I hear this all the time... "Based on the principles of Christianity." What *_exactly_* does that even mean? Ask ten Christians, and you'll get ten different answers.
Exactly. Christianity, like all religion, has no values or principles other than "obey and spread the mindvirus to someone else if you can". If they have to butcher 10000 pagans they will, if they have to pretend to be meek and subservient they will, if they have to pretend to be progressive and modern they will. They don't have any actual principles.
Children no longer have to play the parent once their free of their control but many continue while other don't bother causing their parents to hate them from afar or adept to this stranger child that they no longer know. What child wants to socialize with a parent in earshot. Parents are a foe that must be conned until the jail door is unlocked and freedom is achieved.
Freedom of. No establishment. It's in the Bill of Rights. Americans are primarily Christian. But our government is a secular government, period. And rightfully so. Freedom of religion is fantastic. So is the establishment clause.
But can you really divorce the moral/ethical systems of the people who both created and operate the government? Would we apply the same standards to other organizations, such as Chick-Fil-A?
@@ralphietwoshoesLabelling it a “Christian nation” holds political implications that go far deeper than government officials simply holding moral assumptions that are supposedly Christian. You wouldn’t call secular humanitarian NGOs Christian just because they promote general welfare.
It is a nation of Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, etc. - not to mention that there are a thousand denominations of Christianity, which is evidence that there are at least that many ways to interpret the vague, poorly written, and contradictory holy book.
According to atheist religion which rejects free will and therefore commands atheists to embrace their animal desires instead of fighting them, How can it be evil when a grown up adult pdf file atheist bones kids? He has no free will. All he can do, is to follow his animal desires, he has no choice. In fact he is innocent and there's nothing to be ashamed about.
I think it's significant not only that they left the Christian god out of the Constitution, but also that it is written in the Declaration of Independence as "...by their creator..." rather than "by God" or "by the creator". It personalizes the belief system rather than institutionalizing it.
And then notice how at 6:48 Knowles changes the text to say "our Creator" whether unintentionally or intentionally. Either way, giving another impression of the text that isn't there.
That would be a great point if the word “God” itself wasn’t used in like 46/50 of the State Constitutions. And the other 4 all reference “the creator” or “the Supreme Being.” Pretty sure part of Knowles’ point is that a room of deists, Christians, and atheists can’t fully control how their created system can shift, and for 200 years the American creation shifted to what was decidedly Christian in culture and, to a lesser extent, law.
@@pnut3844able that's true, but at the time a significant amount of people did. Atheism is rather new, only really growing around the 1800s whereas the treaty of independence was signed in 1776, so it still makes sense that it says creator because it was kinda taken for granted. As we learn more, we realise that a lot of the things we thought were mystical where really explainable with an understanding of the world, which stopped us from requiring a god to understand the world. It may be true that America should remove the 'their creator' now, but it's hard to change those things after they happen.
@@Christopher-taysoKnowles/Daily Wire dont have billionaire funders. On the other hand, major left wing outlets (Young Turks, anyone?) most definitely are... :)
Hey Alex! This is probably the 3rd video i've seen of yours in direct dialogue to popular conservative/religious thinkers and I wanted to say I appreciate your approach and grace afforded in these conversations
@@PhysicsGuy1000 So? Politics is applied Theology like Biology is applied Chemistry. You may not realize it, but your political views are informed by your theological views. But just like a biologist can be a biologist without having to be a chemist first, a political scientist can be a political scientist without being a theologian first.
"Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."
Michael Knowles unintentionally making Seneca Lucius's point: _“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”_
For me what is more scary these days is that atheistic world views believe they are inherently free of ideology and dogma. We're more likely to sleepwalk in to catastrophe that way than we are through religion these days.
@@villefere6968 Oh no! My sides! 😂 I wonder if there's a political leader who came into power by appealing to the authoritarian nature & persecution complex found in Christianity? Hmmm. You're wrong. If a politician can pander & appeal to Christians to get their votes despite having a life time record of being unChrist-like, then exploiting those Christians to gain power was a VERY useful maneuver. Come on.
@@villefere6968read Nietzsche. The masters of a society will assimilate in slave morality as a means of greater control. Point to the celebrities for instance, who participate in charities and are well loved by the people as they further go up in wealth and power. Look at any major corporation who try really hard to appeal to the people by changing their logos into a rainbow once a year to stay relevant and attract a greater audience, and it happens on the other side to. By every metric this quote is correct
You are a better man than I, Alex O'Connor. I can imagine this convo continuing in the cigar bar where the air would literally grow toxic smoke and self-regard.. Smugness as a cologne.
Knowles using Adams as an example for how we are founded on Christian ideals is odd since he literally wrote in the treaty of Tripoli, " United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". EDIT-- You brought this point up. Good on you!
He didn’t write this. The treaty was originally written in Arabic, and Adam’s didn’t speak arabic. He did sign the document and confirmed that everything written in the treaty was true, but it’s misleading to quote him.
Which god is the one who is giving “Rights”? The founding fathers created a society that follows god. Which god? Seems obvious it is the Judeo-Christian god?
Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck. Thomas Jefferson
I'll give you almost verbatim what Knowles response to that would be: "NUH UH, that's just the silly writing of a liberal" or essentially "Yeah maybe I'm using anecdotes to prove my point, but YOU CANNOT use anecdotes to prove your point. You must adhere to a higher standard of proof than me because I am implicitly correct."
man is full of deception, lies and games believing their smarter then everybody else only to deceive themselves in the end. but woe to the destruction unleashed.
First the Declaration of Independence, then this? The revolutionaries really had a great man in Thomas Jefferson. The Conservatives have Michael Knowles lol
I think Alex is underselling the significance of the Declaration of Independence to America’s legal tradition. It is regular cited in judicial decisions.
Absolutely wonderful content. Very insightful. I'm a history student at an American university and this idea that we pick "arbitrary dates" to study the beginning of American history is so true
I don't get what he's after bringing up states establishing religion prior to the Civil War. States also inhibited free speech before the Civil War, and it's not because there wasn't a Constitutional right to free speech, but because states were not bound by constitutional rights (other than their state constitutions) until the Civil War amendments were interpreted to apply federal constitutional rights to people against their state governments. This is taught to every American law student in their first year. (I'm leaving this comment having only watched half of the video so far, so I apologize if this is addressed later).
He’s trying to deflect and distract. His argument either supports a secular US or is indifferent. States having state religions does not prohibit a national religion unless they conflict. In that case, Knowles is supporting a non-religious US.
He doesn't directly address that but it's addressed enough with the fact that he said he was talking about the inception of the country as the basis for it being a Christian nation, and therefore those amendments and interpretations don't mean anything to his argument.
For anyone outside the states, the blasphemy laws (local or state) aren't enforced and thus go unchallenged on court, and there is t much upside for legislators to nullify laws that haven't been enforced in their lifetime.
It's easily for people to not understand American jurisprudence. American jurisprudence means a lot of these old laws are unenforceable and have been unenforceable for a long time. @@Garrett1240
This comments an absolute lie, They were enforced on state levels many of times throughout the later half of the 20th century. Nulfying them removes the ability of monster who want to enforce them, that is without a doubt a benefit
Cool too see Alex becoming a real celebrity after finding him as some awkward teenager with a camera with like 50 followers. Now he's climbing the publicity ranks to Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles and Richard Dawkins and co and it's super cool to see
Alex, I doubt you read all these comments, but I think you would love this history professor Heather Cox, Richardson's book, "Democracy, Awakening" she goes over all these nuances, without ideological undertones, greatly supporting all of your points, yet at the same time, giving the Christians, their credit as well.
Michael does a good job of putting a nicely polished veneer on the insane idea that the establishment clause actually doesn’t mean what we’ve always understood it to mean.
He’s not saying it’s different than what we’ve always understood it to mean. The text is clear. He’s arguing as to why it was instituted in the first place, which is important when debating founding principles.
He filmed himself taking the Political Compass Test a few years back and it shows Knowles for the true ghoul he is. He has a veneer of coming off as having intellectual integrity, but that is absolutely not the case.
Original writing especially those by the first few justices of the supreme court, would disagree with your position, the framers of the nation were very clear on the federal government's rights
Not seeing a lot of engagement with Knowles' comments in this comment section. Did he really not say anything of substance in almost 90 mins? As far as I can tell, he believes that because the first few generations of immigrants to the future United States were for the most part Christian, that means the nation is Christian. Does he think we should promote Christianity with laws? I don't think he outright states his stance on this keystone issue that is the driver of much of the current discourse. He also uses states rights to talk around the restrictions of the federal government passing religious laws. We are not talking about New Mexico's Christian history, we are asking if the United States was founded with the intent to be a Christian Nation.
I think that is really the crux of the issue. Knowles didn't clearly define what he meant by a "Christian nation", and he argues his point based mostly by saying that a lot of early Americans were Christian and/or framed their ideas within a Christian worldview. But this isn't what most people are talking about when they ask whether the US is a Christian nation; the important question is whether its actual legal and governmental structure does (or should) preferentially support Christianity.
Right wing talki g heads like Knowles always back off their most extreme statements and beliefs when confronted in a debate because first of all, they’re cowards, but second of all, they would lose all plausible deniablility of being a respectable conservative and not a wacko who gets the Nick Fuentes treatment (ie ostracized from open fascism).
This is BS. It’s irrelevant who the first European immigrants were. By the time the US revolted, it was a mixture of many, many beliefs. That’s what the Constitution reflects. What happened before is meaningless and Knowles knows it.
I’d wager he didn’t explicitly say that current US laws should favor a Christian worldview, because that is the subtext of what he is saying. He wants the audience to draw the conclusion that because America may have been colonized by Christian peoples who brought with them their Christian culture, we are a de facto Christian nation, and the current push to legislate based on specific Christian ideas is a natural conclusion of that. All of these colonials came from explicitly Christian countries, so it’s not a surprise that they’d bring their familiar culture with them. And atheism was culturally frowned upon if not illegal in many of those places, so the likelihood that we’d have a lot of atheists populating the colonies is historically unrealistic.
This is a bastardization of Knowles' position; a Christian nation is not merely one with Christian founders and immigrants, but also one where its governmental and legal systems derive from fundamental principles of natural human rights only present (at least up until that point in history) in the Judeo-Christian ethical framework. The fact that many of the founders held vastly differing views on religion is irrelevant. The fact that less Americans today than ever before identify as Christian is also irrelevant to this definition. Perhaps Knowles should have been more specific here, but if you watch other religion debates with him, he clarifies these points. An atheist would have a difficult time justifying the existence of natural human rights (except by appealing to the categorical imperative) in the same way that a Christian or a Jew would be able to.
I think this discussion would have immensely benefitted from defining what it means to be a Christian nation. Is it about the beliefs of the founders, the leaders, or the majority of Americans? What defines what it means to be Christian (the practices, how people identify, or how people act outside of church)? Is "Christian nation" more of a legal status for the government, social status of its people, or some amalgamation of both?
