It was written in the Star Spangled Banner, third stanza. The pledge of allegiance is much less important from a historical perspective than the star spangled banner.
The separation of church and state was only a thing for the federal government and states were allowed to have state religions until the Civil War. What’s the difference in argumentation? You’re making an argument based on revisionism when your side does the same thing. Eisenhower using religion to fight communism and the Soviet Union is really no different than the Lincoln using nationalism to erode American federalism because of the fear of sectionalism and the possibility of future secession.
@@kylevernon No clue what you're on about or what "side" you think I'm on, I'm simply correcting a factual inaccuracy that was uttered. I made no arguments.
@@bokoura You have no idea that the states within America were not beholden to the Bill of Rights until the 14th amendment? No, thank you for the self report buddy. But great, he made a minor mistake and you pointed it out.
The beliefs of the founders is a pretty moot point. It doesn’t matter what they believed, they wrote out pretty clearly what kind of country this should be. They didn’t found the country “in the make of the church” or in the name of God. It’s been clearly established for over a century that there is a clear separation between the church and the state. This silly gaslighting is pointless.
They literally established a country that cites the Creator in its founding document and grounds all inalienable human rights. That's not just a belief of the founders. It's in our founding document.
as a leader for culture and politics , he did not find anything more objectively bad for people than cigars. I always find these tradcons very contradictory and hypocrytical
John Adams also had a particular definition of "Christianity." He bitterly rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Some folks would argue that in doing so that took him "out" of "mere Christianity." And that his religious system was "something else."
They discussed this in depth in the original conversation, but to summarize: they had good reason to deceive the Islamic pirates into thinking America wasn’t very Christian. Because Muslims are commanded to subjugate Christians and Jews wherever they find them, it would be wise to downplay the role of Christianity in a treaty with Muslims. Ultimately, the treaty of Tripoli proves nothing.
As Knowles said, it's almost like the US had a motive for appearing as un-Christian as possible to appease Muslim Barbary pirates by writing the US "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen". Hmm I wonder what possible rationale the US had for this framing....
Michael is quite intelligent and well-spoken - obviously so is Alex. Michael also has a sense of wit to him. I disagree with virtually everything he posits re: blending faith and politics, while maintaining he's mostly correct politically. Really loved this conversation, and so appreciate Alex for bringing all sides on to his podcast.
I love how people say “we have to go back to the beginning,” in this case citing the beliefs of the pilgrims, and then cite “in god we trust” and the pledge of allegiance as similar evidence when those were not introduced until the 20th century during the red scare as a reactionary measure. They are not originalist at all.
@@SevereFamineare you serious or is this a joke because all religions and societies have a set of rights that their citizens or adherents have. You honestly believe that human rights are unique to Christianity? Can't be. Must be a joke.
An important note about Thomas Jefferson. He has, at his direction, only three items on his tombstone in regard to his life's accomplishments. Two of these are writing the Declaration of Independence and founding of the University of Virginia. The third is his authorship of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, which was the basis for the First Amendment Establishment Clause and very clearly defined the idea of separation of church and state in Virginia in 1777. James Madison was a strong supporter of this bill, which finally passed in 1786 after a proposed law for "teachers of the Christian religion" was put on the floor and vehemently opposed by Jefferson and Madison. So, this is the author of the Declaration of Independence in Jefferson and the primary writer of the Constitution in Madison both strongly pushing this concept. Seems like a pretty ringing endorsement of the separation of church and state.
In America, you are free to practice whatever religion you'd like to or you're free to not practice any religion at all.And that's the way it should remain. Why does it seem like this is just not good enough for some American religious practitioners? Practitioners by the way who are definitely afraid of any other religion infecting our government other than their own.
Probably because as the number of faith practitioners decreases, the number of people that believe in their imaginary friend becomes the minority and they start to feel a little stupid and it’s easier to digest when EVERYONE around you is ALSO delusional
Because we have brains and can understand cause, effect and history. Other religions have some abominable figures in their reverence - Mohammad is evil and so is Allah. Jesus is perfect in every way.
