It was written in the Star Spangled Banner, third stanza. The pledge of allegiance is much less important from a historical perspective than the star spangled banner.
The separation of church and state was only a thing for the federal government and states were allowed to have state religions until the Civil War. What’s the difference in argumentation? You’re making an argument based on revisionism when your side does the same thing. Eisenhower using religion to fight communism and the Soviet Union is really no different than the Lincoln using nationalism to erode American federalism because of the fear of sectionalism and the possibility of future secession.
@@kylevernon No clue what you're on about or what "side" you think I'm on, I'm simply correcting a factual inaccuracy that was uttered. I made no arguments.
@@bokoura You have no idea that the states within America were not beholden to the Bill of Rights until the 14th amendment? No, thank you for the self report buddy. But great, he made a minor mistake and you pointed it out.
The beliefs of the founders is a pretty moot point. It doesn’t matter what they believed, they wrote out pretty clearly what kind of country this should be. They didn’t found the country “in the make of the church” or in the name of God. It’s been clearly established for over a century that there is a clear separation between the church and the state. This silly gaslighting is pointless.
They literally established a country that cites the Creator in its founding document and grounds all inalienable human rights. That's not just a belief of the founders. It's in our founding document.
as a leader for culture and politics , he did not find anything more objectively bad for people than cigars. I always find these tradcons very contradictory and hypocrytical
America was founded by people who were seeking religious freedom. This wasn't meant to mean you could be whatever you wished so long as it was Christian. They were from Christian dominated Europe and thus the vast majority of thought and ideas came from Christian teachings. If the founding fathers had intended America to be a Christian nation they would have said so, these were intelligent people.
@@SuperEdge67 Let’s start with ‘America was founded’ Who are you talking about? (It’s ok to say that we’ve just written off the indigenous peoples from this story if that’s how you see it)
@poerava The indigenous people didn't have a nation. They were tribal and communal. So yes, America, a nation, was created by the founding members. That doesn't mean there weren't people here before.
@poerava I'm actually a bit in disbelief you think the concept of europeans founding a nation (which is pretty obvious) to be revisionist. I don't think you know what a nation is. Edit: apparently I dont know what a nation is in historical contexts. I mean Nation State.
@@SevereFamineare you serious or is this a joke because all religions and societies have a set of rights that their citizens or adherents have. You honestly believe that human rights are unique to Christianity? Can't be. Must be a joke.
John Adams also had a particular definition of "Christianity." He bitterly rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Some folks would argue that in doing so that took him "out" of "mere Christianity." And that his religious system was "something else."
They discussed this in depth in the original conversation, but to summarize: they had good reason to deceive the Islamic pirates into thinking America wasn’t very Christian. Because Muslims are commanded to subjugate Christians and Jews wherever they find them, it would be wise to downplay the role of Christianity in a treaty with Muslims. Ultimately, the treaty of Tripoli proves nothing.
As Knowles said, it's almost like the US had a motive for appearing as un-Christian as possible to appease Muslim Barbary pirates by writing the US "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen". Hmm I wonder what possible rationale the US had for this framing....
Michael is quite intelligent and well-spoken - obviously so is Alex. Michael also has a sense of wit to him. I disagree with virtually everything he posits re: blending faith and politics, while maintaining he's mostly correct politically. Really loved this conversation, and so appreciate Alex for bringing all sides on to his podcast.
I love how people say “we have to go back to the beginning,” in this case citing the beliefs of the pilgrims, and then cite “in god we trust” and the pledge of allegiance as similar evidence when those were not introduced until the 20th century during the red scare as a reactionary measure. They are not originalist at all.
An important note about Thomas Jefferson. He has, at his direction, only three items on his tombstone in regard to his life's accomplishments. Two of these are writing the Declaration of Independence and founding of the University of Virginia. The third is his authorship of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, which was the basis for the First Amendment Establishment Clause and very clearly defined the idea of separation of church and state in Virginia in 1777. James Madison was a strong supporter of this bill, which finally passed in 1786 after a proposed law for "teachers of the Christian religion" was put on the floor and vehemently opposed by Jefferson and Madison. So, this is the author of the Declaration of Independence in Jefferson and the primary writer of the Constitution in Madison both strongly pushing this concept. Seems like a pretty ringing endorsement of the separation of church and state.
In America, you are free to practice whatever religion you'd like to or you're free to not practice any religion at all.And that's the way it should remain. Why does it seem like this is just not good enough for some American religious practitioners? Practitioners by the way who are definitely afraid of any other religion infecting our government other than their own.
Probably because as the number of faith practitioners decreases, the number of people that believe in their imaginary friend becomes the minority and they start to feel a little stupid and it’s easier to digest when EVERYONE around you is ALSO delusional
Because we have brains and can understand cause, effect and history. Other religions have some abominable figures in their reverence - Mohammad is evil and so is Allah. Jesus is perfect in every way.
Yes because the west has lost its marbles. If you look over at Academia and Europe, we have lost our ways. We are letting backward and 7th century barbarians taking over our societies, countries, and compromising our principles..we need to get back to what made us great which are Christianity and the enlightenment!! On one hand, we want to give rights to every and anybody while at the same time importing people who want to take these rights away and turn us back into the 7th century
Michael Knowles forgets that the Europeans are Romans first, and have been Romans far longer than they have been Christians. The Romans valued religious liberty, and so did the Founding Fathers. The exodus of many early immigrants escaping religious persecution was not lost on them. The presumption of innocence unless guilt is proven is clearly anti-Judaic.
@@SpikeTFA, Exactly. People forget that Saint Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, clearly stated that the Old Testament is obsolete and ready to vanish.
That was in a letter signed to Muslim Barbary pirates to end a war. Now why do you think they would write the US "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen"??
Typical Knowles, asked a straightforward question, kind of answers 5 other questions while mentally flailing. Seems out of his depth when Shapiros not there in his corner
Of course culture and law aren't totally distinct. Essentially anything in our country which is a law is going to be a part of our culture. That said the reverse is not true, just because the thing is a part of our culture doesn't mean it's a part of our laws. This is a country that enjoys watching satirical cartoons, does that mean it's part of the law?
To be fair a lot of “religious” Americans hardly even participate in their religion, only going to church a few times per year. In my mind, those people barely count.
Ugh. Winthrop did not declare that America would be a shining city on a hill. He used the phrase "as a city upon a hill" referring to their new community, i.e., Boston. Reagan added the word shining, and politicians have been repeating that error ever since.
Catholic here. When Christians call America a "shining city on a hill," it irks me because that shining city is supposed to be the Church, not any nation. I fear too many Christians have turned the U.S.A into their "church," with the Constitution and Declaration as their Bible, and the Founding Fathers have replaced the Church Fathers.
The problem I've noticed with Americans seems to be they argue over whether the country was _meant_ to be secular or not. My thought is...who cares? Who cares what some founders wanted? How about what YOU, the people of today, want?
I honestly don't understand why we even need to have these conversations. If the founding fathers had intended for this country to be a Christian nation, and had intended Christian ethics to be enshrined in law, they would have said so. There was literally nothing stopping them from saying so if they wanted to, and they chose not to, and perhaps even more to the point they explicitly excluded religious consideration from the law. Why this is a debate I just will never know
Probably because for the last thousand years Christian morality WAS MORALITY. They clearly did enshrine Christian ethics into law and the constitution. You can quite literally say the same thing for anything? Why didn’t they enshrine the ethics of why free speech as a moral good? They didn’t because it is assumed. The reason free speech is important to them is because of Protestant history and the Protestant concept of the personal relationship with god.
They did say so... "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams Other founding fathers echoed similar sentiments. The idea the Constitution is devoid of moral and religious underpinnings is wrong. The Declaration of independence states it flat out... "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..." The danger we face as a nation is the notion by both believers and non-believers that somehow the Constitution can survive the atheistic moral relativism our society has so ardently embraced. History acquaints us quite well with those who have tried.
You are trying to separate America from its context. It is the typical hustle of people pushing narratives, where the only facts to be considered are those convenient to the current thing.
The behavior of the citizenry defines the character of a country. If someone were to allege America were a murderous country, or a debauched country, it would be no rebuttal to say, "I don't see anything to indicate as much in its founding documents."
I hope Michael Knowles understands when he talks about Christianity early on in the history of the USA, the Christianity was primarily the Calvinists, Reformed. Knowles as a Catholic should know the Protestants even created laws in various states to ban creation of Catholic parishes. So when he talks about America being a Christian nation...a Protestant Calvinist nation?
Countries are built of the people who create them. These people have common ideals and worldviews that can be called the soul of the nation. I feel like you're denying this only because you must disagree with everything and anything that Michael says before he even says it.
@@KevinSmile There have been times I have shared opinions with Knowles, I even shared one (just one) with Thatcher. The people who make up a country are not a homogenous lump of unified ideas and culture. The USA in particular, while founded by dissenters, Quakers and Puritans (who all disagreed with each other) has long been home to immigrants from all over the world with all their own beliefs and disbeliefs. "E Pluribus Unum" and all that.
Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" not only attracted public support for the Revolution but put the rebellion's leaders under pressure to declare independence. He got the ball rolling, so to speak. Even after the victory over the British, Paine’s influence persisted, and some of his ideas found their way into the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
@@TravelerAlexander I understand that…it just seems kind of unlikely given that Protestants and Catholics did not get along at all during that time. Protestants were scared when JFK was elected president because they feared that the Catholic Church would influence his governing. I also think Michael is just…ya know…making it up.
You’ll be shocked, but many people convert to the Catholic faith from protestantism. Also your comment seems to imply the mayflower was filled with Catholics, which is just historically laughable. These were protestants through and through.
@@SevereFamine I didn’t mean to imply it was filled with Catholics, I meant the other way around. Sure people have converted from being Protestant to Catholicism. But the rates are really low.
@@wadeflores6978the rates are pretty high right now, many Protestants are converting to Rome or Orthodoxy, but to the point of your initial comment, I don’t think Michael’s family has necessarily been Catholic for the last 404 years, even if he is today.