I really don't think Alex is biased or uninformed about America just because he is British. I would accuse Micheal of poisoning the well with all that stuff.
Americans tend to do that, they think the rest of the world does not understand them or their history, yet they feel they know better when it comes to foreign matters.
It’s interesting that Michael cites the star spangled banner’s other verse to demonstrate his claim. If he were consistent, he would also claim that the verse about slaves and slave owners demonstrates that we’re a racist nation. Perhaps the fact that these two verses are expressly not a part of the national anthem points to the fact that we’re neither?
not really? Slavery is itself, racist elements can be interpreted ontop sure, though you could to the same extent say that America is an anti-mercantile nation because in the same verse it repudiates hirelings.
I mean I have a little bit of a quibble with that these things were created at times at the detest of some but everyone agreed with the fact that Christianity was important in America's founding at least, that is not to deny America has become more secular in some things, even more Christian in others, last 30 years pretty secular, but I'd add it's a pendulum it will swing back in the Christian direction. Although most if not all states had slavery, which would be a good point, but I would also argue that those verses about slavery aren't Christian beliefs, which is why later in we repealed slavery or emancipated the slaves. Ironically you can argue the country wasn't founded on Christianity because of this because you can say well the decisions weren't guided by Christian beliefs or in fact racist ones which isn't compatible with the Christian faith, but I'd argue the Christian beliefs revised these things. There are also prejudices developed by mere practicality by the rulers in control, this happened in very vividly Christian nations such as old Russia. There's also a debate on whether that verse talks about American slaves or British troops as some sort of metaphor so depending on the writing and based off how it's worded I'm inclined to believe it's about the British since during that time there was high tension towards the British, it was literally written during the war of 1812 after all. If it was really about African slaves then why 70 years after slavery was eradicated would they adopt it as the national anthem it just wouldn't make any sense.
Thank you Alex for hosting such a wonderful episode! And thanks to both participants for treating one another respectfully and doing their research. This was enjoyable.
It’s interesting that Michael Knowles decides to arbitrarily set the start of the United States at 1620 with the landing of the Mayflower, rather than with the establishment of the Jamestown colony which was founded more than a dozen years earlier. Jamestown is the first permanent English settlement in North America. The Jamestown colony was backed by the Virginia Company as an economic enterprise rather than an effort to escape religious persecution or to spread Christianity.
He clearly stated in that part that some people say American history starts at 1776, some say 1787, others say 1620 and you can even go back further than that.
When Michael said "I don't always neatly separate these two things" I couldn't help but think to myself "No Michael, with your track record you probably only neatly separate them when it's convenient to you"
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppableHow did you end up here? I find it hard to believe any viewer of Alex would use this silly argument. I guess we should ask how many nukes the Christian nation of the US threw?
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppablethis is such a dumb argument, how would killing millions be intrinsic to secular societies. the rest of the western world is significantly more secular (with exceptions) than America both culturally and governmentally. so why havn't they pulled the shit Mao pulled?
Hey Alex, I'm from the Mormon Belief system and I really appreciate how you as an atheist are so respectable in your conversations with people of differing beliefs. You just earned another subscriber!
Though, tbf, Knowles is slightly more known for advocating genocide against my community, so treating him like a regular interlocutor strikes me as a bit weird.
@@ChristyAbbey you’re allowed to feel like that, but in my life I’ve realized having conversations is the best way to approach these people. They tend to embarrass themselves with their own words
He never advocated for genocide against anyone. Your rhetoric is not only dangerous but also completely insensitive. I have holocaust survivors in my family, how dare you equate what Knowles has said with atrocities like the holocaust and other genocides. Shameful@@ChristyAbbey
@@ElephoontOfTheShapesThis is very much a ''playing the Nazi card''. Trans people are literally going through a genocide *right now* and especially in America. At this point it ticks multiple boxes on the 10 stages of genocide. What happened to the people in the Holocaust is horrible, but that doesn't mean that the genocide on trans people is not happening. And you can bet your ass that Knowles is a huge proponent of this genocide. Passing laws and bills that endorses and allows for the discrimination, the ''us vs. them'', dehuminazation, and persecution of trans people for just being trans, are simply acts of genocide.
32:00 ish. The Star Spangled Banner didn’t enter official use until 1889, and didn’t become the National Anthem until all the way in 1931. E Pluribus Unum, Latin for “Out of Many, One”, has a much stronger claim to the title of national motto.
@@concernedcommenter8258 he was responding to Alex saying how "In God we Trust" is a very recent edition to the American mythos, and part of his evidence was that it was in "The Star Spangled Banner", the national anthem. When you hear that you wouldn't think, unless you had prior knowledge like myself, that it dates back 20 odd years before it was added, you would think closer to 200 odd years.
I found Michael Knowles being “strategically civil”, definitely had some disingenuous digs and condescending remarks throughout the discussion. The “Limey” thing was super annoying after the 3rd time.
@@tylerparker1567civility is by its nature ‘strategic’. You know how easy it would be otherwise to just berate or even outright physically assault? It’s almost impossible to get the civility displayed in the video on something like Twitter cause people usually would rather be dumb and lazy. It’s easier.
@@tylerparker1567 Personally every time I’ve seen Michael debate someone of different views he’s very been very civil and friendly. Even tho he is quite arrogant when he’s on his own
would a Man of God just except the comfort slacking of God him self, with a tinny twist of spirit. why of all way's having to bring up things of power . all ways the plain earthly man made Scotch and cigars Idea as a what ever joke.
“We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” How the heck did you get THAT out of a statement of intention with about as much flavor as paper
You mean the Constitution that was based on John Adam's Massachusetts Constitution and not Thomas Jefferson/Madison's Virginian constitution that led to 2 dictators and were thus rejected by Congress? You mean that one? John Adams was in the select Committee with Madison and Madison even agreed to John Adams' MA constitution being the frame. Source: Gordon S. Wood's book Friends Divided: Jefferson and Adams Chapter 6.
@@ryanthomas924 Right back at ya. I am implying that "Getting back to more sense" and then saying "More sense is the cause of all human conflict" is clearly idiotic.
This was a great episode. I wasn't really sway'd one way or another but I did walk away with a lot more information. I'd love to see a follow up really challenging Michaels belief in religion.
Nope, it's not, no religion has preeminence therefore it's a secular state. That's why it's a WALL of separation, not a wall with a hole or a wall with a door.
Children no longer have to play the parent once their free of their control but many continue while other don't bother causing their parents to hate them from afar or adept to this stranger child that they no longer know.
"Contrary to conventional wisdom, Christianity has never really taken deep root in America or had any success in forming American consciousness; in its place, we have invented a kind of Orphic mystery religion of personal liberation, fecundated and sustained by a cult of Mammon." -David Bentley Hart
It's funny how Christians always label any type of Christianity they don't like as "pagan" (in this case "Orphic"). Did they ever stop to think that maybe Christianity had "pagan" influence from the beginning? Christianity was never a monolith.
@@mdaddy775 I’m not a fan of Michael particularly, but I think he’s smart. I just think he is the same as a lot of them at the daily wire - too interested with proving themselves right and protecting their standardised worldview. Him and someone like Ben Shapiro are clearly intelligent people, but they aren’t thinkers in the way I think Alex wants to be (and is). They aren’t there to think and wrestle with issues so much as they are to be political / religious commentators giving their view.
@@joek360 Honestly he (Michael) gives wonderful insight to "the other side" even if I still ultimately disagree with his preferred direction for this country. He's a bit of an ass, but he's civil and keeps his disses general instead of personal. Very entertaining to watch though, lol.
We don't need any more of Michael Knowles and his dishonesty. He's pathetic and bad faith. He's got radical ideology first and reason isn't even a close second...
yeah and it was only because we were dealing with the atheist communists in the soviet union Im pretty sure in god we trust was added to the money around then too
@@TheBenevolentDictatorship indeed, I had commented before that part, which is why I added the comment about the anthem not even being official until 1931.
@mikeekim242 No, that's not what it means. God gave man free will, with that comes freedom of religion. That's why there is no mention of religious prosecution.
The best part of this interview: 32:34 Michael says “the second battle with your country over there, which we won by the way” and Alex’s smile afterwards was hilarious. Deep down we all know Alex wanted to call him a cheeky bastard 😂
The USA failed to achieve the victory condition of conquering Canadian territory. The Canadians are too polite to remind us of that! The celebrated tactical victory at New Orleans was a battle that took place after the war was officially over. The affair was such an embarrassment for both the British and the Americans, that neither nation has been very interested in revisiting the history. Subsequent achievements in alliance are much more popular subjects.
What a great conversation... I had no idea that Alex had such a deep historical knowledge of the founding fathers and American history in general. I can understand Michael Knowles being very knowledgeable about the history of his own country but I am very impressed by Alex's knowledge of a country not of his own. It would be like Knowles talking to Alex about the British Parliamentary system of the 1800's. In fact, the more and more I watch Alex I find my self surprised on his sheer breadth of knowledge in different subjects, not just theology or philosophy where his academic expertise lie in, but quantum physics, American History, Law, etc. I suppose philosophy has something to say about each of those areas, so I shouldn't be THAT surprised that a public thinker on Alex's level would have a knowledge pool on a wide variety of subjects. Still.... Very impressed.
@@mkhosono1741 Not really. I consider myself pretty well versed in a wide variety of subjects, including American History, but I'm perfectly fine admitting that I didn't know anything about some obscure 18th century American treaty with Muslim pirates called the Treaty of Tripoli or the secular ramifications behind it. That's impressive to me that a British citizen with an academic background in Theology/Philosophy would have that kind of detailed knowledge of American History.
Then where did the ideas of how to live in harmony come from ? Its embedded in our genes? We got it from our mothers milk? What about those who were fed formula? Did you notice, that brutal and harmful cultures(from our pov) have their rules also written into the law?
It was 😁 people kicked others out of the colony for not being Christian they then banned non Christians from office blasphemy laws are in place before and after the establishment of the states the list goes on.
Mr. O'Connor - you are a patient, self-controlled man. The smugness of Michael Knowles would make it a difficult challenge for me to interact with him. I don't think I would be up for the task.
@georgewashingtom6516 I like Alex as a thinker and youtuber but SOME of his followers' attitudes boil down to thiking his debaters are somehow dishonest or bad but don't offer any explanations beyond that to justify their accusations.
I’m honestly impressed that Michael made it so many minutes without beginning the subtle ad hominem against Alex and the British. Almost ten minutes, great job! Also conveniently ignoring that British colonies were composed of (shocker) mostly Brits before a new country was founded.
@@JohnnySplendid Every historian has probably done some revision. History is all about being re-written, correcting mistakes, providing new interpretations, etc. Knowles, and the other daily wire guys however, DISTORT history to fit an agenda, rather then let history drive the agenda
do you have an example of something he said in this video that is clearly false history and do you have evidence that he knows that and is intending to revise it?