Yes because the west has lost its marbles. If you look over at Academia and Europe, we have lost our ways. We are letting backward and 7th century barbarians taking over our societies, countries, and compromising our principles..we need to get back to what made us great which are Christianity and the enlightenment!! On one hand, we want to give rights to every and anybody while at the same time importing people who want to take these rights away and turn us back into the 7th century
Michael Knowles forgets that the Europeans are Romans first, and have been Romans far longer than they have been Christians. The Romans valued religious liberty, and so did the Founding Fathers. The exodus of many early immigrants escaping religious persecution was not lost on them. The presumption of innocence unless guilt is proven is clearly anti-Judaic.
@@SpikeTFA, Exactly. People forget that Saint Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, clearly stated that the Old Testament is obsolete and ready to vanish.
America was founded by people who were seeking religious freedom. This wasn't meant to mean you could be whatever you wished so long as it was Christian. They were from Christian dominated Europe and thus the vast majority of thought and ideas came from Christian teachings. If the founding fathers had intended America to be a Christian nation they would have said so, these were intelligent people.
@@SuperEdge67 Let’s start with ‘America was founded’ Who are you talking about? (It’s ok to say that we’ve just written off the indigenous peoples from this story if that’s how you see it)
@poerava The indigenous people didn't have a nation. They were tribal and communal. So yes, America, a nation, was created by the founding members. That doesn't mean there weren't people here before.
@poerava I'm actually a bit in disbelief you think the concept of europeans founding a nation (which is pretty obvious) to be revisionist. I don't think you know what a nation is. Edit: apparently I dont know what a nation is in historical contexts. I mean Nation State.
Ugh. Winthrop did not declare that America would be a shining city on a hill. He used the phrase "as a city upon a hill" referring to their new community, i.e., Boston. Reagan added the word shining, and politicians have been repeating that error ever since.
Catholic here. When Christians call America a "shining city on a hill," it irks me because that shining city is supposed to be the Church, not any nation. I fear too many Christians have turned the U.S.A into their "church," with the Constitution and Declaration as their Bible, and the Founding Fathers have replaced the Church Fathers.
To be fair a lot of “religious” Americans hardly even participate in their religion, only going to church a few times per year. In my mind, those people barely count.
Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" not only attracted public support for the Revolution but put the rebellion's leaders under pressure to declare independence. He got the ball rolling, so to speak. Even after the victory over the British, Paine’s influence persisted, and some of his ideas found their way into the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The behavior of the citizenry defines the character of a country. If someone were to allege America were a murderous country, or a debauched country, it would be no rebuttal to say, "I don't see anything to indicate as much in its founding documents."
Typical Knowles, asked a straightforward question, kind of answers 5 other questions while mentally flailing. Seems out of his depth when Shapiros not there in his corner
I honestly don't understand why we even need to have these conversations. If the founding fathers had intended for this country to be a Christian nation, and had intended Christian ethics to be enshrined in law, they would have said so. There was literally nothing stopping them from saying so if they wanted to, and they chose not to, and perhaps even more to the point they explicitly excluded religious consideration from the law. Why this is a debate I just will never know
Probably because for the last thousand years Christian morality WAS MORALITY. They clearly did enshrine Christian ethics into law and the constitution. You can quite literally say the same thing for anything? Why didn’t they enshrine the ethics of why free speech as a moral good? They didn’t because it is assumed. The reason free speech is important to them is because of Protestant history and the Protestant concept of the personal relationship with god.
They did say so... "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams Other founding fathers echoed similar sentiments. The idea the Constitution is devoid of moral and religious underpinnings is wrong. The Declaration of independence states it flat out... "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." The danger we face as a nation is the notion by both believers and non-believers that somehow the Constitution can survive the atheistic moral relativism our society has so ardently embraced. History acquaints us quite well with those who have tried.