Christianity is dying in the US, as it is in other modern countries. The proportion of the US population identifying as Christian has dropped from 90% in 1990 to 63% in 2022. A drop of about 1% per year, every year. And it seems the rate of decline is accelerating as churches shut down and older, heavily indoctrinated generations die out.
Can't comment on the racist aspect, but he's definitely said indoctrinated, stupid stuff. I'm a Christian and a voluntaryist, and he's been wrong on a lot of things.
I'm sorry michael, am I confused? Weren't all the founding fathers British, or at least from right around that area? I mean, definitionally, before the United States was founded the Americas where they lived were british, which would mean definitionally that all of the people who live there were British. Maybe I've missed something
Many of the Founding Fathers were born and raised in America as British citizens. Imagine a Hawaiian U.S. Citizen (who’s never been to the mainland) revolting against Washington D.C. and declaring Hawaii independent. The founding fathers rejected their British citizenship when they declared independence. Not all of them were British necessarily as colonists from other countries were present as well (e.g. Marquis de Lafayette was French). ❤️🔥
Love this. Surprised that someone as intellectually limited as Knowles wanted to discuss anything with someone as smart as Alex but fair play to him for doing so.
@@Woog87 It is certainly true that we have confirmation bias. We all suffer from that but all you can do is read and watch and experience as much of life as possible and try to stay open minded. I try my best to do this. I have lived in 5 different countries, travelled large parts of the world, read all the major religious texts, and I don't identify with any of this ridiculous right, left dichotomy that the media tries to conveinetly drop us into. Therefore, in my opinion and it is ok to have one, Alex is a lot smarter than Knowles. Your counter argument to that would be?
Read the Mayflower Compact. The separatists who came over came over with Geneva Bibles who were Calvinists. Over 40 founding forefathers held seminary degrees and each state had its own Constitution before 1776 that was thoroughly Christian. Their idea wasnt a hodgepodge of various religions represently, but Christianity. They knew if Gods blessing was upon them that they could not fail.
Dude is dangerous. By the way he answered the first question , he would turn this country into a Christian theocracy if he could. People seem to forget that Europe has tried that for most of its past and all it produced was religious wars within Christianity and with other religions like the Cathars and Islam. At its height it gave us the Dark Ages. The fathers understood this. At the beginning, there were states in the US where you couldn't work if you weren't catholic; and in others, if you're weren't Protestant. Once everyone admits they believe in God ( even a Christian one), the conflict always quickly moves to -how you believe,ie what kind of doctrines and rituals do you believe in. The US , by his founding fathers and founding legal documents wasn't a Christian Nation. And even if it were, it doesn't mean it would have been good for it to remain so.
@@lastnamefirstname850I’m not sure what your problem is, but it’s a pretty well known part of European history. We had the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches endowing our kings with the divine right of ruling over the masses, as such dictatorships sanctioned by the Church. We had the Spanish Inquisition violently enforcing Christianity and punishing any perceived heresy with confiscation of property, torture and/or death, and most European kingdoms had severe penalties for heresy. We had a series of brutal religious wars between Catholics and Protestants. Heck, the Thirty Years' War is considered to be one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European history.
@@El3ctr0Lun4 Yeah, looks like this guy doesn't know his history. It's often the case that religious people have no idea how destructive their religions have been.
@@ricardocima it depends who you ask, Christian nationalism would look pretty close to modern laws, since American law is mostly based on the sensibilities of a 90% Christian population up until 1960s. So maybe laws prior to 1960s, no pornography, no gay marriage etx
Loved this, thank you for putting him on the spot. He wasn't "bad" but the weird ine camera change in the middle of his last defense was definitely odd.
Oh dear. Micheal quite frankly is just not smart enough. He recited his lines, got a push back, his brain blocked. He and Matt Walsh are just so not charismatic and pseudo intellectual. Quite frankly the only person in this awful media who is intelligent enough to debate such complicated matters is Ben Shapiro. And I assume many people here watched the debate - he wasn't exactly picking Alex appart. These Daily wire guys just have their assigned script, one gets to be an anti gay gay, the other is anti trans, this one is just evangelical Christian, then we had the anti black black woman. And they just know a bunch of pre defined talking points and just regurgitate them on repeat.
To say a Yale graduate isn’t smart is kinda silly. He didn’t stumble at all, he just gave his opinions. If you disagree with someone’s opinions, it doesn’t make them “not smart.” I would agree with you that at times they seem like they are reading from a script, but that’s just because they have to tread carefully to not have their platform canceled by woke culture.
WoW WoW WoW... assertions, personal attacks, YT comment psycho analysis....must be a leftist assaulted by disagreement! "quite frankly is just not smart enough" "not charismatic and pseudo intellectual"...I feel like these are things you say into the mirror....All Daily Wire guys have a larger following that Alex (except the 60 year old Andrew Klavan), all more fun and charismatic that Alex, smarter than Alex without a single Theology degree among them.... You (and any lefty): "These people hold views that I disagree with so they're all bad people" I'll stop there, don't want to subject you to much reading...
@@DoctorTaco20 don't worry- the Yale graduate and successful commentator is not smart. The smartest guy here is the guy in the youtube comments who says how not smart the smart guy is
What was the justification given for concluding Thomas Paine wasn’t Christian? I ask because it seems most atheists don’t actually understand what Christianity is or what it’s supposed to be.
He believed In God but absolutely rejected Christianity. Please see his work The Age of Reason. I also enjoy Robert Green ingersol's writings about Paine.
@@Dan16673 in this context, Christianity refers to religion in general. I think you are the one who is confused. The discussion at hand is literally about the religiosity of the founding fathers. 🤦🏻♂️
All of the founding fathers were British!!! They were all British citizens! Additionally the colony of Virginia was founded 13-14 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth and it was founded for purely capitalistic reasons. No religious society was foreseen in Virginia. The Massachusetts colony was so wrong that people were either banished or left for Rhode Island which was founded on the philosophy of total Religious Freedom! The Puritan society died out and partially returned in the Great Awakening which brought it back for a short time and later 'Great Awakenings' pop up throughout the history. Knowles is an F'ing charlatan and talking out of his rear-end!
I mean... it's pretty obvious we're a mostly a "nominally" Christian nation, in past and (although declining a lot, thanks Left..) currently. out of 350 million Americans, we're like 75% identifying some Christian denomination, with like 2% Islam and small % of other beliefs, look, people might not like it but it's self-evident when there's a church on every corner a mile apart in all cities and suburbs, and most other parts of the world are either entirely Muslim or secular like China.
I suppose that depends how strict you are with asigning the term Christian, American Christianity is so unbelievably diverse and unique in case by case, its so easy to find people who describe themselves as Christian, that doesn't mean they are by your standard, Infact the most common defense of religious extremism is saying "they say they do it for god but they aren't real Christians" so even the people most vested to believe that figure would disagree, I come from a place where there are 10 churches per shopping centre, (a remnant of colonialism) but I absolutely wouldn't use that as a reason to claim my country should be adopting authoritarian practices that favour Christians over any other belief group, When people make the argument that America is a Christian country they are making a prescriptive (describing how it should be) statement not a descriptive (saying how things are) statement, it's not about describing the majority religious group in the country but giving those that say they represent that group authority to force others to behave like that group.
@@itsdodger1176 Hence the word "nominally" Christian. There's basic tenants that most Protestants and Catholics believe. And no, definitely descriptively Christian nation, it's inherently Christian BECAUSE there's churches every square mile and like 80% of the country claims to be that thing. You'd think the same if statistically 80% of the nation claimed to be vegan, you wouldn't go "well some of those don't eat eggs and some do" and meta it, you'd confidently say that their self attesting evidence is enough.
@@Jaryism Saying a country is vegan for that reason is a descriptive statement, its not made with the motivation of using that logic to ban all meat for the rest of the country, (that would be a prescriptive statement) which is very much why people make the argument that America is a Christian nation, It's not to describe the majority religion of the population, it's too claim the most extreme people within that religion have an authority to legislate there personal beliefs on the country, You no doubt understand this fact, if you wanted to describe the religious tendency of America you would say, a majority of Americans identify as a type of Christian denomination, but America itself is secular (infact the first secular democracy in the world). We are very much talking about two different things that are usually conflated, the sanctioning or preference of the state to one religion (example england is Christian because its head of state is also the head of the church), and the amount of people who identify as that religion.
That number has fallen to 68% of Americans identifying as some kind of Christian denomination and it continues to fall. Regardless, this doesn't mean that the country was founded on Christianity, or that Christianity should take priority over all other religions. It's like saying we're a "caucasian country" because 71% of the population identify as white, which is absurd. We are a country for everyone. People are free to worship whatever god they choose or embrace whatever religious beliefs work for them. However, the right to freely exercise one's religion ends where the rights of others begin.
A poet including the phrase In God We Trust in a poem does not indicate the feeling of all people in the country, nor does it reflect the laws which have been legislated in that country
America is a Christian nation. America is not a government, it’s a people. The idea of separating church and state assumed the goverment would remain small and it originally only applied to the Federal Government only. It was always just a slogan and the idea of separation of church and state was never fully realized in the first amendment, it’s not the legal or American standard. We have the freedom of religion, not separation between church and state and state.
Calling America a Christian nation because a majority of the people are Christian is like calling America a white nation. Is that really the standard we’re using?
The First Amendment is part of the foundational governing documents of this nation. It is the law. By definition it is legal. You are full of it. Keep religion out of government.
@@sorgeelenchus Well, sure. Yeah. America was a white nation. Americas founding was created as a white nation. Do those words bother you? Now it’s not. Things change. That’s the point. Continuously holding up the false narrative that the founders didn’t intend this to be a Christian country is simply false, but things change. Other people took the reins of power and they changed this country in a way the founding fathers wouldn’t have wanted. That’s all a want people to admit.
So much ignorance in the video and the comments section. Supreme Court already decided this- Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, 1892- "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457" That's the law.
You are correct. Justice Brewer did deliver that opinion; however, it was in context of the specific case. It no way does it impact the current legal framework that emphasizes religious neutrality. P.S. Mentioning "ignorance" of others isn't becoming, particularly when the ignorance does not exist.