@@Raiddd__the reading of the interpretation of freedom of and from religion. 'this is commonly misinterpreted. So let me tell you what it really means.' Convenient.
@@Raiddd__ The War of 1812 was fought between Britain and the United States between 1812 and 1814. The war ended in a stalemate but had many lasting effects in Canada. It guaranteed Canada’s independence from the United States. It also gave Canadians their first experience working together as a community and helped develop a sense of nationhood.
I appreciate your maturity and respect in your disagreements Alex. I lean more towards theistic beliefs, but love debates on the topic. You will go very far with your approach and attitude. Keep it up!
Alex is one of the only atheists online who isn't a condescending prick. As a catholic, I really enjoy listening to him. (And look forward to the day he finds God ;-)
@@trevorjames3082that’s because he wants to be effective rather than right. It’s more a matter of tactic than actual difference in belief. Glad it’s working tho
I think atheists/agnostics get to bogged down in *whether* the founding people/documents have religious roots and miss the opportunity to discuss if that religious foundation is something that can and should persist to this day.
yes, can the values enshrouded by the constitution be preserved without a christian perspective? or will it become unrecognizable and muddled he further society pushes away from the supposed christian roots, this will only become clearer with time. i’m interested to see what the point of contention would be 10 years from now.
michael is so dumb he talks about the founding of this “great country” like it wasn’t built on bloodshed, slavery, taking land from the native people exploitation of natural resources. it’s so strange for him to talk about US history like he’s popping a boner at the same time. so ignorant.
@@TheBenevolentDictatorship if you don't understand the history and you were operating with motivated reasoning, you'd probably think Alex got "dismantled".
This was a masterclass in debating. Both men, from start to finish, didn't raise their voice once, kept the exact same pace, stayed on topic, while doing it all with a smile. I would love to see Knowles come back for other debate topics.
I think Michael’s main point is that western culture and philosophy itself are largely Christian. The USA isn’t a Christian nation explicitly, but certainly is inspired heavily by a general judeo-Christian monotheism. There is a reason many people in the west instinctively say bless you to a person who has sneezed, the roots of this general monotheism are quite deep and implicit
“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.” - Patrick Henry
Constitutional Law/Political Science student here! It is obvious that, legally speaking, the United States was founded to be run by a secular government. While I disagree with Knowles's position on everything, one thing I will give him brownie points for, though, is that our government is not 100% democratic! The story of the United States has been the story of further democratization. My issue with claiming that personal journals and letters shouldn't be considered is that SUPREME COURT justices and legal scholars consider those perspectives while making legal decisions. I haven't finished the video, but just typing my thoughts.
Yeah I don't like this whole, “We're a republic not a democracy,” thing. Because we've been a hybrid system from the beginning, and becoming more democratic over time is like America's one redeeming quality.
It's not entirely obvious. The establishment clause and its historical context was written to keep the state out of the church and does not textually preclude the church from entering the state.
Evangelical Christian American Conservative here. Came here to say I just say I appreciate your dialogues so much. You handle yourself with such tactful grace and it is a breath of fresh air to hear these conversations you have. Thank you for your candor and respectfulness you have with those you disagree with. I would love to see a discussion between you and Gavin Ortlund in the future.
Love Gavin. I would also be really interested to see Alex talk to him, or even to Trent Horn, who I think has more experience talking to non-believers. Gavin is somewhat in a Christian bubble (which is fine! just maybe wouldn’t make for the best discussion.) Edit: it does seem he’s breaking out of that bubble with his engagement with Bowen and people recently so maybe I’m wrong!
As a Christian myself I have a deep respect for you Alex! You are moving up in the world- as you should! Incredibly bright and intelligent but also humble and patient with your guest!
Why? What's the point? What good is democracy and how does arguing its religious or secular creation of America help? Our constitution is dead so the rest is moot.
@@IrishNationalist1916 even you don't believe that, you're just being combative. The pope telling an aids infested Africa that god says they're not to use condoms is utterly deplorable. The fact that your god gave whole chapters on owning slaves is pure evil. The fact that it says if a man (g)rapes a woman, he has to pay her father 50 silver, she must marry him and can never leave him is the biggest "sin" there is. The fact that god is supposed to be perfect and all knowing, yet committed the flood after he made a mistake with humams is contrary. There are many many other vile things in that book, along with many contradictions. The fact that it says you're to kill homosexuals and yet y'all don't shows that your morals come from you and not your god. Stop it, grow up already.
Michael, you step too quickly over the 1st A. The Declaration of Independence refers to a Deity twice, once as "Creator" and once as "Nature's God." Both of those are key Deist terms. "Creator" refers to the Deistic concept that God created the world *but did not and does not* interfere in it after the Creation (e.g., praying to God to cure an illness was forbidden). And as for "Nature's God", have you ever heard a priest or practicing Catholic refer to God as "Nature's God?" If anything, it's God's nature, not Nature's God. As for the situation of separation of church/state being a modern development, please read the Washington's letter in 1790 (during his presidency) to the Hebrew Congregation in Rhode Island, in which he wrote, "For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
Their references to “creator” and “nature’s god” is in regard to the universe. They were students of the enlightenment, understanding that superstition was not only illogical, but also dangerous. The founding of the country came on the heels of the Inquisition, which is a prime example when a religious institution is given any type of legal authority. The 1st Amendment is not only a freedom of religion, but a freedom FROM religion.
Yes, and it hurts his point. He says "I'm not a historian, but I do have a personal reason to push one story and one date as more important than others" and therefore I should not accept his input as impartial
Honestly its nice to see actual dialogue and discussion between 2 people of such conflicting views in a culture that interacts more and more with minute long videos and 140 character arguments.
@@JohnnySplendid Do you mean genocidal in terms of the fact that Christianity as an institution advocates for the mass genocide of Gays, or something to do with Micheal specifically? Because if its the former then thats pretty much the entirety of the 2 billion or so people who believe in Christ, and I dont think most of them are genocidal.
Thank you, Alex. Thank you, Michael. This is why I go to the internet for my information. An honest representation of two opposing views stated in good faith. Perfect 👌
Not according to the Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the United States Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797. That was a mere 9 years after the Constitution was ratified and 6 years after the First Amendment was ratified. They clearly and unanimously understood the meaning of the Constitution and the First Amendment far better than people arguing about it over two centuries later. In Article 11, of the treaty they state: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Oh, and God was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1950s. Really!?
@whitesoxMLB also, did the point out that it was passed unanimously and only 6 years after the ratification of the First Amendment and 9 years after the ratification of the Constitution. Probably important points to emphasize.
Alex…Christopher Hitchens would have been extremely proud of you!! I miss him and his debates and writings so much. You’re a great substitute!! Thank you!!
Clearly Alex does not believe that Michael is insufferable. They shared conversation and cigar in Nashville, then he invited Michael on his show, then they planned to meet up again some time and possibly continue this discussion on another episode. Could it be that you find him insufferable because you hate religious people or because he makes good points that you yourself have trouble understanding and/or refuting? It's interesting that many Atheists and Christians have the same problem: They are unable to tell you why they believe what they believe at a fundamental level.
@@Blizzhoofwho said anything about this viewer finding Michael insufferable because of Michael making good points or being religious? That’s a false dichotomy. Maybe this commenter doesn’t like how Knowles keeps going “grr liberals.” Or maybe, the shameless cigar advertisement, or maybe it’s a political issue, or maybe because of Knowles’s conduct outside of this debate
@@Blizzhoof you made a grave error, equating theists and atheists with each other. Atheism is merely the rejection of the religious claims. We don't have any doctrine or common beliefs written about in books lmao.. I'm assuming you don't believe in Zeus? Therefore you're atheist when it comes to Zeus, aka a non-believer. Does this mean you have ideologies about not believing in Zeus? Lmao no, you simply don't believe. The word atheist shouldn't even exist, as we're all non believers at birth. Only when someone introduces a god/s, usually when we're very young and our brains aren't even fully developed, do those terms come into play. In fact, it should be a law that kids can't be taught about any religion until they're 18. It'll never happen though, bc religion would die off almost overnight. They HAVE to get them when they're young, so they're used to these asinine stories and they don't question near as much or buck the system. It's brainwashing, it's disgusting, and it's psychological abuse of children.
I understand the debate for academic reasons but i dont understand when people use "we were founded as a Christian nation" in an argument for what we should do now. So what if we were founded as such? Why does the agreement between multiple individuals at that time bind us?
And shouldn't we find it odd, that this type and level of mature discourse is far less represented on conservative platforms? They love to come to us and be hosted, but rarely return the respectful gesture... There are many reasons for this.
@@plumberman19whoa whoa, hold up now. The left is just as bad as the right. The two party system is broken and is a joke. Neither one cares about helping the people, now it's just about beating the other side. 80% of voters don't want to have to vote between a rematch of those two lunatics. Which is why RFK jr is the only sane choice this fall. Help him and us take back and our country and get it on track. If Biden or Trump is re-elected, this country is doomed.
@@plumberman19it is the lefties who don't wanna talk to right because the other side is "fascist", lefties in Alex's comments hate that he is talking to Knowles
@@adamsmith9184 I’m one of Michael’s “rubes” and I’m here listening to both sides of this conversation. I do agree there is an unfortunately bitter political divide being drawn across these types of conversations. I found Alex’s conversation with Michael to be a breath of fresh air, and I do wish both sides would participate in more of this.
1:17:12 *"If we're talking about consistency on the matter of slavery, certainly the Catholic Church has had it".* Michael is very conveniently leaving out the fact that the Catholic Church was abundantly clear that it was only wrong to enslave the New World Natives, and that black Africans were totally fine to own, and sell.