You are trying to separate America from its context. It is the typical hustle of people pushing narratives, where the only facts to be considered are those convenient to the current thing.
Countries are built of the people who create them. These people have common ideals and worldviews that can be called the soul of the nation. I feel like you're denying this only because you must disagree with everything and anything that Michael says before he even says it.
@@KevinSmile There have been times I have shared opinions with Knowles, I even shared one (just one) with Thatcher. The people who make up a country are not a homogenous lump of unified ideas and culture. The USA in particular, while founded by dissenters, Quakers and Puritans (who all disagreed with each other) has long been home to immigrants from all over the world with all their own beliefs and disbeliefs. "E Pluribus Unum" and all that.
Read the Mayflower Compact. The separatists who came over came over with Geneva Bibles who were Calvinists. Over 40 founding forefathers held seminary degrees and each state had its own Constitution before 1776 that was thoroughly Christian. Their idea wasnt a hodgepodge of various religions represently, but Christianity. They knew if Gods blessing was upon them that they could not fail.
Christianity is dying in the US, as it is in other modern countries. The proportion of the US population identifying as Christian has dropped from 90% in 1990 to 63% in 2022. A drop of about 1% per year, every year. And it seems the rate of decline is accelerating as churches shut down and older, heavily indoctrinated generations die out.
I'm sorry michael, am I confused? Weren't all the founding fathers British, or at least from right around that area? I mean, definitionally, before the United States was founded the Americas where they lived were british, which would mean definitionally that all of the people who live there were British. Maybe I've missed something
Many of the Founding Fathers were born and raised in America as British citizens. Imagine a Hawaiian U.S. Citizen (who’s never been to the mainland) revolting against Washington D.C. and declaring Hawaii independent. The founding fathers rejected their British citizenship when they declared independence. Not all of them were British necessarily as colonists from other countries were present as well (e.g. Marquis de Lafayette was French). ❤️🔥
Dude is dangerous. By the way he answered the first question , he would turn this country into a Christian theocracy if he could. People seem to forget that Europe has tried that for most of its past and all it produced was religious wars within Christianity and with other religions like the Cathars and Islam. At its height it gave us the Dark Ages. The fathers understood this. At the beginning, there were states in the US where you couldn't work if you weren't catholic; and in others, if you're weren't Protestant. Once everyone admits they believe in God ( even a Christian one), the conflict always quickly moves to -how you believe,ie what kind of doctrines and rituals do you believe in. The US , by his founding fathers and founding legal documents wasn't a Christian Nation. And even if it were, it doesn't mean it would have been good for it to remain so.
@@lastnamefirstname850I’m not sure what your problem is, but it’s a pretty well known part of European history. We had the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches endowing our kings with the divine right of ruling over the masses, as such dictatorships sanctioned by the Church. We had the Spanish Inquisition violently enforcing Christianity and punishing any perceived heresy with confiscation of property, torture and/or death, and most European kingdoms had severe penalties for heresy. We had a series of brutal religious wars between Catholics and Protestants. Heck, the Thirty Years' War is considered to be one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European history.
@@El3ctr0Lun4 Yeah, looks like this guy doesn't know his history. It's often the case that religious people have no idea how destructive their religions have been.
All of the founding fathers were British!!! They were all British citizens! Additionally the colony of Virginia was founded 13-14 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth and it was founded for purely capitalistic reasons. No religious society was foreseen in Virginia. The Massachusetts colony was so wrong that people were either banished or left for Rhode Island which was founded on the philosophy of total Religious Freedom! The Puritan society died out and partially returned in the Great Awakening which brought it back for a short time and later 'Great Awakenings' pop up throughout the history. Knowles is an F'ing charlatan and talking out of his rear-end!
Can't comment on the racist aspect, but he's definitely said indoctrinated, stupid stuff. I'm a Christian and a voluntaryist, and he's been wrong on a lot of things.