@GaryLutchansky It's a precedent that is still in effect. As far as "the current legal framework" goes, it's pretty obvious the framework is fluid. All it takes is a change at the highest court.
@@GaryLutchansky As far as "ignorance" goes, if you're asking the question and not even referring to a Supreme Court decision that is still law and explicitly answers the question, I can only assume you don't know about it.
@@controlclerk Isn't Brewer's statement just a notable historical observation? If so, then this observation carries no legal authority. The case at hand certainly did not have anything to do with regards to "a Christian nation". Why did you bring it up? I would like to know if I'm incorrect. I'll update my knowledge if you share information that contradicts mine. Thank you.
Seems odd that someone who clearly is not a Christian, is , advertising Christianity, or cigar's? 'Your greed will stain your soul with the stench of ruin ' Probably gives it to charity, just like Peter... (Cancer research) I've gone too far too early, again.
Both him and Dennis Prager love drinking and cigars. I agree... it's odd! Prager even denies cancer being connected to cigars and has encouraged his kids to smoke cigars. I thought they were the fact-based group?
Secular is the only way a modern society can work a) all religions that claim eternal truth claim this without having any foundation that is provable - this is a problem b) because not having a foundation that can be tested makes it impossible to have a common ground - this is the difference to logic or science. We can all discuss how the results were gathered and what it mean but in logic and science we can discuss it because test and results will be the same for everyone c) So religion is a pure personal experience which leads to the problem that any rule based on religion can only be implemented by force because it leaves no room for discussion or adaptation d) which leads to totalitarian regimes or ideologies that's why right-wing politicians who have Christianity as a basis for their principles tend to love fascism That is why a Secular state is absolutely necessary and all religions should be seen as in it's nature and structure subversive and dangerous. On the other hand, I ones own belief that is kept by yourself is no problem.
I disagree. I believe it is fundamentally that the vice of skepticism is what divides society to the point of pitting brother against brother. Skepticism in excess leads to pessimism,cynicism,and general misanthropy. Whether it is skepticism of organized religion,Jews, Kulaks, the aristocracy, the rich, and foreigners it is always used as a vice and is responsible for the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. It is faith that unites a nation not skepticism. A peaceful Nation must have a unified cogent understanding of meaning and faith. Faith is perhaps the greatest virtue a nation could have
I disagree. I believe it is fundamentally that the vice of skepticism is what divides society to the point of pitting brother against brother. Skepticism in excess leads to pessimism,cynicism,and general misanthropy. Whether it is skepticism of organized religion,Jews, Kulaks, the aristocracy, the rich, and foreigners it is always used as a vice and is responsible for the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. It is faith that unites a nation not skepticism. A peaceful Nation must have a unified cogent understanding of meaning and faith. Faith is perhaps the greatest virtue a nation could have I should also stipulate what I mean by skepticism to avoid confusion.I believe skepticism isn't merely a matter of Bayesian statistical probability or an appeal to abductive reasoning, as many might suggest. Instead, it should be understood as a mode of being in relation to something or a proposition, much like being pious, content, or hedonistic. Systems of skepticism, such as Pyrrhonian skepticism, are more akin to appeals to virtue within a framework, similar to Taoism or Stoicism, with this virtue being ataraxia (tranquility). It's one thing to assert that certain things are knowable and certain, but another to claim that only those things should be believed. This appeal often hinges on the notion that it's virtuous to believe these things, much like it's considered virtuous to adhere to any system's dogma. This is evident in the fact that skepticism can be applied to various seemingly arbitrary domains-ranging from solipsism to skepticism towards organized religion and state media. I argue that skepticism should be seen as neither rational nor irrational, but arrational. In fact, I would go so far as to say that skepticism is a vice rather than a virtue, as it fosters cynical attitudes, pessimism, disgust, and hatred towards certain things, potentially encouraging demagoguery and other vices. Therefore, I believe that attempts to appeal to skepticism as a point of reason should be dismissed for these reasons. I should also stipulate. Firstly, I am mostly referring to your appeal to skepticism in your own reasoning. Secondly, I don’t think the terms skeptic and atheist are interchangeable. Obviously, you can be an atheist without being a skeptic. An atheist, for example, might say that the supernatural and the natural are in contradiction, therefore rejecting the supernatural without any appeal to skepticism. What I am saying is that most mobilized uses of atheism, especially as a foundation of doctrine and government, heavily appeal to skepticism (You Tube seems to be hiding my other comments so I compiled them all here )
I disagree. I believe it is fundamentally that the vice of skepticism is what divides society to the point of pitting brother against brother. Skepticism in excess leads to pessimism,cynicism,and general misanthropy. Whether it is skepticism of organized religion,Jews, Kulaks, the aristocracy, the rich, and foreigners it is always used as a vice and is responsible for the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. It is faith that unites a nation not skepticism. A peaceful nation must have a unified cogent understanding of meaning and faith. Faith is perhaps the greatest virtue a nation could have. I should also stipulate what I mean by skepticism to avoid confusion.I believe skepticism isn't merely a matter of Bayesian statistical probability or an appeal to abductive reasoning, as many might suggest. Instead, it should be understood as a mode of being in relation to something or a proposition, much like being pious, content, or hedonistic. Systems of skepticism, such as Pyrrhonian skepticism, are more akin to appeals to virtue within a framework, similar to Taoism or Stoicism, with this virtue being ataraxia (tranquility). It's one thing to assert that certain things are knowable and certain, but another to claim that only those things should be believed. This appeal often hinges on the notion that it's virtuous to believe these things, much like it's considered virtuous to adhere to any system's dogma. This is evident in the fact that skepticism can be applied to various seemingly arbitrary domains-ranging from solipsism to skepticism towards organized religion and state media. I argue that skepticism should be seen as neither rational nor irrational, but arrational. In fact, I would go so far as to say that skepticism is a vice rather than a virtue, as it fosters cynical attitudes, pessimism, disgust, and hatred towards certain things, potentially encouraging demagoguery and other vices. Therefore, I believe that attempts to appeal to skepticism as a point of reason should be dismissed for these reasons. I should also stipulate. Firstly, I am mostly referring to your appeal to skepticism in your own reasoning. Secondly, I don’t think the terms skeptic and atheist are interchangeable. Obviously, you can be an atheist without being a skeptic. An atheist, for example, might say that the supernatural and the natural are in contradiction, therefore rejecting the supernatural without any appeal to skepticism. What I am saying is that most mobilized uses of atheism, especially as a foundation of doctrine and government, heavily appeal to skepticism. (You Tube is really out for my comments, these are compiled version my attempts at posting these comments )
@@photonaut_8875 The problem of faith is that you have no foundation at all. If you don't have a foundation that both sides have a common ground the only way you can implement rules everybody should obey by it is by tyranny and force. With science and logic, you can always discuss about outcome and what you want to have. There is nothing that gives religion a foundation. Which only ever can lead to totalitarianism. Furhtermore, because believers think they have something that is above everything they are ideologues which means they think they can justify every even evil action cause they work for a higher purpose. Religion is a catastrophic foundation to build your state on.
@@photonaut_8875 Don't seem my answer was pasted and your first part you have deleted it again. So I repast Religion is a bad foundation As explained it has nothing for both sides to have a common ground cause it is pure personal interpretation. Which at the end only leaves force as the only way you can imply rules based on it. With science and logic both sides can talk about it find common ground and principles. Even worse all religious people can be ideologues which makes them dangerous. Because they believe of something higher than everything else they could start to believe that every action may be justified no matter how evil - cause they work for a higher "calling". This you have with fundamentalists. A state that has it's foundation on science and logic can always be put into questions for its actions and needs to justify them. Religion claims it is right without justification.
@@lepidoptera9337 Yes and no. It is not that easy. Yes, religion seems silly. But in my life, the very best people I have met are people who are devout in their beliefs and while you may look down upon them for 'abolishing reason', for what they lack in 'reason', they massively make up for in their humanity, generosity, respect, how they raise their family, etc. Now, I am non comparing 'pretend' Christians, many of who go to megachurches and do anything but live a 'Christian' life. Many so-called 'christians' are hypocrites and the worst kinds of people. I am talking about the old-fashioned people who genuinely believe in what they think and walk the walk with how the treat people, etc. I am not a 'believer'. But I understand when it comes to this realm of humanity, most of humanity needs something other than themselves and materialism to consider in order to focus and understand what is really important in life to live a happy and fulfilling life, in overwhelming cases, I see religion as a good thing for them to help guide them. Again, this is based on my vast experiences of humanity, where a lot of 'intellects' and 'amateur philosophers' are not very good people, but simple religious people, not necessarily the brightest, are very, very happy people and would help anyone in need
Felt to me like it was both fluid with the conversation and relevant. Not sure where the ‘shameless’ comes in. Perhaps you’d prefer if no one ever advertised their own products and instead kept any entrepreneurial behavior inside where it can’t hurt you? Grow up
@@THG1995 The issue for me is the vitriol in your comment without explanation. You can’t just insult someone as shameless because you either don’t agree with them or do know them enough. Perhaps I could have been less aggressive for sure but, you were just as quick to insult a man you likely never watch. I imagine you’re more of an Alex O’Connor subscriber which would explain the perception of Michael’s comment as shameless. I very well could be wrong in your consumption of Knowles content though
"The United States of America‘s founding documents are secular. if you don‘t know that, you don‘t know anything." - Christopher Hitchens Hitch would have devoured Knowles here.
No they weren't? Look at state constitutions, look at the declaration of Independence, look at the federalist papers which are used as evidence in judicial rulings today.
Declaration references a vague God of nature. A deistic nod. The Federalist Papers are essays that include personal opinions written in the tradition of the time, and the references to God aren't any kind of Government directive. The founding fathers were primarily, and foremost, secularists. Sparse, ceremonial references to a vague God outside of the Constitution don't change the fact that our founding documents are secular.