“In 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued a papal bull entitled Dum Diversas, which authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans” in a disputed territory in Africa and consign them to “perpetual servitude.” It has been argued that this and the subsequent bull (Romanus Pontifex), issued by Nicholas in 1455, gave the Portuguese the rights to acquire slaves along the African coast by force or trade. The edicts are thus seen as having facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa and as having legitimized the European colonization of the African continent.” -Britannica Encyclopedia
@@Durta_idk Once the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD, its teachings influenced Roman laws and policies. Church funds were used by Christians to redeem slaves, especially prisoners of war. One former slave even rose to become pope (Callistus I) from c. 218 AD to his martyrdom in c. 222 AD. Still, slavery continued in Europe even after the collapse of imperial rule in the late fifth century, but as the Church’s influence increased the institution of slavery decreased, until it was completely eradicated in Christendom. Unfortunately, slavery returned to European society in the 15th century, with the conquest of the Canary Islands and the discovery of the New World. But from 1435 to 1890, a succession of popes condemned the slave trade and slavery in no uncertain terms. The first pope to do so was Eugenius IV who in his 1435 bull Sicut Dudum demanded that Christians free all enslaved natives of the Canary Islands within fifteen days; failure to do so would incur automatic excommunication. Thus, 57 years before Columbus’s first voyage the Pope unequivocally prohibited the enslavement of native peoples. In 1537, Pope Paul III issued a bull, 'Sublimus Dei', which taught that natives peoples were not to be enslaved. In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV promulgated 'Cum Sicuti', which was addressed to the bishop of Manila in the Philippines and reiterated his predecessors’ prohibitions against enslaving native peoples. In 1639, Pope Urban VIII promulgated 'Commissum Nobis' in support of the Spanish king’s (Philip IV) edict prohibiting enslavement of the Indians in the New World. The need for cheap and abundant labor in the colonies led to the African slave trade. This new form of slavery was also condemned by the popes, beginning with Innocent XI (r. 1676-1689). In 1741, Benedict XIV (r. 1740-1758) issued 'Immensa Pastorum', which reiterated that the penalty for enslaving Indians was excommunication. In 1839, Gregory XVI issued 'In Supremo' to condemn the enslavement of Africans. Pope Leo XIII promulgated two bulls condemning slavery in 1888 and 1890. Yet despite the many papal condemnations of slavery, European colonists continued to enslave Africans and New World natives until the nineteenth century. Papal denunciations of slavery were so harsh and so frequent that the colonial Spanish instituted a law forbidding the publication of papal documents in the colonies without prior royal approval. Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex were no different than giving a life sentence to enemies or criminals with hard labor to pay back society as we still do to this very day. It was almost like the ancient Israel conquering its enemies and subjecting them to perpetual servitude. They were at the time a fairly reasonable response to the power and aggression of the Turkish Empire. The problem is the power it granted to the Iberian empires was later greatly abused in their colonial expansions in the new world, north Africa, and the far east.
Thank you for this historical context. I was not aware of this. It is also telling that despite the fact that Bartolomé de las Casas is so highly celebrated in history textbooks, his tireless action on behalf of the indigenous peoples of America does not seem to have had the support of the Church
The reason for the subject not being as clear as it should have been is probably due to let’s just say the less than stellar relationship between Islam and Christianity during that time, As much as it should not have been an eye for an eye, probably played a big part.
14:46 Thomas Paine’s Wikipedia page (erroneously) lists him as a founding father, but the actual article on the Founding Fathers notably omits him from the list.
Alex's possibly asking this as his and my country is being overrun by Islam and as we as British have chose lesser of two evils through history with our English common sense are bring back historic effects of the religious wars with the two odd and similar ideological nightmares.
While I don’t generally agree with treating paid political operatives as honest intellectual interlocutors, Alex’s approach could potentially appeal to daily wire viewers more than if he were overly dismissive and combative.
Knowles is an obvious grifter. He and his kind continuously get things wrong, many times purposely , to keep their audience entertained with the most insane rhetoric @@asimhussain8716
Maybe that true but I wonder if Alex would have been more combative would Michael have agreed to the debate to behind with? Michael has made a career debating colledge kids so I'm not sure if we would agree to someone thay would show him in a bad light to begin with
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
Get episodes early and ad-free at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC
Alex fiddna single handedly bridge the intellectual divide between the atheist left and the DW
He has to have more misplaced smugness than any other human that's ever existed.
Would love to listen a continuation of the conversation Alex! Part 2!
@@joshuataylor3550 You sound a little bit gay
The Constitution actually says “ they are endowed by THEIR Creator” not “OUR Creator”. Big difference.
I hear this all the time... "Based on the principles of Christianity." What *_exactly_* does that even mean? Ask ten Christians, and you'll get ten different answers.
I once had eleven answers 😂
Exactly. Christianity, like all religion, has no values or principles other than "obey and spread the mindvirus to someone else if you can". If they have to butcher 10000 pagans they will, if they have to pretend to be meek and subservient they will, if they have to pretend to be progressive and modern they will. They don't have any actual principles.
Ask ten different Christians twice and you'll get twenty different answers.
@@sammael8472 .. what is the question?
It means no to shellfish and no gay
How many times will Michael find a way to mention the liberals in this debate about Christianity…
Not to mention that the vast majority of liberals are Christian.
He dismisses many of the founding fathers with a wave of the hand and a “he’s very liberal”. Lol
@@kevinpalmer9942 Knowles would've been a turncoat American. the founders would've been "too liberal" for him.
Children no longer have to play the parent once their free of their control but many continue while other don't bother causing their parents to hate them from afar or adept to this stranger child that they no longer know. What child wants to socialize with a parent in earshot. Parents are a foe that must be conned until the jail door is unlocked and freedom is achieved.
more times than he calls Alex a limey
Freedom of. No establishment. It's in the Bill of Rights. Americans are primarily Christian. But our government is a secular government, period. And rightfully so. Freedom of religion is fantastic. So is the establishment clause.
Exactly it's such a simple thing to understand. I think the USA is a secular nation of Christians and Britain is a Christian nation of secularists.
That's not what maga and mike johnson wants to hear
But can you really divorce the moral/ethical systems of the people who both created and operate the government?
Would we apply the same standards to other organizations, such as Chick-Fil-A?
@@ralphietwoshoesLabelling it a “Christian nation” holds political implications that go far deeper than government officials simply holding moral assumptions that are supposedly Christian. You wouldn’t call secular humanitarian NGOs Christian just because they promote general welfare.
I think Christianity has been secularized in the West, for want of a better way to put it.@@below_average7233
I remember back when you were just starting. Great to see how much you've grown.
A nation of Christians, not a Christian nation. This is such an important distinction that many wishful thinkers don't seem to appreciate.
It is a nation of Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, etc. - not to mention that there are a thousand denominations of Christianity, which is evidence that there are at least that many ways to interpret the vague, poorly written, and contradictory holy book.
Or a Christian nation and secular state with Christian influence
According to atheist religion which rejects free will and therefore commands atheists to embrace their animal desires instead of fighting them, How can it be evil when a grown up adult pdf file atheist bones kids? He has no free will. All he can do, is to follow his animal desires, he has no choice. In fact he is innocent and there's nothing to be ashamed about.
How many actual John 3:16 pardoned Christians?
If this is a distinction -and an important one- why isn't it obvious what you mean?
I think it's significant not only that they left the Christian god out of the Constitution, but also that it is written in the Declaration of Independence as "...by their creator..." rather than "by God" or "by the creator". It personalizes the belief system rather than institutionalizing it.
I found it interesting to know that the phrase "their creator" wasn't even in the earlier drafts.
And then notice how at 6:48 Knowles changes the text to say "our Creator" whether unintentionally or intentionally. Either way, giving another impression of the text that isn't there.
No, the words "their creator" should have been left out too. Not everyone believes in a creator.
That would be a great point if the word “God” itself wasn’t used in like 46/50 of the State Constitutions. And the other 4 all reference “the creator” or “the Supreme Being.” Pretty sure part of Knowles’ point is that a room of deists, Christians, and atheists can’t fully control how their created system can shift, and for 200 years the American creation shifted to what was decidedly Christian in culture and, to a lesser extent, law.
@@pnut3844able that's true, but at the time a significant amount of people did. Atheism is rather new, only really growing around the 1800s whereas the treaty of independence was signed in 1776, so it still makes sense that it says creator because it was kinda taken for granted. As we learn more, we realise that a lot of the things we thought were mystical where really explainable with an understanding of the world, which stopped us from requiring a god to understand the world.
It may be true that America should remove the 'their creator' now, but it's hard to change those things after they happen.
I was so amused by Michael having several cameras set up and a crew changing angles for him 😂
The more right wing , the more kitsch that surrounds the set.
well, its called professionel... dont get me wrong, im an atheist, but i see no problem there!
@@mjsdc8072the more right wing you are, the more billionaire funders you have.
I mean atleast it isn't a Webcam man >:(
@@Christopher-taysoKnowles/Daily Wire dont have billionaire funders. On the other hand, major left wing outlets (Young Turks, anyone?) most definitely are... :)
Hey Alex! This is probably the 3rd video i've seen of yours in direct dialogue to popular conservative/religious thinkers and I wanted to say I appreciate your approach and grace afforded in these conversations
to be clear, Mike is a political thinker. Not a religious one. By his own admission.
Mike is a theocrat like many Republicans, but Mike & his cronies like Ben Shapiro pretend they're not theocrats.
@@VVeremoose whatever he is, he's an idiot
@@VVeremooseReligion is the basis behind his entire worldview.
@@PhysicsGuy1000 So? Politics is applied Theology like Biology is applied Chemistry.
You may not realize it, but your political views are informed by your theological views. But just like a biologist can be a biologist without having to be a chemist first, a political scientist can be a political scientist without being a theologian first.
I'm so impressed with the arc of your career. Changing your channel name was a wise move.
What was his name before? I'm a new viewer.
@@ihatemondays33cosmic skeptic
@@themapisallocean thanks
@@ihatemondays33 I still type up his old RUclips name 😂 I’ve been a viewer for years 😂
His handle is still cosmicskeptic
Benjamin Franklin - ‘Lighthouses are more useful than churches.’.
Cant a church be a lighthouse?
Only once with sufficient fuel @@Ghatius
i wonder of there are any combined lighthouse churches...
"Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."
Shithouses are far more useful than churches.
Michael Knowles unintentionally making Seneca Lucius's point:
_“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”_
For me what is more scary these days is that atheistic world views believe they are inherently free of ideology and dogma.
We're more likely to sleepwalk in to catastrophe that way than we are through religion these days.
@@villefere6968 Oh no! My sides! 😂 I wonder if there's a political leader who came into power by appealing to the authoritarian nature & persecution complex found in Christianity? Hmmm.
You're wrong. If a politician can pander & appeal to Christians to get their votes despite having a life time record of being unChrist-like, then exploiting those Christians to gain power was a VERY useful maneuver. Come on.
@@villefere6968read Nietzsche. The masters of a society will assimilate in slave morality as a means of greater control. Point to the celebrities for instance, who participate in charities and are well loved by the people as they further go up in wealth and power. Look at any major corporation who try really hard to appeal to the people by changing their logos into a rainbow once a year to stay relevant and attract a greater audience, and it happens on the other side to. By every metric this quote is correct
@@tecategpt1959 I was thinking of Nietzsche too when he was trying to argue that christians are harder to control than non-believers xD
@@villefere6968 christianity neither teaches individual rights and justice or provides a strong moral framework
You are a better man than I, Alex O'Connor. I can imagine this convo continuing in the cigar bar where the air would literally grow toxic smoke and self-regard.. Smugness as a cologne.
Knowles using Adams as an example for how we are founded on Christian ideals is odd since he literally wrote in the treaty of Tripoli, " United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". EDIT-- You brought this point up. Good on you!
But but Muslims lol
He didn’t write this. The treaty was originally written in Arabic, and Adam’s didn’t speak arabic.
He did sign the document and confirmed that everything written in the treaty was true, but it’s misleading to quote him.
Which god is the one who is giving “Rights”? The founding fathers created a society that follows god. Which god? Seems obvious it is the Judeo-Christian god?
