sub #239. Glad I came across this. Robust analyses, sources cited and those used by your opposition are interrogated, script is clearly not AI written, and you have a good narrating tone! Reminds me of Sarcasmitron.
Only ‘critique’ is I think you’re being a too complimentary of Knowles’ rhetorical skills. His audience has effectively nil media literacy, so he’s a propagandist preaching to the choir; argumentative atrophy, you could say, not that his position has much going for it to begin with!
Open yourself to nuance. I may have been born in 1980, but my founding most certainly started with an itch my dad wanted to scratch!
Everyone in the US has a wrong view of American history anyway. Because the British completely removed the Dutch influence and roots.
Terrific example of straw Manning good for you.
How exactly did he strawman Knowles’ arguments? He seems to be remarkably good faith in addressing them, even taking the time to properly define Knowles’ conception of what a ‘nation’ is.
@@Clueman778 He's bad faith right from the start because he claims Michael's position is bad faith Motte and bailey tactic, when Michael is very clear and never tries to hide what he believes .. Motte and Bailey is a leftist technique.
It's not a right wing technique.
Leftism is 'progressive."
this means it is always changing... this means they always have a future target so when they say one thing they don't tell you what they want it to become.
Progressive makes motte and Baileys about every topic because by the very nature of making plans that will change, pitmans you have the result to hide.
Conservatives say exactly what they want because they are the opposite of progressive.
What they say,,, they mean.
So the speaker is unable to interpret conservative thought because he thinks conservatives think like left wingers.
His insistence Michael has a secret agenda makes it so he can't understand Michael.
Michael talks about this elsewhere and he';s very clear.
Thi sis because conservationism is very clear with what they want and they don't want it to change.
I think Michael would like to have the 1950s.
that was when the disparity between rich and poor was the most even in America.
We are getting more and more Is lamia people and our morals are changing to mlotrals that are anti Chstrian.
Mus lims are allowed to grape captives if they aren't muslim and it isn't a sin.
This is why women wear headgear to identify themselves as women that they can't grape.
Do you want his?
Michael just doesn't;t wan this but the speaker is paranoid so can't get the obvious.
Christian countries always make liberal democracies.
the eft is bad faith because they think Chsrianity creates tyrannies when the left creates the biggest tyrannies known in human history.
The Naz is were the "people's socialist party" -leftist identity politics, censorship, took guns away, , centralized power...etc. They weren't right wing! Right wingers don't want to give up guns. the Germans were left wing. Na sis were just not Marxists but they were communists.. The left creates tyrannies and Chsrianity creates liberal democracies... in history.
so yah this guy is so bad faith or he's so out of touch he doesn't know how to see outside of his narrow view.
I'm not about making our government Christian run, or in other words, a theocracy. The Muslim faith is more about governing than being a religion. That's why the Muslims were worried about America because they see religion as a means of governmental control. Now, as a Christian, I recognize our founding was on Christian values. But Christians should be more concerned about being ambassadors to America vs trying to run America. If people are forced by government to serve, then it negates the relationship God wants with us through His son Jesus. It has to be choice and our founding fathers knew that.
America was not founded on Christian values. The ideals that formed the cornerstone of America were straight out of The Enlightenment. Enlightenment philosophy was about as far from Christian theology of the day as one could get in ANY colony of a European power in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. We're talking about the philosophical legacy that allowed Europeans to free themselves from Christianity. America was the first secular western country the world had seen since before the rise of feudal monarchies.
@@JasonS42 so, when our founding fathers wrote our founding document that all men are created equal and endowed with our rights by God, they were talking about the God of enlightenment? Got it.
@@UndgnfiedWrshpr It sure wasn't the God of the Bible. Historically speaking, Christians have rarely insisted the all men are created equal. To the contrary, Christianity regularly pushes the idea of "God's chosen".
It's also worth pointing out here that "God" is also a common refrain in the English language. Taking references like this literally may not have any more justification that insisting that an atheist who uses the term "godamnit" isn't actually an atheist.
@@JasonS42 except it was the God of the Bible because they quoted the Bible all the time and the Constitution is based on Biblical principles. It was Christians that finally abolished slavery. I get it, you're a revisionist of history, but a poor one at that.
@@UndgnfiedWrshpr
I'm the revisionist? Buddy, Christianity did the leg work for supporting the trans-Atlantic slave trade for CENTURIES. There were just as many Bible quoting Christians defending the institution of slavery as those opposed to it.
And you're dead wrong about the Constitution being based on the Bible. Once again it was more based on Rousseu, Paine, Locke, and Hobbs. English common law has more to do with the Constitution than the Bible does.
I agree that America may not be a fundamentally Christian nation however that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a Christian nation I think that is the greater concern. I think the constitution is flawed according to what you have stated. You didn't specify what a law is which is fine because that is going to a completely different topic. Laws are not the equivalent to morality or right and wrong, however laws have to be inspired by some sort of religion or a belief system. Overall, the conversation can be taken deeper. I am not accusing Michael Knowles of lying but Lying isn't good, and I think pointing out flaws or clearing up misunderstandings is important. At the end of that day both you and Michael seem like great intelligent guys, great talkers capable of bringing up good points without specifically bashing the other person. And that should be appreciated.
This video is just like when newspapers would put pictures of Marilyn Manson next to articles about shootings. I'm not a christian and I agree with Knowles.
??? If anything, what Knowles is doing is more comparable to what the newspapers you’re referencing did; he’s pointing out that two things have some overlap and saying ‘see, they MUST be inherently tied together’
Using Ryan’s criteria you could prove Germany is not a Germany nation.
Hey I like this a ton, and completely agree, what do you define yourself as politically?
Opposition to Christian nationalist narratives from the right?? Instantly subscribed. Hope your channel blows up man! Great video.
You can use the history of Christianity, all laws and government are based on religion. So Islam and Atheism is a better system? Need to read more.
Not all laws and government are based on religion. You're just wrong on that point.
It's also worth pointing out that atheism isn't a system. It's just a lack of belief in a deity. Secular systems neither require an atheistic perspective nor does one need to be an atheist to see the glaring problems inherent in theocracy.
There's a general error in defining the basis of, or claiming a nation is based solely on a religion that can be easily weaponized as exclusive and demanding. A great example of this Rastafarians- but Knowles' historical knowledge that just takes biased dives towards supporting his argument, while just looking away from what doesn't support his claims
Tsarist Russia and the Byzantine Empire should be our model government
Michael is just a failed drama kid. It’s a common pathway for failed drama kids to become grifters. I don’t believe he actually buys any of his own BS.
Solid stuff. Seeing the crisnats go unopposed among the right has been a worry for me.
Hey! Thanks! Yeah, it worries me too.
@@RyanGeddie you should be more worried about the knee you bow to totalitarianism and the woke lefts most commnly debunked talking points. dont deceive yourself. look for the actual truth. And on behalf of the Christians, you're welcome for building the greatest, richest, freest civilization the world has ever seen and creating the fairest justice system and laws in history.
Everyone answers to a higher power. What do you suggest sits atop our govt?
@@user-xc3rs3qm2o not everyone answers to a higher power. Plenty of people don't believe in higher powers.
@@xx-knight-xx2119 One way or another, they do. Not saying it has to be (a) God, but anyone thinking that they are the ones holding the rains, are delusional.