@@TAOSCIENCE No they weren't, that's why they talk about atheism as a scourge. That's why they promote state religions at the level of states. That's why they say it's impossible to have a good government without the grace of God. It's funny how you'll believe an absence of more explicit references to God is indicative of them being secularist. But when they say they clearly are not secularists in documents that are explicitly meant to promote the adoption of the constitution, you'll say "well, that was the tradition at the time". Perhaps consider, they believed in the religious traditions of their time. Most of the founders weren't deists, they were traditionally Christian.
No. Why is it a morality based on anything. Let’s just be scientific. Your assumption is a foolish one. Name something that has functional complexity that hasn’t been formulated by a rational mind.
@@dodumichalcevskithe God who created all things, and beside whom not a single thing was created that was not created by and through and for Him. Because He is, and He made us and has revealed Himself to us in the person of His Son, Jesus. And has redeemed the world by His cross.
*shows his ambitious, witty, entrepreneurial side in a fun and joking manner that both plugs his product and entertains without destroying the conversation* -No shame, Christian man bad Cmon guy, not allowed to joke or promote his own goods? Your envy is showing
SO some people basically stole a country 300 years ago.., and anyone who moved here, or was born here afterword is outa luck as far as having any input?
You realize that's the entire story of human history. We originated in Africa(Currently in dispute) if that's the case then we conquered and colonized the entire world to the same outcome.
@@alexanderwilliamson7431 Yeah, and in that context, you realize that there is no point in history where you can say THESE PEOPLE FOUNDED THE COUNTRY AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY HOW IT IS GOING TO BE RUN FOREVER AFTER
@@alexanderwilliamson7431 yeah… lets stop pretending like we have to run the country based on the views of the pilgrims. I mean the Italians dint run the country based upon Romulus…. Greeks do not run their country based on the views of Plato, etc
@@MrArdytube Your eventually going to have to decide on a set of unified views. Otherwise the other option is anarchy. Which views are the correct ones. Yours?
My country has the head of state as the head of the church. I find it interesting that Americans are so obsessed with their past when their founders did what they did for a different future
11:55... Bill of rights - Free exorcise of religion - "there will be not establishment of a/the (fudged..on purpose?) church is misunderstood - Some people take this to mean either, there can be no Church established anywhere in the US or THEY GO EVEN FURTHER AND SAY THE COUNTRY WOULD BE SECULAR, IT WOULD BE ABSENT FROM RELIGION". Again pure fudging. Sorry but "no establishment of the church" is WAY BIGGER than the country being secular. One denies the church completely, it denies Christianity out right. The other pushes the idea that the politics will not be beholden to the church and will be separate. He then he goes on to point out why the latter is what actually was meant, at least to anyone with a bit of critical thinking.
When I think of Christianity, I think of the evangelicals supporting a convicted felon, liar, a guy who was found liable for sexual assault, and instigator of insurrection as a candidate for POTUS.
The US is what it is not because of Christianity, but in spite of it. The fathers were deists at best. They couldn't claim to be non believers at that time unless you made use of irony in an artful way as Franklin did for instance.
Alex. It’s easy for you to criticize and attempt to deconstruct religion. Fine. What you’re completely blind to is to offer a critique of your own beliefs BOTH on a personal AND societal-wide scale. Until you offer something better, and scientifically prove it works, you will always be wasting your time and perpetuate your tone-deafness in this regard. Yes, this is a challenge for you.
Are you making a case for an objective morality determined by a certain god-belief/religion? If so, you must accept that there have been thousands of different gods worshipped around the world, along with countless accompanying religions and many with their own holy books they devoutly believe is the divine word of their god. Who gets to decide which one is the best? No matter how you look at it, religious beliefs and moral codes are all subjective and based on human opinions. Alex has made the point before that we can come to a subjective agreement on what is acceptable and what is not as they pertain to human well-being. We can still make practical use of ethical statements, with a set of agreed-upon common laws and a criminal justice system supporting it. No god required. Even bees demonstrate an altruism that in any human narrative would be considered moral. And bees have been doing their thing for more than a hundred million years.
@@elitemindset9581 Nice deflection, but I'm still waiting for you to answer my question- Are you making a case for an objective morality determined by a certain god-belief/religion?
As long as any religion is formally seperated from the constitution or foundation of a nation, that's all that matters. That's more likely to ensure that religions within it, no matter how stupid and archaic, are protected.
The date of the founding of our country is not an arbitrary point to begin discussing the culture of our country. Of course there are influences that came before that, but there was no country so it's not reasonable to talk about what the country was doing before it existed
It is purposefully Christ like for America to never legally establish a national religion and to allow free will. That was not by accident, nor was it to affirm the validity of any other world religion. If a nation aimed toward Christ is the goal, force would be it's antithesis. One must seek Christ to find him.
Dear Alex, I get the need for views and clicks, but this dude is so far below your expertise. If it’s what you gotta do to make a living, I get it; but I believe that you know this is low-hanging fruit. Hopefully you won’t have to debate these dingbats one day.
Michael Knowles is very well versed on the subject. I’m not sure where this perspective is coming from. Anyway, I thought it was a good debate actually. Good conversation all around.
"I don't trace American history back to when we became a country, that seems pretty arbitrary. I trace it back to the arrival of one specific boat."
Your comment is brilliant
And not even the first boat of the first colony, which was not Massachusetts but Virginia.
😅😂
That’s not what he said though
This is not even close to what he was saying.
"In God we trust" is not in our pledge of allegiance, and in fact "God" was not in it at all until the Cold War re-write.
It was written in the Star Spangled Banner, third stanza. The pledge of allegiance is much less important from a historical perspective than the star spangled banner.
@@SevereFamine Irrelevant. He said it was in the pledge of allegiance, and he was wrong.
The separation of church and state was only a thing for the federal government and states were allowed to have state religions until the Civil War. What’s the difference in argumentation? You’re making an argument based on revisionism when your side does the same thing.
Eisenhower using religion to fight communism and the Soviet Union is really no different than the Lincoln using nationalism to erode American federalism because of the fear of sectionalism and the possibility of future secession.
@@kylevernon No clue what you're on about or what "side" you think I'm on, I'm simply correcting a factual inaccuracy that was uttered. I made no arguments.
@@bokoura You have no idea that the states within America were not beholden to the Bill of Rights until the 14th amendment? No, thank you for the self report buddy.
But great, he made a minor mistake and you pointed it out.
The beliefs of the founders is a pretty moot point. It doesn’t matter what they believed, they wrote out pretty clearly what kind of country this should be. They didn’t found the country “in the make of the church” or in the name of God. It’s been clearly established for over a century that there is a clear separation between the church and the state. This silly gaslighting is pointless.
They literally established a country that cites the Creator in its founding document and grounds all inalienable human rights. That's not just a belief of the founders. It's in our founding document.
michaels cigar business plug was super smooth
It was cringe as fuck
as a leader for culture and politics , he did not find anything more objectively bad for people than cigars. I always find these tradcons very contradictory and hypocrytical
@@RobotRocker615 Buddy... you're dying of jealously, that was a smooth af plug lol, gotta admit.
@@Jaryism Utterly gross and irrelevant.
@@patrickquinlan3056 gross?
America was founded by people who were seeking religious freedom. This wasn't meant to mean you could be whatever you wished so long as it was Christian. They were from Christian dominated Europe and thus the vast majority of thought and ideas came from Christian teachings. If the founding fathers had intended America to be a Christian nation they would have said so, these were intelligent people.
lol.
No. No they weren’t.
That is a revision view of history.
@@poerava It’s true, what do you mean.
@@SuperEdge67
Let’s start with ‘America was founded’
Who are you talking about?
(It’s ok to say that we’ve just written off the indigenous peoples from this story if that’s how you see it)
@poerava
The indigenous people didn't have a nation. They were tribal and communal. So yes, America, a nation, was created by the founding members. That doesn't mean there weren't people here before.
@poerava
I'm actually a bit in disbelief you think the concept of europeans founding a nation (which is pretty obvious) to be revisionist. I don't think you know what a nation is.
Edit: apparently I dont know what a nation is in historical contexts. I mean Nation State.
Believing that there is some Creator responsible for human rights, does not make someone Christian
Which pagan god gave you rights then?
Ptah
@@UltraVioletKnight Is that an answer or are you pretending to spit?
@@SevereFamineare you serious or is this a joke because all religions and societies have a set of rights that their citizens or adherents have. You honestly believe that human rights are unique to Christianity? Can't be. Must be a joke.
@@sordidknifeparty could you answer his question tho?
"John Adams mentioned Christianity"
Are you referring to President John Adams who signed the Treaty of Tripoli? I'd suggest you read Article 11 😂
John Adams also had a particular definition of "Christianity." He bitterly rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Some folks would argue that in doing so that took him "out" of "mere Christianity." And that his religious system was "something else."
They discussed this in depth in the original conversation, but to summarize: they had good reason to deceive the Islamic pirates into thinking America wasn’t very Christian. Because Muslims are commanded to subjugate Christians and Jews wherever they find them, it would be wise to downplay the role of Christianity in a treaty with Muslims. Ultimately, the treaty of Tripoli proves nothing.
As Knowles said, it's almost like the US had a motive for appearing as un-Christian as possible to appease Muslim Barbary pirates by writing the US "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen". Hmm I wonder what possible rationale the US had for this framing....
I and so glad Alex is finally debating the daily wire cast
Michael is quite intelligent and well-spoken - obviously so is Alex. Michael also has a sense of wit to him. I disagree with virtually everything he posits re: blending faith and politics, while maintaining he's mostly correct politically. Really loved this conversation, and so appreciate Alex for bringing all sides on to his podcast.
We haven't had a charming Brit who argues with everybody since Christopher "up with which, I will not put" Hitchens
Daily "Jewish" Wire*
I love how people say “we have to go back to the beginning,” in this case citing the beliefs of the pilgrims, and then cite “in god we trust” and the pledge of allegiance as similar evidence when those were not introduced until the 20th century during the red scare as a reactionary measure. They are not originalist at all.
He mentioned that incidentally. It is ancillary to the point he was making.
Let's not look at what Thomas Jefferson said in a private letter. Instead, let's look at what John Adams said in private writings!