@@chach1288it's not mentioned which one and for a reason. They could've just establish Christianity as the official religion, they didn't
@chach1288 this assumes someone should give a shit what the founders wrote
One thing about Michael Knowles is his studio looks comfy as fuckkkkkk
It did look pretty nice.
Don't swear
I'll second that objective truth 😂
FucKKK
The Christian Right spare no expence pushing their propaganda.
Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.
Thomas Jefferson
What an astute dude
I'll give you almost verbatim what Knowles response to that would be: "NUH UH, that's just the silly writing of a liberal" or essentially "Yeah maybe I'm using anecdotes to prove my point, but YOU CANNOT use anecdotes to prove your point. You must adhere to a higher standard of proof than me because I am implicitly correct."
man is full of deception, lies and games believing their smarter then everybody else only to deceive themselves in the end. but woe to the destruction unleashed.
What do you think faith means in this quote?
First the Declaration of Independence, then this? The revolutionaries really had a great man in Thomas Jefferson. The Conservatives have Michael Knowles lol
I think Alex is underselling the significance of the Declaration of Independence to America’s legal tradition. It is regular cited in judicial decisions.
O'Connor just gets bigger and bigger Jesus Christ
Hope he teams up with us
I hope Alex gets Jesus Christ on the podcast next
Maybe he can get a fracking billionaire to buy him a media outlet?
nah this is sus bro pause on that
Good Lord
Absolutely wonderful content. Very insightful. I'm a history student at an American university and this idea that we pick "arbitrary dates" to study the beginning of American history is so true
Well they don't want to be held accountable for things like slavery or murderous religious hysteria during the founding so they have to start in 1776.
I don't get what he's after bringing up states establishing religion prior to the Civil War. States also inhibited free speech before the Civil War, and it's not because there wasn't a Constitutional right to free speech, but because states were not bound by constitutional rights (other than their state constitutions) until the Civil War amendments were interpreted to apply federal constitutional rights to people against their state governments. This is taught to every American law student in their first year.
(I'm leaving this comment having only watched half of the video so far, so I apologize if this is addressed later).
He’s trying to deflect and distract. His argument either supports a secular US or is indifferent. States having state religions does not prohibit a national religion unless they conflict. In that case, Knowles is supporting a non-religious US.
He doesn't directly address that but it's addressed enough with the fact that he said he was talking about the inception of the country as the basis for it being a Christian nation, and therefore those amendments and interpretations don't mean anything to his argument.
These two are so good together in a debate. Very entertaining!
For anyone outside the states, the blasphemy laws (local or state) aren't enforced and thus go unchallenged on court, and there is t much upside for legislators to nullify laws that haven't been enforced in their lifetime.
Thanks for stating that. Far too many non-Americans don't seem to recognize this.
It's easily for people to not understand American jurisprudence. American jurisprudence means a lot of these old laws are unenforceable and have been unenforceable for a long time. @@Garrett1240
Blue Laws are enforced, and I can speak from experience having lived in Boston
that was not the point. they were not debating 2024. they were talking about how such laws end up in the books in the first place ..
This comments an absolute lie, They were enforced on state levels many of times throughout the later half of the 20th century. Nulfying them removes the ability of monster who want to enforce them, that is without a doubt a benefit
Cool too see Alex becoming a real celebrity after finding him as some awkward teenager with a camera with like 50 followers. Now he's climbing the publicity ranks to Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles and Richard Dawkins and co and it's super cool to see
Shapiro and Knowles are clowns, especially compared to Dawkins.
@@spoenk7448 I 80% agree but I love seeing Alex bridge the intellectual divide between the daily wire and the atheist left
Yes, amazing to see him become so famous!
He's been doing it for years now. Remember his debate with Douglass Murray in 2019?
@@bluebird5173It is a really solid revenue model.
Alex, I doubt you read all these comments, but I think you would love this history professor Heather Cox, Richardson's book, "Democracy, Awakening" she goes over all these nuances, without ideological undertones, greatly supporting all of your points, yet at the same time, giving the Christians, their credit as well.
Amazing discussion! Thank you so much 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
Michael does a good job of putting a nicely polished veneer on the insane idea that the establishment clause actually doesn’t mean what we’ve always understood it to mean.
He’s not saying it’s different than what we’ve always understood it to mean. The text is clear. He’s arguing as to why it was instituted in the first place, which is important when debating founding principles.
He always has to “explain” what we somehow all misunderstand
He filmed himself taking the Political Compass Test a few years back and it shows Knowles for the true ghoul he is. He has a veneer of coming off as having intellectual integrity, but that is absolutely not the case.
@@domenicgalata1470 You take that 2d political compass test seriously?
Original writing especially those by the first few justices of the supreme court, would disagree with your position, the framers of the nation were very clear on the federal government's rights
Not seeing a lot of engagement with Knowles' comments in this comment section. Did he really not say anything of substance in almost 90 mins?
As far as I can tell, he believes that because the first few generations of immigrants to the future United States were for the most part Christian, that means the nation is Christian. Does he think we should promote Christianity with laws? I don't think he outright states his stance on this keystone issue that is the driver of much of the current discourse. He also uses states rights to talk around the restrictions of the federal government passing religious laws. We are not talking about New Mexico's Christian history, we are asking if the United States was founded with the intent to be a Christian Nation.
I think that is really the crux of the issue. Knowles didn't clearly define what he meant by a "Christian nation", and he argues his point based mostly by saying that a lot of early Americans were Christian and/or framed their ideas within a Christian worldview. But this isn't what most people are talking about when they ask whether the US is a Christian nation; the important question is whether its actual legal and governmental structure does (or should) preferentially support Christianity.
Right wing talki g heads like Knowles always back off their most extreme statements and beliefs when confronted in a debate because first of all, they’re cowards, but second of all, they would lose all plausible deniablility of being a respectable conservative and not a wacko who gets the Nick Fuentes treatment (ie ostracized from open fascism).
This is BS. It’s irrelevant who the first European immigrants were. By the time the US revolted, it was a mixture of many, many beliefs. That’s what the Constitution reflects.
What happened before is meaningless and Knowles knows it.
I’d wager he didn’t explicitly say that current US laws should favor a Christian worldview, because that is the subtext of what he is saying. He wants the audience to draw the conclusion that because America may have been colonized by Christian peoples who brought with them their Christian culture, we are a de facto Christian nation, and the current push to legislate based on specific Christian ideas is a natural conclusion of that. All of these colonials came from explicitly Christian countries, so it’s not a surprise that they’d bring their familiar culture with them. And atheism was culturally frowned upon if not illegal in many of those places, so the likelihood that we’d have a lot of atheists populating the colonies is historically unrealistic.
This is a bastardization of Knowles' position; a Christian nation is not merely one with Christian founders and immigrants, but also one where its governmental and legal systems derive from fundamental principles of natural human rights only present (at least up until that point in history) in the Judeo-Christian ethical framework. The fact that many of the founders held vastly differing views on religion is irrelevant. The fact that less Americans today than ever before identify as Christian is also irrelevant to this definition.
Perhaps Knowles should have been more specific here, but if you watch other religion debates with him, he clarifies these points.
An atheist would have a difficult time justifying the existence of natural human rights (except by appealing to the categorical imperative) in the same way that a Christian or a Jew would be able to.
I think this discussion would have immensely benefitted from defining what it means to be a Christian nation. Is it about the beliefs of the founders, the leaders, or the majority of Americans? What defines what it means to be Christian (the practices, how people identify, or how people act outside of church)? Is "Christian nation" more of a legal status for the government, social status of its people, or some amalgamation of both?
Yes! This. This. This.
That was the first question. But he dodged it to arguint why it was christian. not what it meant to be christian
thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Please consider a part 2.
“Under god” and “in god we trust” were added much later being 1954 and 1955 respectively
In God is Our Trust and Great God Our King are both from 19th century music. Not to mention the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Knowles already addressed this in the video.
“In god we trust” was added to American coinage in 1864 (the 2 cent piece). It was later added to silver and gold coins.
I really don't think Alex is biased or uninformed about America just because he is British. I would accuse Micheal of poisoning the well with all that stuff.
That's what most people from the two parties do. Divide and conquer, a learned behavior from their "leaders."
Used the pejorative "Limey" quite a few times, too. Right-wing billionaire money sure can't buy class.
Americans tend to do that, they think the rest of the world does not understand them or their history, yet they feel they know better when it comes to foreign matters.
I don't think Michael thinks that either lol. The only times I remember him bringing up Alex being British was during lighthearted jabs or jokes
@@montrealronin have you heard of a joke before?
It’s interesting that Michael cites the star spangled banner’s other verse to demonstrate his claim. If he were consistent, he would also claim that the verse about slaves and slave owners demonstrates that we’re a racist nation. Perhaps the fact that these two verses are expressly not a part of the national anthem points to the fact that we’re neither?
I totally forgot about that verse. Great point.
So to be clear, you don't think the Us was Christian or racist?
@@gabrielethier2046 notice the present tense in both the video and my comment
not really? Slavery is itself, racist elements can be interpreted ontop sure, though you could to the same extent say that America is an anti-mercantile nation because in the same verse it repudiates hirelings.
I mean I have a little bit of a quibble with that these things were created at times at the detest of some but everyone agreed with the fact that Christianity was important in America's founding at least, that is not to deny America has become more secular in some things, even more Christian in others, last 30 years pretty secular, but I'd add it's a pendulum it will swing back in the Christian direction. Although most if not all states had slavery, which would be a good point, but I would also argue that those verses about slavery aren't Christian beliefs, which is why later in we repealed slavery or emancipated the slaves. Ironically you can argue the country wasn't founded on Christianity because of this because you can say well the decisions weren't guided by Christian beliefs or in fact racist ones which isn't compatible with the Christian faith, but I'd argue the Christian beliefs revised these things. There are also prejudices developed by mere practicality by the rulers in control, this happened in very vividly Christian nations such as old Russia. There's also a debate on whether that verse talks about American slaves or British troops as some sort of metaphor so depending on the writing and based off how it's worded I'm inclined to believe it's about the British since during that time there was high tension towards the British, it was literally written during the war of 1812 after all. If it was really about African slaves then why 70 years after slavery was eradicated would they adopt it as the national anthem it just wouldn't make any sense.
Thank you Alex for hosting such a wonderful episode! And thanks to both participants for treating one another respectfully and doing their research. This was enjoyable.
Thank you so much for all your time and effort and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate these kinds of conversations.
It’s interesting that Michael Knowles decides to arbitrarily set the start of the United States at 1620 with the landing of the Mayflower, rather than with the establishment of the Jamestown colony which was founded more than a dozen years earlier.
Jamestown is the first permanent English settlement in North America. The Jamestown colony was backed by the Virginia Company as an economic enterprise rather than an effort to escape religious persecution or to spread Christianity.
He didn’t do it arbitrarily, he does it conveniently to support an obscure view.
He clearly stated in that part that some people say American history starts at 1776, some say 1787, others say 1620 and you can even go back further than that.
That gives credence to the notion that America is simply a capitalist experiment, rather than a complete nation with a thriving culture.
I would look up the Jamestown charter and read the first 3 sections before you make a claim like that.
@@Nick-Nasti hardly an obscure view... It's quite a common argument
When Michael said "I don't always neatly separate these two things" I couldn't help but think to myself "No Michael, with your track record you probably only neatly separate them when it's convenient to you"
I dont get it why poeple still listen to him his ideal world would be misrable
@@davidschrauwen1536 miserable like... the atheist regime of mao? How many did mao slaughter, you know?
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppableexactly lol! Atheistic states have already been tried, and have ended up beyond terribly!
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppableHow did you end up here? I find it hard to believe any viewer of Alex would use this silly argument. I guess we should ask how many nukes the Christian nation of the US threw?
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppablethis is such a dumb argument, how would killing millions be intrinsic to secular societies. the rest of the western world is significantly more secular (with exceptions) than America both culturally and governmentally. so why havn't they pulled the shit Mao pulled?
Hey Alex, I'm from the Mormon Belief system and I really appreciate how you as an atheist are so respectable in your conversations with people of differing beliefs. You just earned another subscriber!
I love that Alex engages every guest on their topic of expertise, is not the same arguments against God over and over
Though, tbf, Knowles is slightly more known for advocating genocide against my community, so treating him like a regular interlocutor strikes me as a bit weird.
@@ChristyAbbey you’re allowed to feel like that, but in my life I’ve realized having conversations is the best way to approach these people. They tend to embarrass themselves with their own words
He never advocated for genocide against anyone. Your rhetoric is not only dangerous but also completely insensitive. I have holocaust survivors in my family, how dare you equate what Knowles has said with atrocities like the holocaust and other genocides. Shameful@@ChristyAbbey
@@ElephoontOfTheShapes *hands you /s*
here, you dropped this.
@@ElephoontOfTheShapesThis is very much a ''playing the Nazi card''. Trans people are literally going through a genocide *right now* and especially in America. At this point it ticks multiple boxes on the 10 stages of genocide. What happened to the people in the Holocaust is horrible, but that doesn't mean that the genocide on trans people is not happening. And you can bet your ass that Knowles is a huge proponent of this genocide. Passing laws and bills that endorses and allows for the discrimination, the ''us vs. them'', dehuminazation, and persecution of trans people for just being trans, are simply acts of genocide.
32:00 ish. The Star Spangled Banner didn’t enter official use until 1889, and didn’t become the National Anthem until all the way in 1931.
E Pluribus Unum, Latin for “Out of Many, One”, has a much stronger claim to the title of national motto.
None of what he said contradicts that.
Except maybe the claim that the first motto has more claim to the title but thats an opinionated claim.
We need to get that mcarthyist propaganda off our currency and return to the true and original motto
@@concernedcommenter8258 he was responding to Alex saying how "In God we Trust" is a very recent edition to the American mythos, and part of his evidence was that it was in "The Star Spangled Banner", the national anthem. When you hear that you wouldn't think, unless you had prior knowledge like myself, that it dates back 20 odd years before it was added, you would think closer to 200 odd years.
Amazing discussion! It's nice to see people with different views be calm and nice to each other. We NEED a part 2!
I found Michael Knowles being “strategically civil”, definitely had some disingenuous digs and condescending remarks throughout the discussion. The “Limey” thing was super annoying after the 3rd time.
@@tylerparker1567civility is by its nature ‘strategic’. You know how easy it would be otherwise to just berate or even outright physically assault?
It’s almost impossible to get the civility displayed in the video on something like Twitter cause people usually would rather be dumb and lazy. It’s easier.
@@tylerparker1567 Personally every time I’ve seen Michael debate someone of different views he’s very been very civil and friendly. Even tho he is quite arrogant when he’s on his own
The obsession with civility is so funny here. Why does it matter at all if Michael's only goals is to strip every minority imaginable of their rights?
One thing is clear: Michael Knowles is light years ahead of Dinesh D'Souza.
Even if he is no match for our boy Alex 😂
Those bricks you like most are always best for you in any case
From a construction worker
would a Man of God just except the comfort slacking of God him self, with a tinny twist of spirit. why of all way's having to bring up things of power . all ways the plain earthly man made Scotch and cigars Idea as a what ever joke.
Id start off with, "Micheal what is the very first sentence of the Constitution say?"
Like the preamble or article one? Cuz it's not the first amendment
“We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
How the heck did you get THAT out of a statement of intention with about as much flavor as paper
@jan_Kilan I cannot ever read this without hearing Schoolhouse Rock. 😂
You mean the Constitution that was based on John Adam's Massachusetts Constitution and not Thomas Jefferson/Madison's Virginian constitution that led to 2 dictators and were thus rejected by Congress? You mean that one? John Adams was in the select Committee with Madison and Madison even agreed to John Adams' MA constitution being the frame. Source: Gordon S. Wood's book Friends Divided: Jefferson and Adams Chapter 6.
@@GiovanniAdaminext you’re going to be talking about Gordon Wood
Great conversation. Definitely up for a part 2
I just can't imagine ever making the argument:
"All human conflict is theological" right after saying "I wish we could get back to more sense".
Well of course you do. Because you aren’t very smart.
I guess youre implying that theology doesn't make sense? you need to try thinking just a little longer before you comment
@@ryanthomas924 Right back at ya. I am implying that "Getting back to more sense" and then saying "More sense is the cause of all human conflict" is clearly idiotic.
This is because you are very, very stupid. If you can't see the sense in theology, it's your failing.
This was a great episode. I wasn't really sway'd one way or another but I did walk away with a lot more information. I'd love to see a follow up really challenging Michaels belief in religion.
Nope, it's not, no religion has preeminence therefore it's a secular state. That's why it's a WALL of separation, not a wall with a hole or a wall with a door.
Like a hole... For glory
Is a separation that they don't respect because it doesn't fit the narrative for them
Children no longer have to play the parent once their free of their control but many continue while other don't bother causing their parents to hate them from afar or adept to this stranger child that they no longer know.
@@Joaopereira-dh3dw Because that's not in the constitution at all.
holy hole@@kdaviper
"Contrary to conventional wisdom, Christianity has never really taken deep root in America or had any success in forming American consciousness; in its place, we have invented a kind of Orphic mystery religion of personal liberation, fecundated and sustained by a cult of Mammon."
-David Bentley Hart
It's funny how Christians always label any type of Christianity they don't like as "pagan" (in this case "Orphic"). Did they ever stop to think that maybe Christianity had "pagan" influence from the beginning? Christianity was never a monolith.
this is a very apt description
Well don’t tell that to Bradford
I wish I knew what this quote meant in context, because in a vacuum it's just unimaginably false.
Two things I am very thankful for as a brit is the separation of church and state and the NHS
The separation of church and state was to protect the church from the state. Not the other way around. And the NHS is garbage.
We don't have a separation of Church and state in the UK... Even though our country acts more secular than the US often.
@@thomaspickin9376 In what conceivable way? Your leader is literally the head of the Church?
The Monarch is not the leader of the country. It's a figurehead, a PR person basically.@@Tomyum19
Fair doos, we have (unfortunately) no separation of church and state.
You two have such amazing chemistry. Both very snarky sarcastic witty men. I would love to see a podcast.
But there's also a nice contrast... Alex is smart and Michael isn't!
@@mdaddy775 lol yes 💯
@@mdaddy775 I’m not a fan of Michael particularly, but I think he’s smart. I just think he is the same as a lot of them at the daily wire - too interested with proving themselves right and protecting their standardised worldview.
Him and someone like Ben Shapiro are clearly intelligent people, but they aren’t thinkers in the way I think Alex wants to be (and is). They aren’t there to think and wrestle with issues so much as they are to be political / religious commentators giving their view.
@@joek360 Honestly he (Michael) gives wonderful insight to "the other side" even if I still ultimately disagree with his preferred direction for this country. He's a bit of an ass, but he's civil and keeps his disses general instead of personal. Very entertaining to watch though, lol.
We don't need any more of Michael Knowles and his dishonesty. He's pathetic and bad faith. He's got radical ideology first and reason isn't even a close second...
Sorry, but the pledge didn't ADD under God until the 50's, the 1950's.
the money BS too
yeah and it was only because we were dealing with the atheist communists in the soviet union Im pretty sure in god we trust was added to the money around then too
Also the anthem was based on a poem from a non-founder, and the anthem wasn't made the anthem until 1931. I am not sure what this guy is on about.
Knowles says exactly that, that it was added around the Cold War period but was derived from early 19th century
@@TheBenevolentDictatorship indeed, I had commented before that part, which is why I added the comment about the anthem not even being official until 1931.
The first Amendment is in direct conflict with the first commandment. This is a secular nation with the majority being of several sects of Christian.
No, it's not. The commandments are to God's followers. It doesn't say "you will force people to worship me"
@@MrGgabberTechnically true. The things God commands to do to non-followers are WAY worse.
Like what?@@Leith_Crowther
@@MrGgabber Yes it is.. No other gods before me means you don't have freedom of religion. Look at the header.
@mikeekim242 No, that's not what it means. God gave man free will, with that comes freedom of religion. That's why there is no mention of religious prosecution.
The best part of this interview: 32:34 Michael says “the second battle with your country over there, which we won by the way” and Alex’s smile afterwards was hilarious. Deep down we all know Alex wanted to call him a cheeky bastard 😂
i had to pause and laugh because who even acts like that 💀
Immediately made Michael look/sound like a kid in middle school
I agree, he is an irreverent amusing bastard
@@mindful_wanderthat was my impression. Didn’t help his cause.
The USA failed to achieve the victory condition of conquering Canadian territory. The Canadians are too polite to remind us of that!
The celebrated tactical victory at New Orleans was a battle that took place after the war was officially over.
The affair was such an embarrassment for both the British and the Americans, that neither nation has been very interested in revisiting the history. Subsequent achievements in alliance are much more popular subjects.
Good debate. I’m in the middle of you both but appreciate a respectful debate and discussion.
What a great conversation... I had no idea that Alex had such a deep historical knowledge of the founding fathers and American history in general. I can understand Michael Knowles being very knowledgeable about the history of his own country but I am very impressed by Alex's knowledge of a country not of his own. It would be like Knowles talking to Alex about the British Parliamentary system of the 1800's. In fact, the more and more I watch Alex I find my self surprised on his sheer breadth of knowledge in different subjects, not just theology or philosophy where his academic expertise lie in, but quantum physics, American History, Law, etc. I suppose philosophy has something to say about each of those areas, so I shouldn't be THAT surprised that a public thinker on Alex's level would have a knowledge pool on a wide variety of subjects. Still.... Very impressed.
You are so easily impressed.
@@mkhosono1741 Not really. I consider myself pretty well versed in a wide variety of subjects, including American History, but I'm perfectly fine admitting that I didn't know anything about some obscure 18th century American treaty with Muslim pirates called the Treaty of Tripoli or the secular ramifications behind it. That's impressive to me that a British citizen with an academic background in Theology/Philosophy would have that kind of detailed knowledge of American History.