An important note about Thomas Jefferson. He has, at his direction, only three items on his tombstone in regard to his life's accomplishments. Two of these are writing the Declaration of Independence and founding of the University of Virginia. The third is his authorship of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, which was the basis for the First Amendment Establishment Clause and very clearly defined the idea of separation of church and state in Virginia in 1777.
James Madison was a strong supporter of this bill, which finally passed in 1786 after a proposed law for "teachers of the Christian religion" was put on the floor and vehemently opposed by Jefferson and Madison. So, this is the author of the Declaration of Independence in Jefferson and the primary writer of the Constitution in Madison both strongly pushing this concept. Seems like a pretty ringing endorsement of the separation of church and state.
In America, you are free to practice whatever religion you'd like to or you're free to not practice any religion at all.And that's the way it should remain.
Why does it seem like this is just not good enough for some American religious practitioners?
Practitioners by the way who are definitely afraid of any other religion infecting our government other than their own.
Probably because as the number of faith practitioners decreases, the number of people that believe in their imaginary friend becomes the minority and they start to feel a little stupid and it’s easier to digest when EVERYONE around you is ALSO delusional
Because we have brains and can understand cause, effect and history. Other religions have some abominable figures in their reverence - Mohammad is evil and so is Allah. Jesus is perfect in every way.
That's a great answer to an argument nobody made or is making...
Yes because the west has lost its marbles. If you look over at Academia and Europe, we have lost our ways. We are letting backward and 7th century barbarians taking over our societies, countries, and compromising our principles..we need to get back to what made us great which are Christianity and the enlightenment!! On one hand, we want to give rights to every and anybody while at the same time importing people who want to take these rights away and turn us back into the 7th century
Because they want to force you to believe the same thing.
This was a good conversation. Glad you both agreed to it.
Michael Knowles forgets that the Europeans are Romans first, and have been Romans far longer than they have been Christians. The Romans valued religious liberty, and so did the Founding Fathers. The exodus of many early immigrants escaping religious persecution was not lost on them. The presumption of innocence unless guilt is proven is clearly anti-Judaic.
Anytime I hear "Judeo-Christian" culture, my mind just corrects them to "Greco-Roman", with an eyeroll
@@SpikeTFA, Exactly. People forget that Saint Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, clearly stated that the Old Testament is obsolete and ready to vanish.
@@pmaitrasm very good point
You forgot that the early immigrants were strictly religious puritans who came to practice their religion freely, not to be free of religion.
@@ollikoskiniemi6221, Strictly religious from one angle is heretical from another.
John Adams also said “The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion."
That was in a letter signed to Muslim Barbary pirates to end a war. Now why do you think they would write the US "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen"??
Michael doesn’t want to recognize a “Brit” founding father but a bunch of Brits that came over on a boat that had nothing o do with the revolution
You need help
🤦♂️ man understanding has gone down hill
It was a joke, homes. Lighten up.
"I'm a cigar salesman" is Michael's academic credential.
he went to yale lmao
He went to an ivy league school
Credentials do not matter much, matters if you are actually educated
@@ricardogarcia-vi6hv But it's YALE.
Who cares about academic credentials? That's the best argument you got? Weak
I'm a Christian and I'd prefer the company of Alex over Knowles all day long.
I couldn’t agree with you more!
Nothing against Alex, but Knowles always comes off as a really genuine guy who I think I could get along with despite our differing views 🤷♂️
Why?
@@gideondavid30 his humility
@sudokode I think that's fair enough but I interpret the personalities in a totally opposite way.
The 1st amend had more to do with the govt not establishing a government church. Basically a separation of any religious ideology and the govt period.
Typical Knowles, asked a straightforward question, kind of answers 5 other questions while mentally flailing. Seems out of his depth when Shapiros not there in his corner
Of course culture and law aren't totally distinct. Essentially anything in our country which is a law is going to be a part of our culture. That said the reverse is not true, just because the thing is a part of our culture doesn't mean it's a part of our laws. This is a country that enjoys watching satirical cartoons, does that mean it's part of the law?
USA is secular but usa citizens are... not
Some are, some aren't. Obviously.
@@ricardocimathe majority is in fact Christian.
@@DoctorTaco20 and so…?
@@ricardocima right back at yah… what was the point of your comment? You even said obviously.. if it’s obvious, why do you need to say it?
To be fair a lot of “religious” Americans hardly even participate in their religion, only going to church a few times per year. In my mind, those people barely count.
Ugh. Winthrop did not declare that America would be a shining city on a hill. He used the phrase "as a city upon a hill" referring to their new community, i.e., Boston. Reagan added the word shining, and politicians have been repeating that error ever since.
Catholic here. When Christians call America a "shining city on a hill," it irks me because that shining city is supposed to be the Church, not any nation. I fear too many Christians have turned the U.S.A into their "church," with the Constitution and Declaration as their Bible, and the Founding Fathers have replaced the Church Fathers.
all founding fathers were british
Racist much?
@10:12 the way he suppressed his laughter😅
Where's the full interview?
ruclips.net/video/p0x2iDjfW3g/видео.htmlsi=Sk_ceznAfq7T_xLZ
Christian arrogance annoys me.
The problem I've noticed with Americans seems to be they argue over whether the country was _meant_ to be secular or not.
My thought is...who cares? Who cares what some founders wanted? How about what YOU, the people of today, want?
That, exactly, is the problem. Trump voters DO NOT want what the founders wanted. They want sharia law.
I honestly don't understand why we even need to have these conversations. If the founding fathers had intended for this country to be a Christian nation, and had intended Christian ethics to be enshrined in law, they would have said so. There was literally nothing stopping them from saying so if they wanted to, and they chose not to, and perhaps even more to the point they explicitly excluded religious consideration from the law. Why this is a debate I just will never know
It's a debate because people want to constantly revise history in order to push their narrative.
Probably because for the last thousand years Christian morality WAS MORALITY. They clearly did enshrine Christian ethics into law and the constitution.
You can quite literally say the same thing for anything? Why didn’t they enshrine the ethics of why free speech as a moral good? They didn’t because it is assumed. The reason free speech is important to them is because of Protestant history and the Protestant concept of the personal relationship with god.
They did say so... "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Other founding fathers echoed similar sentiments. The idea the Constitution is devoid of moral and religious underpinnings is wrong. The Declaration of independence states it flat out... "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..."
The danger we face as a nation is the notion by both believers and non-believers that somehow the Constitution can survive the atheistic moral relativism our society has so ardently embraced. History acquaints us quite well with those who have tried.
@@taylordl28None of those windowdressing statements means the Founders wanted the states to be ran according to biblical law.
You are trying to separate America from its context. It is the typical hustle of people pushing narratives, where the only facts to be considered are those convenient to the current thing.
The behavior of the citizenry defines the character of a country. If someone were to allege America were a murderous country, or a debauched country, it would be no rebuttal to say, "I don't see anything to indicate as much in its founding documents."
I hope Michael Knowles understands when he talks about Christianity early on in the history of the USA, the Christianity was primarily the Calvinists, Reformed. Knowles as a Catholic should know the Protestants even created laws in various states to ban creation of Catholic parishes. So when he talks about America being a Christian nation...a Protestant Calvinist nation?
so this guy is trying to make the case that his ancestors arrived on the mayflower. really?
Thomas Paine was a founding father Michael
Sorry to break it to you Michael but countries don't have souls.
Neither do people, btw.
Countries are built of the people who create them. These people have common ideals and worldviews that can be called the soul of the nation. I feel like you're denying this only because you must disagree with everything and anything that Michael says before he even says it.
@@peterp-a-n4743 probably not yeah
@@KevinSmile There have been times I have shared opinions with Knowles, I even shared one (just one) with Thatcher. The people who make up a country are not a homogenous lump of unified ideas and culture. The USA in particular, while founded by dissenters, Quakers and Puritans (who all disagreed with each other) has long been home to immigrants from all over the world with all their own beliefs and disbeliefs. "E Pluribus Unum" and all that.
@@peterp-a-n4743Well, certain philosopers contradict you.
How can Thomas Paine be the leader of the revolution if he didn’t even sign the Declaration of Independence.
Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" not only attracted public support for the Revolution but put the rebellion's leaders under pressure to declare independence. He got the ball rolling, so to speak. Even after the victory over the British, Paine’s influence persisted, and some of his ideas found their way into the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
So far the US is secular. If that ever changes, I am out of here. ;-)
Standard american history myth
Not really
Standard America-hating atheistic revisions...
Standard Leftist cognitive dissonance with unfavorable facts.
Isn’t Michael Knowles Catholic? I find it hard to believe that his ancestors would be on the mayflower….given that they weren’t Catholic…
Prostestants and Catholics hooked up even in those times. People also change churches and become atheist.
@@TravelerAlexander I understand that…it just seems kind of unlikely given that Protestants and Catholics did not get along at all during that time. Protestants were scared when JFK was elected president because they feared that the Catholic Church would influence his governing. I also think Michael is just…ya know…making it up.
You’ll be shocked, but many people convert to the Catholic faith from protestantism.
Also your comment seems to imply the mayflower was filled with Catholics, which is just historically laughable. These were protestants through and through.
@@SevereFamine I didn’t mean to imply it was filled with Catholics, I meant the other way around. Sure people have converted from being Protestant to Catholicism. But the rates are really low.
@@wadeflores6978the rates are pretty high right now, many Protestants are converting to Rome or Orthodoxy, but to the point of your initial comment, I don’t think Michael’s family has necessarily been Catholic for the last 404 years, even if he is today.
Christianity is dying in the US, as it is in other modern countries. The proportion of the US population identifying as Christian has dropped from 90% in 1990 to 63% in 2022. A drop of about 1% per year, every year. And it seems the rate of decline is accelerating as churches shut down and older, heavily indoctrinated generations die out.
Can't happen soon enough. I was brought up having to learn all that BS.
Alex is so 2nd in charge of the Death Star and Yoda goes to Knowles: ‘The force is strong with you’
Michael Knowles has said some of the most racist and dumb stuff I’ve ever heard.
Here here. He’s not a nice guy.
racist?