I guarentee that Alex has at least a 50 point higher IQ than you.
@@michaeladair6557 I'm a history teacher and I agree 👍🏼
The thing about Europeans is, we get an education where these things are taught.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
Thomas Jefferson
You’re delusional. People raised in a Christian environment and culture will be de facto Christian whether they want to admit it or not.
Holey Eternal Omnipresent Greetingz
Then where did the ideas of how to live in harmony come from ? Its embedded in our genes? We got it from our mothers milk? What about those who were fed formula?
Did you notice, that brutal and harmful cultures(from our pov) have their rules also written into the law?
@neozes Only Life noeze itself
It was 😁 people kicked others out of the colony for not being Christian they then banned non Christians from office blasphemy laws are in place before and after the establishment of the states the list goes on.
Mr. O'Connor - you are a patient, self-controlled man. The smugness of Michael Knowles would make it a difficult challenge for me to interact with him. I don't think I would be up for the task.
What smugness? occasional smiling doesn't make you smug
@georgewashingtom6516 I like Alex as a thinker and youtuber but SOME of his followers' attitudes boil down to thiking his debaters are somehow dishonest or bad but don't offer any explanations beyond that to justify their accusations.
@@andresdanielem
Well, Michael Knowles is not exactly known for his honesty.
@@unduloid How so? How has he been dishonest?
The smugnorance indeed.
I’m honestly impressed that Michael made it so many minutes without beginning the subtle ad hominem against Alex and the British. Almost ten minutes, great job! Also conveniently ignoring that British colonies were composed of (shocker) mostly Brits before a new country was founded.
“Ad hominem” my friend, has the concept of a joke ever graced your ears?
@@supremeleadersmeagol6345A "joke" that isn't funny isn't a joke.
@@dbarker7794It is. Comedy is not objective.
@@dbarker7794 We need to establish the comedy court to preside over this then
@@dbarker7794 If the intention is to make people laugh it's a joke regardless if it's funny or not
Knowles is trying to rewrite history.
Revisionism is what every ghoul at the daily wire does
@@JohnnySplendid Every historian has probably done some revision. History is all about being re-written, correcting mistakes, providing new interpretations, etc. Knowles, and the other daily wire guys however, DISTORT history to fit an agenda, rather then let history drive the agenda
do you have an example of something he said in this video that is clearly false history and do you have evidence that he knows that and is intending to revise it?
@@Raiddd__the reading of the interpretation of freedom of and from religion.
'this is commonly misinterpreted. So let me tell you what it really means.'
Convenient.
@@Raiddd__ The War of 1812 was fought between Britain and the United States between 1812 and 1814. The war ended in a stalemate but had many lasting effects in Canada. It guaranteed Canada’s independence from the United States. It also gave Canadians their first experience working together as a community and helped develop a sense of nationhood.
How kind of this guy to make Alex's case for him... how thoughtful.
I appreciate your maturity and respect in your disagreements Alex. I lean more towards theistic beliefs, but love debates on the topic. You will go very far with your approach and attitude. Keep it up!
Alex is one of the only atheists online who isn't a condescending prick. As a catholic, I really enjoy listening to him. (And look forward to the day he finds God ;-)
@@trevorjames3082that’s because he wants to be effective rather than right. It’s more a matter of tactic than actual difference in belief. Glad it’s working tho
@@trevorjames3082"atheists are condescending pricks"
Also
"hope he finds God"
...... Way to hold yourself to a standard 🙄
@@trevorjames3082 why would you so desperately want him to find something that has never been proven to exist?
It is interesting that, to most people, the existence of God is a matter of subjective opinion.
I think atheists/agnostics get to bogged down in *whether* the founding people/documents have religious roots and miss the opportunity to discuss if that religious foundation is something that can and should persist to this day.
yes, can the values enshrouded by the constitution be preserved without a christian perspective? or will it become unrecognizable and muddled he further society pushes away from the supposed christian roots, this will only become clearer with time. i’m interested to see what the point of contention would be 10 years from now.
michael is so dumb he talks about the founding of this “great country” like it wasn’t built on bloodshed, slavery, taking land from the native people exploitation of natural resources. it’s so strange for him to talk about US history like he’s popping a boner at the same time. so ignorant.
Alex collecting Daily Wire scalps
How do you watch this coming away thinking Alex didn’t get dismantled? Honest question.
@@TheBenevolentDictatorshipcause it’s not hard to refute these losers lol
@@TheBenevolentDictatorship if you don't understand the history and you were operating with motivated reasoning, you'd probably think Alex got "dismantled".
Lmao scalps haha
@@kevinpulliam3661 Do Matt Walsh next
this was an insanely respectful, mature and listenable conversation, holy shit. down for part 2 🙋♂️
This was a masterclass in debating. Both men, from start to finish, didn't raise their voice once, kept the exact same pace, stayed on topic, while doing it all with a smile. I would love to see Knowles come back for other debate topics.
Michael Knowles is really good at saying wrong things very calmly
Alex O' Conner is really good at saying wrong things in a British accent. @@erikanderson1402
I think Michael’s main point is that western culture and philosophy itself are largely Christian. The USA isn’t a Christian nation explicitly, but certainly is inspired heavily by a general judeo-Christian monotheism. There is a reason many people in the west instinctively say bless you to a person who has sneezed, the roots of this general monotheism are quite deep and implicit
Also, Moses is depicted explicitly in the building of the Supreme Court.
Western culture is progressive, which Christianity isn’t
Dailywire feelings not facts
perfect summary of the conservative movement
@@poisonvolkswagon9431 lol.
You can't be serious.
@@timothymatthews6458 it’s true. When it comes to God and religion, literally everyone on the Daily Wire goes feelings over facts.
@@joebriggs5781 Okay that makes sense. Only on religion and God, right? Right?
Not every conservative is religious
Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.
Thomas Paine
“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.” - Patrick Henry
Constitutional Law/Political Science student here! It is obvious that, legally speaking, the United States was founded to be run by a secular government. While I disagree with Knowles's position on everything, one thing I will give him brownie points for, though, is that our government is not 100% democratic! The story of the United States has been the story of further democratization. My issue with claiming that personal journals and letters shouldn't be considered is that SUPREME COURT justices and legal scholars consider those perspectives while making legal decisions. I haven't finished the video, but just typing my thoughts.
Yeah I don't like this whole, “We're a republic not a democracy,” thing. Because we've been a hybrid system from the beginning, and becoming more democratic over time is like America's one redeeming quality.
Yeah but you're a liberal in a decayed university system and you don't sell cigars called Mayflower
It's not entirely obvious. The establishment clause and its historical context was written to keep the state out of the church and does not textually preclude the church from entering the state.
So come back when you’ve finished and try again
I, too, would be interested to hear more rebuttals when you finish the video.
Evangelical Christian American Conservative here. Came here to say I just say I appreciate your dialogues so much. You handle yourself with such tactful grace and it is a breath of fresh air to hear these conversations you have. Thank you for your candor and respectfulness you have with those you disagree with.
I would love to see a discussion between you and Gavin Ortlund in the future.
So you are admitting to believing bullshit?
@@seanjones2456 Congratulations! Your results are in. 5/5 angst. 7/5 immaturity. 8/5 need for validation.
Please go away and start your "christian" nation somewhere else. So sick of you hypocrites.
Love Gavin. I would also be really interested to see Alex talk to him, or even to Trent Horn, who I think has more experience talking to non-believers. Gavin is somewhat in a Christian bubble (which is fine! just maybe wouldn’t make for the best discussion.)
Edit: it does seem he’s breaking out of that bubble with his engagement with Bowen and people recently so maybe I’m wrong!
@@seanjones2456this is why no one likes atheists
I'm so glad to see your channel grow!
Good civil conversation. Love to see it.
So good to be civil with people who want us dead. Where would we be as a society otherwise 🙄
As a Christian myself I have a deep respect for you Alex! You are moving up in the world- as you should! Incredibly bright and intelligent but also humble and patient with your guest!
Why? What's the point? What good is democracy and how does arguing its religious or secular creation of America help? Our constitution is dead so the rest is moot.
@@DUDEBroHey well you're wrong on all accounts, but carry on.
Keep watching Alex, and hopefully he'll be instrumental in your deconversion.
@@pnut3844able The more I watch O'Connor the more firm I become in my Catholicism lol
@@IrishNationalist1916 even you don't believe that, you're just being combative. The pope telling an aids infested Africa that god says they're not to use condoms is utterly deplorable. The fact that your god gave whole chapters on owning slaves is pure evil. The fact that it says if a man (g)rapes a woman, he has to pay her father 50 silver, she must marry him and can never leave him is the biggest "sin" there is. The fact that god is supposed to be perfect and all knowing, yet committed the flood after he made a mistake with humams is contrary. There are many many other vile things in that book, along with many contradictions. The fact that it says you're to kill homosexuals and yet y'all don't shows that your morals come from you and not your god. Stop it, grow up already.
Michael, you step too quickly over the 1st A. The Declaration of Independence refers to a Deity twice, once as "Creator" and once as "Nature's God." Both of those are key Deist terms. "Creator" refers to the Deistic concept that God created the world *but did not and does not* interfere in it after the Creation (e.g., praying to God to cure an illness was forbidden). And as for "Nature's God", have you ever heard a priest or practicing Catholic refer to God as "Nature's God?" If anything, it's God's nature, not Nature's God. As for the situation of separation of church/state being a modern development, please read the Washington's letter in 1790 (during his presidency) to the Hebrew Congregation in Rhode Island, in which he wrote, "For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
Other tell-tale synonyms: the Author, the Clockmaker, Providence, each often preceded by stl "Almighty" or "Divine."
Their references to “creator” and “nature’s god” is in regard to the universe. They were students of the enlightenment, understanding that superstition was not only illogical, but also dangerous. The founding of the country came on the heels of the Inquisition, which is a prime example when a religious institution is given any type of legal authority. The 1st Amendment is not only a freedom of religion, but a freedom FROM religion.
An impromptu commercial to sell his tobacco products? Classy.
Grifter shit. No different than what he does at the Daily Wire
This is what the two party system has become. They're both about division, and then selling their agendas and products to their people. RFK JR 2024!!
Yes, and it hurts his point. He says "I'm not a historian, but I do have a personal reason to push one story and one date as more important than others" and therefore I should not accept his input as impartial
Grifters gonna grift
@MichaelG485 Alex ran 3 ads during this video, is he a grifter too (time to spin why your beliefs aren't hypocritical)?
I love the way Alex doesn’t shy away from any contentious points that he might have!
Usually in these debates it's the religious that dodge every question
Honestly its nice to see actual dialogue and discussion between 2 people of such conflicting views in a culture that interacts more and more with minute long videos and 140 character arguments.