Can't comment on the racist aspect, but he's definitely said indoctrinated, stupid stuff. I'm a Christian and a voluntaryist, and he's been wrong on a lot of things.
@@litigioussociety4249
The Daily Wire, of which Michael is a part of, is a cesspit of misogyny, racism, transphobia and homophobia.
Name one.
get more conservatives on. good for debate. maybe your crowd can listen and not complain and vice versa
Seriously. This entire comment section is a bunch of iPhone addicts “dunking” on Michael Knowles, who is far smarter than all of them.
@@cloud1stclass372
Knowles has less intelligence than a dirty teabag.
This is not a fair match. O'Connor can run rings around him. Knowles needs a certain sort of audience...
Michael back tracks a lot in this debate. He is very smooth wirh cherry picking a lot of hid information then trying to disregard a lot
I'm sorry michael, am I confused? Weren't all the founding fathers British, or at least from right around that area? I mean, definitionally, before the United States was founded the Americas where they lived were british, which would mean definitionally that all of the people who live there were British. Maybe I've missed something
Many of the Founding Fathers were born and raised in America as British citizens. Imagine a Hawaiian U.S. Citizen (who’s never been to the mainland) revolting against Washington D.C. and declaring Hawaii independent. The founding fathers rejected their British citizenship when they declared independence. Not all of them were British necessarily as colonists from other countries were present as well (e.g. Marquis de Lafayette was French). ❤️🔥
Love this. Surprised that someone as intellectually limited as Knowles wanted to discuss anything with someone as smart as Alex but fair play to him for doing so.
Great point 😂
Lol! Atheist liberals and your faux intellectuals.
Or someone debating someone whose beliefs hold closer to yours. Got it.
@@Woog87 It is certainly true that we have confirmation bias. We all suffer from that but all you can do is read and watch and experience as much of life as possible and try to stay open minded. I try my best to do this. I have lived in 5 different countries, travelled large parts of the world, read all the major religious texts, and I don't identify with any of this ridiculous right, left dichotomy that the media tries to conveinetly drop us into. Therefore, in my opinion and it is ok to have one, Alex is a lot smarter than Knowles. Your counter argument to that would be?
@@Woog87 You're missing the point. If you think Michael Knowles is Alex O'Connor's intellectual equal, you're not very discerning.
Why speak to a cigar salesman about religion ?
Read the Mayflower Compact. The separatists who came over came over with Geneva Bibles who were Calvinists.
Over 40 founding forefathers held seminary degrees and each state had its own Constitution before 1776 that was thoroughly Christian. Their idea wasnt a hodgepodge of various religions represently, but Christianity. They knew if Gods blessing was upon them that they could not fail.
Dude is dangerous. By the way he answered the first question , he would turn this country into a Christian theocracy if he could. People seem to forget that Europe has tried that for most of its past and all it produced was religious wars within Christianity and with other religions like the Cathars and Islam. At its height it gave us the Dark Ages.
The fathers understood this. At the beginning, there were states in the US where you couldn't work if you weren't catholic; and in others, if you're weren't Protestant. Once everyone admits they believe in God ( even a Christian one), the conflict always quickly moves to -how you believe,ie what kind of doctrines and rituals do you believe in.
The US , by his founding fathers and founding legal documents wasn't a Christian Nation. And even if it were, it doesn't mean it would have been good for it to remain so.
Dark ages? Europe a theocracy? Tell me you know nothing of history without knowing nothing of history.
@@lastnamefirstname850I’m not sure what your problem is, but it’s a pretty well known part of European history. We had the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches endowing our kings with the divine right of ruling over the masses, as such dictatorships sanctioned by the Church. We had the Spanish Inquisition violently enforcing Christianity and punishing any perceived heresy with confiscation of property, torture and/or death, and most European kingdoms had severe penalties for heresy. We had a series of brutal religious wars between Catholics and Protestants. Heck, the Thirty Years' War is considered to be one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European history.
@@El3ctr0Lun4 Yeah, looks like this guy doesn't know his history. It's often the case that religious people have no idea how destructive their religions have been.
@@lastnamefirstname850, Ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire? Ever heard of the terms Bishopric, Diocese, Parish, etc.?
@@MrSidney9 Nice of you to jump to conclusions,but you are mistaken. Try again.
Thanks, Alex, He needed this 1.0 Political Science crash course.
And Alex needs a Metaphysics crash course. 😂
@@martam4142 care to explain why?
? Knowles obliterated him what are you talking about
@@nkoppa5332 so tell me, what would change in terms of the law if Mr. Knowles would have his way and implement his “christian nationalism”?
@@ricardocima it depends who you ask, Christian nationalism would look pretty close to modern laws, since American law is mostly based on the sensibilities of a 90% Christian population up until 1960s. So maybe laws prior to 1960s, no pornography, no gay marriage etx
Loved this, thank you for putting him on the spot. He wasn't "bad" but the weird ine camera change in the middle of his last defense was definitely odd.
Oh dear. Micheal quite frankly is just not smart enough. He recited his lines, got a push back, his brain blocked. He and Matt Walsh are just so not charismatic and pseudo intellectual. Quite frankly the only person in this awful media who is intelligent enough to debate such complicated matters is Ben Shapiro. And I assume many people here watched the debate - he wasn't exactly picking Alex appart. These Daily wire guys just have their assigned script, one gets to be an anti gay gay, the other is anti trans, this one is just evangelical Christian, then we had the anti black black woman. And they just know a bunch of pre defined talking points and just regurgitate them on repeat.
To say a Yale graduate isn’t smart is kinda silly. He didn’t stumble at all, he just gave his opinions. If you disagree with someone’s opinions, it doesn’t make them “not smart.” I would agree with you that at times they seem like they are reading from a script, but that’s just because they have to tread carefully to not have their platform canceled by woke culture.
You people are obsessed with sexual perversion. All that blathering to come back around to bizarre sexual activities and fetishes. SMH.
WoW WoW WoW... assertions, personal attacks, YT comment psycho analysis....must be a leftist assaulted by disagreement! "quite frankly is just not smart enough" "not charismatic and pseudo intellectual"...I feel like these are things you say into the mirror....All Daily Wire guys have a larger following that Alex (except the 60 year old Andrew Klavan), all more fun and charismatic that Alex, smarter than Alex without a single Theology degree among them....
You (and any lefty): "These people hold views that I disagree with so they're all bad people"
I'll stop there, don't want to subject you to much reading...
@@DoctorTaco20 don't worry- the Yale graduate and successful commentator is not smart. The smartest guy here is the guy in the youtube comments who says how not smart the smart guy is
What was the justification given for concluding Thomas Paine wasn’t Christian? I ask because it seems most atheists don’t actually understand what Christianity is or what it’s supposed to be.
He believed In God but absolutely rejected Christianity. Please see his work The Age of Reason. I also enjoy Robert Green ingersol's writings about Paine.
@@TheGreatAgnostic how does one believe in God, but reject Christianity?
@yelnatsch517 seriously? Christian God is the only ah? You can't be this confused
@@Dan16673 in this context, Christianity refers to religion in general. I think you are the one who is confused. The discussion at hand is literally about the religiosity of the founding fathers. 🤦🏻♂️
@@yelnatsch517 doesn't explain why you asked how one can be a deist yet reject Christianity
All of the founding fathers were British!!! They were all British citizens! Additionally the colony of Virginia was founded 13-14 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth and it was founded for purely capitalistic reasons. No religious society was foreseen in Virginia. The Massachusetts colony was so wrong that people were either banished or left for Rhode Island which was founded on the philosophy of total Religious Freedom! The Puritan society died out and partially returned in the Great Awakening which brought it back for a short time and later 'Great Awakenings' pop up throughout the history. Knowles is an F'ing charlatan and talking out of his rear-end!
Crazy watching a patriot like Knowles get schooled in basic US history by a british guy
Knowles is a goblin grifter
@@theslyngl trying to hop on the goblin bandwagon while it's still rolling. Should have stuck with acting
@@johnfauxnom4221 his acting was terrible tho
Never has one man said so much, and so little at the same time.
Learn some english
Alex is a hottie.
Nope. He looks permanently stoned.
@@martam4142and? Still 😻
He's a cutie. Plus, that British accent.
I mean... it's pretty obvious we're a mostly a "nominally" Christian nation, in past and (although declining a lot, thanks Left..) currently. out of 350 million Americans, we're like 75% identifying some Christian denomination, with like 2% Islam and small % of other beliefs, look, people might not like it but it's self-evident when there's a church on every corner a mile apart in all cities and suburbs, and most other parts of the world are either entirely Muslim or secular like China.
I suppose that depends how strict you are with asigning the term Christian, American Christianity is so unbelievably diverse and unique in case by case, its so easy to find people who describe themselves as Christian, that doesn't mean they are by your standard,
Infact the most common defense of religious extremism is saying "they say they do it for god but they aren't real Christians" so even the people most vested to believe that figure would disagree,
I come from a place where there are 10 churches per shopping centre, (a remnant of colonialism) but I absolutely wouldn't use that as a reason to claim my country should be adopting authoritarian practices that favour Christians over any other belief group,
When people make the argument that America is a Christian country they are making a prescriptive (describing how it should be) statement not a descriptive (saying how things are) statement, it's not about describing the majority religious group in the country but giving those that say they represent that group authority to force others to behave like that group.
@@itsdodger1176 Hence the word "nominally" Christian. There's basic tenants that most Protestants and Catholics believe.
And no, definitely descriptively Christian nation, it's inherently Christian BECAUSE there's churches every square mile and like 80% of the country claims to be that thing. You'd think the same if statistically 80% of the nation claimed to be vegan, you wouldn't go "well some of those don't eat eggs and some do" and meta it, you'd confidently say that their self attesting evidence is enough.
@@Jaryism Saying a country is vegan for that reason is a descriptive statement, its not made with the motivation of using that logic to ban all meat for the rest of the country, (that would be a prescriptive statement) which is very much why people make the argument that America is a Christian nation,
It's not to describe the majority religion of the population, it's too claim the most extreme people within that religion have an authority to legislate there personal beliefs on the country,
You no doubt understand this fact, if you wanted to describe the religious tendency of America you would say, a majority of Americans identify as a type of Christian denomination, but America itself is secular (infact the first secular democracy in the world).
We are very much talking about two different things that are usually conflated, the sanctioning or preference of the state to one religion (example england is Christian because its head of state is also the head of the church), and the amount of people who identify as that religion.
That number has fallen to 68% of Americans identifying as some kind of Christian denomination and it continues to fall. Regardless, this doesn't mean that the country was founded on Christianity, or that Christianity should take priority over all other religions. It's like saying we're a "caucasian country" because 71% of the population identify as white, which is absurd. We are a country for everyone.
People are free to worship whatever god they choose or embrace whatever religious beliefs work for them. However, the right to freely exercise one's religion ends where the rights of others begin.
Our Constitution is certainly secular. No mention of God or Jesus. Where religion is mentioned it is certainly not pro, but con.
A poet including the phrase In God We Trust in a poem does not indicate the feeling of all people in the country, nor does it reflect the laws which have been legislated in that country
America is a Christian nation. America is not a government, it’s a people. The idea of separating church and state assumed the goverment would remain small and it originally only applied to the Federal Government only. It was always just a slogan and the idea of separation of church and state was never fully realized in the first amendment, it’s not the legal or American standard. We have the freedom of religion, not separation between church and state and state.
The separation between church and state is necessary for the survival of both. They cannot be allowed to influence each other.
Calling America a Christian nation because a majority of the people are Christian is like calling America a white nation. Is that really the standard we’re using?
The First Amendment is part of the foundational governing documents of this nation. It is the law. By definition it is legal. You are full of it. Keep religion out of government.
@@sorgeelenchus Well, sure. Yeah. America was a white nation. Americas founding was created as a white nation. Do those words bother you?
Now it’s not. Things change. That’s the point. Continuously holding up the false narrative that the founders didn’t intend this to be a Christian country is simply false, but things change. Other people took the reins of power and they changed this country in a way the founding fathers wouldn’t have wanted. That’s all a want people to admit.
What American libertarians say politics is separate of culture? Name them.
And why does it even matter? Not sure why he even mentioned libertarians. They're a fringe group
limey is it!!! yank then is in order. ok cool.. Yank!!!
So much ignorance in the video and the comments section. Supreme Court already decided this-
Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, 1892-
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457"
That's the law.
You are correct. Justice Brewer did deliver that opinion; however, it was in context of the specific case. It no way does it impact the current legal framework that emphasizes religious neutrality.
P.S. Mentioning "ignorance" of others isn't becoming, particularly when the ignorance does not exist.
@GaryLutchansky It's a precedent that is still in effect. As far as "the current legal framework" goes, it's pretty obvious the framework is fluid. All it takes is a change at the highest court.
@@GaryLutchansky As far as "ignorance" goes, if you're asking the question and not even referring to a Supreme Court decision that is still law and explicitly answers the question, I can only assume you don't know about it.
@@controlclerk Isn't Brewer's statement just a notable historical observation? If so, then this observation carries no legal authority. The case at hand certainly did not have anything to do with regards to "a Christian nation". Why did you bring it up?
I would like to know if I'm incorrect. I'll update my knowledge if you share information that contradicts mine. Thank you.
@GaryLutchansky It's the justification behind the decision. There was no exemption in the statute for priests.
Seems odd that someone who clearly is not a Christian, is , advertising Christianity, or cigar's?
'Your greed will stain your soul with the stench of ruin '
Probably gives it to charity, just like Peter...
(Cancer research) I've gone too far too early, again.
Both him and Dennis Prager love drinking and cigars. I agree... it's odd! Prager even denies cancer being connected to cigars and has encouraged his kids to smoke cigars. I thought they were the fact-based group?
Michael is not a Christian?
@@b.melakail I know. Thanks for reminding me though. Have a good day. x
@@b.melakail
If you read ancient Greek, you would know too.
If ...
@longshotkdb oh ok so if I read ancient Greek I would know Michael is not a Christian?
I was about to buy some cigars until I heard him say “an historic”
Ahah. The common error in English
Alex is the man ! ❤
Secular is the only way a modern society can work
a) all religions that claim eternal truth claim this without having any foundation that is provable - this is a problem
b) because not having a foundation that can be tested makes it impossible to have a common ground - this is the difference to logic or science. We can all discuss how the results were gathered and what it mean but in logic and science we can discuss it because test and results will be the same for everyone
c) So religion is a pure personal experience which leads to the problem that any rule based on religion can only be implemented by force because it leaves no room for discussion or adaptation
d) which leads to totalitarian regimes or ideologies that's why right-wing politicians who have Christianity as a basis for their principles tend to love fascism
That is why a Secular state is absolutely necessary and all religions should be seen as in it's nature and structure subversive and dangerous.
On the other hand, I ones own belief that is kept by yourself is no problem.
I disagree. I believe it is fundamentally that the vice of skepticism is what divides society to the point of pitting brother against brother. Skepticism in excess leads to pessimism,cynicism,and general misanthropy. Whether it is skepticism of organized religion,Jews, Kulaks, the aristocracy, the rich, and foreigners it is always used as a vice and is responsible for the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. It is faith that unites a nation not skepticism. A peaceful Nation must have a unified cogent understanding of meaning and faith. Faith is perhaps the greatest virtue a nation could have
I disagree. I believe it is fundamentally that the vice of skepticism is what divides society to the point of pitting brother against brother. Skepticism in excess leads to pessimism,cynicism,and general misanthropy. Whether it is skepticism of organized religion,Jews, Kulaks, the aristocracy, the rich, and foreigners it is always used as a vice and is responsible for the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. It is faith that unites a nation not skepticism. A peaceful Nation must have a unified cogent understanding of meaning and faith. Faith is perhaps the greatest virtue a nation could have
I should also stipulate what I mean by skepticism to avoid confusion.I believe skepticism isn't merely a matter of Bayesian statistical probability or an appeal to abductive reasoning, as many might suggest. Instead, it should be understood as a mode of being in relation to something or a proposition, much like being pious, content, or hedonistic. Systems of skepticism, such as Pyrrhonian skepticism, are more akin to appeals to virtue within a framework, similar to Taoism or Stoicism, with this virtue being ataraxia (tranquility). It's one thing to assert that certain things are knowable and certain, but another to claim that only those things should be believed. This appeal often hinges on the notion that it's virtuous to believe these things, much like it's considered virtuous to adhere to any system's dogma. This is evident in the fact that skepticism can be applied to various seemingly arbitrary domains-ranging from solipsism to skepticism towards organized religion and state media.
I argue that skepticism should be seen as neither rational nor irrational, but arrational. In fact, I would go so far as to say that skepticism is a vice rather than a virtue, as it fosters cynical attitudes, pessimism, disgust, and hatred towards certain things, potentially encouraging demagoguery and other vices. Therefore, I believe that attempts to appeal to skepticism as a point of reason should be dismissed for these reasons.
I should also stipulate. Firstly, I am mostly referring to your appeal to skepticism in your own reasoning. Secondly, I don’t think the terms skeptic and atheist are interchangeable. Obviously, you can be an atheist without being a skeptic. An atheist, for example, might say that the supernatural and the natural are in contradiction, therefore rejecting the supernatural without any appeal to skepticism. What I am saying is that most mobilized uses of atheism, especially as a foundation of doctrine and government, heavily appeal to skepticism
(You Tube seems to be hiding my other comments so I compiled them all here )
I disagree. I believe it is fundamentally that the vice of skepticism is what divides society to the point of pitting brother against brother. Skepticism in excess leads to pessimism,cynicism,and general misanthropy. Whether it is skepticism of organized religion,Jews, Kulaks, the aristocracy, the rich, and foreigners it is always used as a vice and is responsible for the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. It is faith that unites a nation not skepticism. A peaceful nation must have a unified cogent understanding of meaning and faith. Faith is perhaps the greatest virtue a nation could have.
I should also stipulate what I mean by skepticism to avoid confusion.I believe skepticism isn't merely a matter of Bayesian statistical probability or an appeal to abductive reasoning, as many might suggest. Instead, it should be understood as a mode of being in relation to something or a proposition, much like being pious, content, or hedonistic. Systems of skepticism, such as Pyrrhonian skepticism, are more akin to appeals to virtue within a framework, similar to Taoism or Stoicism, with this virtue being ataraxia (tranquility). It's one thing to assert that certain things are knowable and certain, but another to claim that only those things should be believed. This appeal often hinges on the notion that it's virtuous to believe these things, much like it's considered virtuous to adhere to any system's dogma. This is evident in the fact that skepticism can be applied to various seemingly arbitrary domains-ranging from solipsism to skepticism towards organized religion and state media.
I argue that skepticism should be seen as neither rational nor irrational, but arrational. In fact, I would go so far as to say that skepticism is a vice rather than a virtue, as it fosters cynical attitudes, pessimism, disgust, and hatred towards certain things, potentially encouraging demagoguery and other vices. Therefore, I believe that attempts to appeal to skepticism as a point of reason should be dismissed for these reasons.
I should also stipulate. Firstly, I am mostly referring to your appeal to skepticism in your own reasoning. Secondly, I don’t think the terms skeptic and atheist are interchangeable. Obviously, you can be an atheist without being a skeptic. An atheist, for example, might say that the supernatural and the natural are in contradiction, therefore rejecting the supernatural without any appeal to skepticism. What I am saying is that most mobilized uses of atheism, especially as a foundation of doctrine and government, heavily appeal to skepticism.
(You Tube is really out for my comments, these are compiled version my attempts at posting these comments )
@@photonaut_8875 The problem of faith is that you have no foundation at all.
If you don't have a foundation that both sides have a common ground the only way you can implement rules everybody should obey by it is by tyranny and force.
With science and logic, you can always discuss about outcome and what you want to have.
There is nothing that gives religion a foundation. Which only ever can lead to totalitarianism.
Furhtermore, because believers think they have something that is above everything they are ideologues which means they think they can justify every even evil action cause they work for a higher purpose.