It's nice to see
"conflicting views in a culture" is doing some heavy lifting for Knowles' genocidal opinions
What benefit do we get from entertaining this psychos ideas?
@@JohnnySplendid Do you mean genocidal in terms of the fact that Christianity as an institution advocates for the mass genocide of Gays, or something to do with Micheal specifically? Because if its the former then thats pretty much the entirety of the 2 billion or so people who believe in Christ, and I dont think most of them are genocidal.
@JohnnySplendidy this
Thank you, Alex. Thank you, Michael. This is why I go to the internet for my information. An honest representation of two opposing views stated in good faith. Perfect 👌
I am so ready for this ❤
I am ñot. I need ice cream
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper Quick! To the freezer!
@@damarcuscolfer1485 I have a bowl of new cinnamon swirl ice cream
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpeppergive up, it’s too long for you
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper Sounds delicious! I just had a Pie and Chips :)
Interesting conversation. You have a way if bringing out the best in the people that you speak to.
fascinating debate, can't wait read some more on this .
I really love how friendly this conversation was
Not according to the Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the United States Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797. That was a mere 9 years after the Constitution was ratified and 6 years after the First Amendment was ratified. They clearly and unanimously understood the meaning of the Constitution and the First Amendment far better than people arguing about it over two centuries later. In Article 11, of the treaty they state:
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Oh, and God was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1950s. Really!?
This alone really should end the debate, but Knowles and his ilk have some snake oil to sell.
Man, if only they'd covered the Treaty of Tripoli in the video. It's a shame there's no way to verify that before commenting...
@whitesoxMLB good point. Did they finally get around to pointing out the God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s?
@whitesoxMLB also, did the point out that it was passed unanimously and only 6 years after the ratification of the First Amendment and 9 years after the ratification of the Constitution. Probably important points to emphasize.
@@stanthomas5812 Jesus man, just watch the videos you're commenting on.
This was really good. Thanks Alex.
I enjoyed this. Please do part two.
no thanks, Knowles is not an honest interlocutor at all.
The short clip with Ben and I am subscribed to your channel.
100% need a part two
not the crossover anyone was expecting, but perhaps the crossover everyone needed 😫
Idk this one was kinda boring
Basically, people followed and evolved to the beliefs of those they lived, survived, grouped with. Religious, Political or Cult-ural
Alex…Christopher Hitchens would have been extremely proud of you!! I miss him and his debates and writings so much. You’re a great substitute!! Thank you!!
The "Nature's God" in the Declaration was negotiated to include the Natural Philosophers who believed in nature instead of a god.
It was included to point to natural law and therefore the natural law giver
I consider Michael a pseudo-intellectual.
I consider this a pseudo-RUclips comment.
Michael Know-less
That's primarily because he is, it's basically a prerequisite to work at DW
I consider Alex a pseudo intellectual.
Nah, that's too charitable to him. He's just another lying fascist.
Alex is so talented at making interviews with insufferable people, watchable.
Clearly Alex does not believe that Michael is insufferable. They shared conversation and cigar in Nashville, then he invited Michael on his show, then they planned to meet up again some time and possibly continue this discussion on another episode. Could it be that you find him insufferable because you hate religious people or because he makes good points that you yourself have trouble understanding and/or refuting?
It's interesting that many Atheists and Christians have the same problem: They are unable to tell you why they believe what they believe at a fundamental level.
@@Blizzhoofwho said anything about this viewer finding Michael insufferable because of Michael making good points or being religious? That’s a false dichotomy.
Maybe this commenter doesn’t like how Knowles keeps going “grr liberals.” Or maybe, the shameless cigar advertisement, or maybe it’s a political issue, or maybe because of Knowles’s conduct outside of this debate
@@BlizzhoofKnowles is a scumbag grifter, and only Trump fans are blind to the obvious 😂
Athiesim is an absence of belief, nothing to defend.
@@Blizzhoof you made a grave error, equating theists and atheists with each other. Atheism is merely the rejection of the religious claims. We don't have any doctrine or common beliefs written about in books lmao.. I'm assuming you don't believe in Zeus? Therefore you're atheist when it comes to Zeus, aka a non-believer. Does this mean you have ideologies about not believing in Zeus? Lmao no, you simply don't believe. The word atheist shouldn't even exist, as we're all non believers at birth. Only when someone introduces a god/s, usually when we're very young and our brains aren't even fully developed, do those terms come into play. In fact, it should be a law that kids can't be taught about any religion until they're 18. It'll never happen though, bc religion would die off almost overnight. They HAVE to get them when they're young, so they're used to these asinine stories and they don't question near as much or buck the system. It's brainwashing, it's disgusting, and it's psychological abuse of children.
I understand the debate for academic reasons but i dont understand when people use "we were founded as a Christian nation" in an argument for what we should do now. So what if we were founded as such? Why does the agreement between multiple individuals at that time bind us?
The first 3 seconds of the video made sense. Had to pause it. Deep breath. Now I'll watch the rest of it.
love that you are willing to speak to people. especially people in the daily wire crowd. about any form of topics.
And shouldn't we find it odd, that this type and level of mature discourse is far less represented on conservative platforms?
They love to come to us and be hosted, but rarely return the respectful gesture...
There are many reasons for this.
@@plumberman19There's one reason. And that's because they never want their rubes to hear outside information.
@@plumberman19whoa whoa, hold up now. The left is just as bad as the right. The two party system is broken and is a joke. Neither one cares about helping the people, now it's just about beating the other side. 80% of voters don't want to have to vote between a rematch of those two lunatics. Which is why RFK jr is the only sane choice this fall. Help him and us take back and our country and get it on track. If Biden or Trump is re-elected, this country is doomed.
@@plumberman19it is the lefties who don't wanna talk to right because the other side is "fascist", lefties in Alex's comments hate that he is talking to Knowles
@@adamsmith9184 I’m one of Michael’s “rubes” and I’m here listening to both sides of this conversation. I do agree there is an unfortunately bitter political divide being drawn across these types of conversations. I found Alex’s conversation with Michael to be a breath of fresh air, and I do wish both sides would participate in more of this.
1:17:12
*"If we're talking about consistency on the matter of slavery, certainly the Catholic Church has had it".*
Michael is very conveniently leaving out the fact that the Catholic Church was abundantly clear that it was only wrong to enslave the New World Natives, and that black Africans were totally fine to own, and sell.
“In 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued a papal bull entitled Dum Diversas, which authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans” in a disputed territory in Africa and consign them to “perpetual servitude.” It has been argued that this and the subsequent bull (Romanus Pontifex), issued by Nicholas in 1455, gave the Portuguese the rights to acquire slaves along the African coast by force or trade. The edicts are thus seen as having facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa and as having legitimized the European colonization of the African continent.”
-Britannica Encyclopedia
@@Durta_idk Exactly; the mental gymnastics Michael does are genuinely incredible.
@@Durta_idk Once the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD, its teachings influenced Roman laws and policies. Church funds were used by Christians to redeem slaves, especially prisoners of war. One former slave even rose to become pope (Callistus I) from c. 218 AD to his martyrdom in c. 222 AD. Still, slavery continued in Europe even after the collapse of imperial rule in the late fifth century, but as the Church’s influence increased the institution of slavery decreased, until it was completely eradicated in Christendom. Unfortunately, slavery returned to European society in the 15th century, with the conquest of the Canary Islands and the discovery of the New World. But from 1435 to 1890, a succession of popes condemned the slave trade and slavery in no uncertain terms. The first pope to do so was Eugenius IV who in his 1435 bull Sicut Dudum demanded that Christians free all enslaved natives of the Canary Islands within fifteen days; failure to do so would incur automatic excommunication. Thus, 57 years before Columbus’s first voyage the Pope unequivocally prohibited the enslavement of native peoples. In 1537, Pope Paul III issued a bull, 'Sublimus Dei', which taught that natives peoples were not to be enslaved. In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV promulgated 'Cum Sicuti', which was addressed to the bishop of Manila in the Philippines and reiterated his predecessors’ prohibitions against enslaving native peoples. In 1639, Pope Urban VIII promulgated 'Commissum Nobis' in support of the Spanish king’s (Philip IV) edict prohibiting enslavement of the Indians in the New World.
The need for cheap and abundant labor in the colonies led to the African slave trade. This new form of slavery was also condemned by the popes, beginning with Innocent XI (r. 1676-1689). In 1741, Benedict XIV (r. 1740-1758) issued 'Immensa Pastorum', which reiterated that the penalty for enslaving Indians was excommunication. In 1839, Gregory XVI issued 'In Supremo' to condemn the enslavement of Africans. Pope Leo XIII promulgated two bulls condemning slavery in 1888 and 1890. Yet despite the many papal condemnations of slavery, European colonists continued to enslave Africans and New World natives until the nineteenth century. Papal denunciations of slavery were so harsh and so frequent that the colonial Spanish instituted a law forbidding the publication of papal documents in the colonies without prior royal approval.
Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex were no different than giving a life sentence to enemies or criminals with hard labor to pay back society as we still do to this very day. It was almost like the ancient Israel conquering its enemies and subjecting them to perpetual servitude. They were at the time a fairly reasonable response to the power and aggression of the Turkish Empire. The problem is the power it granted to the Iberian empires was later greatly abused in their colonial expansions in the new world, north Africa, and the far east.
Thank you for this historical context. I was not aware of this. It is also telling that despite the fact that Bartolomé de las Casas is so highly celebrated in history textbooks, his tireless action on behalf of the indigenous peoples of America does not seem to have had the support of the Church
The reason for the subject not being as clear as it should have been is probably due to let’s just say the less than stellar relationship between Islam and Christianity during that time, As much as it should not have been an eye for an eye, probably played a big part.
14:46 Thomas Paine’s Wikipedia page (erroneously) lists him as a founding father, but the actual article on the Founding Fathers notably omits him from the list.
Got my beer, time to lock in for this one.
Turn it off, it’s too long
@@JuanGarcia-mo6vy it is less than 90 minutes
@@erierierierierie Which is 90 minutes too long to answer a simple question with a one word answer - "No."
Alex's possibly asking this as his and my country is being overrun by Islam and as we as British have chose lesser of two evils through history with our English common sense are bring back historic effects of the religious wars with the two odd and similar ideological nightmares.
@@JuanGarcia-mo6vyI’ll watch 9 hour videos lmao
While I don’t generally agree with treating paid political operatives as honest intellectual interlocutors, Alex’s approach could potentially appeal to daily wire viewers more than if he were overly dismissive and combative.
True maybe
what makes Knowles a "political operative", educate us?
@@netspirit79 f*ck off! Dishonest people like you are annoying.
Knowles is an obvious grifter. He and his kind continuously get things wrong, many times purposely , to keep their audience entertained with the most insane rhetoric @@asimhussain8716
Maybe that true but I wonder if Alex would have been more combative would Michael have agreed to the debate to behind with? Michael has made a career debating colledge kids so I'm not sure if we would agree to someone thay would show him in a bad light to begin with
Very good chat!