Religion is a catastrophic foundation to build your state on.
@@photonaut_8875 Don't seem my answer was pasted and your first part you have deleted it again. So I repast
Religion is a bad foundation
As explained it has nothing for both sides to have a common ground cause it is pure personal interpretation. Which at the end only leaves force as the only way you can imply rules based on it.
With science and logic both sides can talk about it find common ground and principles.
Even worse all religious people can be ideologues which makes them dangerous. Because they believe of something higher than everything else they could start to believe that every action may be justified no matter how evil - cause they work for a higher "calling". This you have with fundamentalists.
A state that has it's foundation on science and logic can always be put into questions for its actions and needs to justify them. Religion claims it is right without justification.
I am not a believer anymore, but I really like Michael Knowles. I think he is a very reasonable religious person
Religion is the opposite of reason. The belief in Adult Santa requires a complete abolishment of reason.
@@lepidoptera9337 Yes and no. It is not that easy. Yes, religion seems silly. But in my life, the very best people I have met are people who are devout in their beliefs and while you may look down upon them for 'abolishing reason', for what they lack in 'reason', they massively make up for in their humanity, generosity, respect, how they raise their family, etc.
Now, I am non comparing 'pretend' Christians, many of who go to megachurches and do anything but live a 'Christian' life. Many so-called 'christians' are hypocrites and the worst kinds of people. I am talking about the old-fashioned people who genuinely believe in what they think and walk the walk with how the treat people, etc.
I am not a 'believer'. But I understand when it comes to this realm of humanity, most of humanity needs something other than themselves and materialism to consider in order to focus and understand what is really important in life to live a happy and fulfilling life, in overwhelming cases, I see religion as a good thing for them to help guide them.
Again, this is based on my vast experiences of humanity, where a lot of 'intellects' and 'amateur philosophers' are not very good people, but simple religious people, not necessarily the brightest, are very, very happy people and would help anyone in need
if he wants to be accurate-- native americans were here and they werent christian
1:49 shameless advertising.
Felt to me like it was both fluid with the conversation and relevant. Not sure where the ‘shameless’ comes in. Perhaps you’d prefer if no one ever advertised their own products and instead kept any entrepreneurial behavior inside where it can’t hurt you? Grow up
Don't insult someone if you expect to have a real conversation.
@@THG1995 The issue for me is the vitriol in your comment without explanation. You can’t just insult someone as shameless because you either don’t agree with them or do know them enough. Perhaps I could have been less aggressive for sure but, you were just as quick to insult a man you likely never watch. I imagine you’re more of an Alex O’Connor subscriber which would explain the perception of Michael’s comment as shameless. I very well could be wrong in your consumption of Knowles content though
Shameless comment 🤦🏻♂️
"The United States of America‘s founding documents are secular. if you don‘t know that, you don‘t know anything." - Christopher Hitchens
Hitch would have devoured Knowles here.
No they weren't? Look at state constitutions, look at the declaration of Independence, look at the federalist papers which are used as evidence in judicial rulings today.
Declaration references a vague God of nature. A deistic nod. The Federalist Papers are essays that include personal opinions written in the tradition of the time, and the references to God aren't any kind of Government directive.
The founding fathers were primarily, and foremost, secularists. Sparse, ceremonial references to a vague God outside of the Constitution don't change the fact that our founding documents are secular.
@@TAOSCIENCE No they weren't, that's why they talk about atheism as a scourge. That's why they promote state religions at the level of states. That's why they say it's impossible to have a good government without the grace of God. It's funny how you'll believe an absence of more explicit references to God is indicative of them being secularist. But when they say they clearly are not secularists in documents that are explicitly meant to promote the adoption of the constitution, you'll say "well, that was the tradition at the time". Perhaps consider, they believed in the religious traditions of their time. Most of the founders weren't deists, they were traditionally Christian.
America is objectively a secular country like most around the world. But it's always been culturally christian.
Especially during the many years where we had chattel slavery and women were forbidden from voting. That was Christian culture.
No. Why is it a morality based on anything. Let’s just be scientific. Your assumption is a foolish one. Name something that has functional complexity that hasn’t been formulated by a rational mind.
God bless Michael Knowles.
Wich god ?
And why ?
@@dodumichalcevskithe God who created all things, and beside whom not a single thing was created that was not created by and through and for Him. Because He is, and He made us and has revealed Himself to us in the person of His Son, Jesus. And has redeemed the world by His cross.
@@SevereFamine
Amazing fairytale
@@dodumichalcevski It happens to be the truth!
@@SevereFamine evidence?
*plugs cheap cigars mid argument. no shame.
*shows his ambitious, witty, entrepreneurial side in a fun and joking manner that both plugs his product and entertains without destroying the conversation*
-No shame, Christian man bad
Cmon guy, not allowed to joke or promote his own goods? Your envy is showing
SO some people basically stole a country 300 years ago.., and anyone who moved here, or was born here afterword is outa luck as far as having any input?
You realize that's the entire story of human history. We originated in Africa(Currently in dispute) if that's the case then we conquered and colonized the entire world to the same outcome.
@@alexanderwilliamson7431 Yeah, and in that context, you realize that there is no point in history where you can say THESE PEOPLE FOUNDED THE COUNTRY AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY HOW IT IS GOING TO BE RUN FOREVER AFTER
@@MrArdytube Yet we do. Do you have a solution?
@@alexanderwilliamson7431 yeah… lets stop pretending like we have to run the country based on the views of the pilgrims. I mean the Italians dint run the country based upon Romulus…. Greeks do not run their country based on the views of Plato, etc
@@MrArdytube Your eventually going to have to decide on a set of unified views. Otherwise the other option is anarchy. Which views are the correct ones. Yours?
My country has the head of state as the head of the church. I find it interesting that Americans are so obsessed with their past when their founders did what they did for a different future
They treated the English civil war as a warning. So many causes stemmed from the state interfering in religion
Alex has such a fantastic mind
Is Alex Knowles a part of the Daily Wire?
I think O’Connor is trying to become a part of it with all the grifters that he invites
Aquinas on human laws could do much on the burden of secularism without even trying to admit any judeochristian element.
I was never a fan of Michael Knowles' conduct. But now that I hear him lay out his thoughts more clearly, I find him unpleasant in even more ways.
Age of reason, I have to read it now, thanks Alex
11:55...
Bill of rights - Free exorcise of religion - "there will be not establishment of a/the (fudged..on purpose?) church is misunderstood - Some people take this to mean either, there can be no Church established anywhere in the US or THEY GO EVEN FURTHER AND SAY THE COUNTRY WOULD BE SECULAR, IT WOULD BE ABSENT FROM RELIGION".
Again pure fudging.
Sorry but "no establishment of the church" is WAY BIGGER than the country being secular.
One denies the church completely, it denies Christianity out right.
The other pushes the idea that the politics will not be beholden to the church and will be separate. He then he goes on to point out why the latter is what actually was meant, at least to anyone with a bit of critical thinking.
When I think of Secular I think of the STREETS OF CHICAGO, and shoplifting. Thanks for promoting that garbage Atheism. 😊
When I think of right wing Christian nationalists I think of Florida man and all the cult members supporting a convicted sexual abuser for president
When I think of Christianity, I think of the evangelicals supporting a convicted felon, liar, a guy who was found liable for sexual assault, and instigator of insurrection as a candidate for POTUS.
This should have started with “separation of church and the state” … *cough coigh* why we came to the Americas
The US is what it is not because of Christianity, but in spite of it. The fathers were deists at best. They couldn't claim to be non believers at that time unless you made use of irony in an artful way as Franklin did for instance.
Michael skipped over Roger Williams thoughts on the subject.
ole mike here is totally wrapped up in his own history, this is all pure vanity, what a joke
I wanna see u debate Andrew Wilson... and destroy him
the way he pronounces L's creeps me out
Alex. It’s easy for you to criticize and attempt to deconstruct religion. Fine. What you’re completely blind to is to offer a critique of your own beliefs BOTH on a personal AND societal-wide scale.
Until you offer something better, and scientifically prove it works, you will always be wasting your time and perpetuate your tone-deafness in this regard. Yes, this is a challenge for you.
Are you making a case for an objective morality determined by a certain god-belief/religion? If so, you must accept that there have been thousands of different gods worshipped around the world, along with countless accompanying religions and many with their own holy books they devoutly believe is the divine word of their god. Who gets to decide which one is the best? No matter how you look at it, religious beliefs and moral codes are all subjective and based on human opinions.
Alex has made the point before that we can come to a subjective agreement on what is acceptable and what is not as they pertain to human well-being. We can still make practical use of ethical statements, with a set of agreed-upon common laws and a criminal justice system supporting it. No god required. Even bees demonstrate an altruism that in any human narrative would be considered moral. And bees have been doing their thing for more than a hundred million years.
Are you coming from an objective viewpoint? I’ll wait…
@@elitemindset9581 Nice deflection, but I'm still waiting for you to answer my question- Are you making a case for an objective morality determined by a certain god-belief/religion?
As long as any religion is formally seperated from the constitution or foundation of a nation, that's all that matters. That's more likely to ensure that religions within it, no matter how stupid and archaic, are protected.
The date of the founding of our country is not an arbitrary point to begin discussing the culture of our country. Of course there are influences that came before that, but there was no country so it's not reasonable to talk about what the country was doing before it existed
It is purposefully Christ like for America to never legally establish a national religion and to allow free will. That was not by accident, nor was it to affirm the validity of any other world religion. If a nation aimed toward Christ is the goal, force would be it's antithesis. One must seek Christ to find him.
Knowles is the clown who seems to think that Christopher Hitchens is an intellectual lightweight who can be swept aside like a bug.
Dear Alex, I get the need for views and clicks, but this dude is so far below your expertise. If it’s what you gotta do to make a living, I get it; but I believe that you know this is low-hanging fruit. Hopefully you won’t have to debate these dingbats one day.
Is any country a Christian nation?
The Vatican
Master Waffler
Michael Knowles is very well versed on the subject. I’m not sure where this perspective is coming from. Anyway, I thought it was a good debate actually. Good conversation all around.