Im getting sick of atheism being 94% attacking religious texts and beliefs. Yes its easier to attack a belief than to hold them. Lets see some society building atheist beliefs then shall we?
A poet including the phrase In God We Trust in a poem does not indicate the feeling of all people in the country, nor does it reflect the laws which have been legislated in that country
America is a Christian nation. America is not a government, it’s a people. The idea of separating church and state assumed the goverment would remain small and it originally only applied to the Federal Government only. It was always just a slogan and the idea of separation of church and state was never fully realized in the first amendment, it’s not the legal or American standard. We have the freedom of religion, not separation between church and state and state.
Calling America a Christian nation because a majority of the people are Christian is like calling America a white nation. Is that really the standard we’re using?
The First Amendment is part of the foundational governing documents of this nation. It is the law. By definition it is legal. You are full of it. Keep religion out of government.
@@sorgeelenchus Well, sure. Yeah. America was a white nation. Americas founding was created as a white nation. Do those words bother you? Now it’s not. Things change. That’s the point. Continuously holding up the false narrative that the founders didn’t intend this to be a Christian country is simply false, but things change. Other people took the reins of power and they changed this country in a way the founding fathers wouldn’t have wanted. That’s all a want people to admit.
SO some people basically stole a country 300 years ago.., and anyone who moved here, or was born here afterword is outa luck as far as having any input?
You realize that's the entire story of human history. We originated in Africa(Currently in dispute) if that's the case then we conquered and colonized the entire world to the same outcome.
@@alexanderwilliamson7431 Yeah, and in that context, you realize that there is no point in history where you can say THESE PEOPLE FOUNDED THE COUNTRY AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY HOW IT IS GOING TO BE RUN FOREVER AFTER
@@alexanderwilliamson7431 yeah… lets stop pretending like we have to run the country based on the views of the pilgrims. I mean the Italians dint run the country based upon Romulus…. Greeks do not run their country based on the views of Plato, etc
@@MrArdytube Your eventually going to have to decide on a set of unified views. Otherwise the other option is anarchy. Which views are the correct ones. Yours?
Felt to me like it was both fluid with the conversation and relevant. Not sure where the ‘shameless’ comes in. Perhaps you’d prefer if no one ever advertised their own products and instead kept any entrepreneurial behavior inside where it can’t hurt you? Grow up
@@THG1995 The issue for me is the vitriol in your comment without explanation. You can’t just insult someone as shameless because you either don’t agree with them or do know them enough. Perhaps I could have been less aggressive for sure but, you were just as quick to insult a man you likely never watch. I imagine you’re more of an Alex O’Connor subscriber which would explain the perception of Michael’s comment as shameless. I very well could be wrong in your consumption of Knowles content though
So much ignorance in the video and the comments section. Supreme Court already decided this- Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, 1892- "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457" That's the law.
You are correct. Justice Brewer did deliver that opinion; however, it was in context of the specific case. It no way does it impact the current legal framework that emphasizes religious neutrality. P.S. Mentioning "ignorance" of others isn't becoming, particularly when the ignorance does not exist.
@GaryLutchansky It's a precedent that is still in effect. As far as "the current legal framework" goes, it's pretty obvious the framework is fluid. All it takes is a change at the highest court.
@@GaryLutchansky As far as "ignorance" goes, if you're asking the question and not even referring to a Supreme Court decision that is still law and explicitly answers the question, I can only assume you don't know about it.
@@controlclerk Isn't Brewer's statement just a notable historical observation? If so, then this observation carries no legal authority. The case at hand certainly did not have anything to do with regards to "a Christian nation". Why did you bring it up? I would like to know if I'm incorrect. I'll update my knowledge if you share information that contradicts mine. Thank you.
11:55... Bill of rights - Free exorcise of religion - "there will be not establishment of a/the (fudged..on purpose?) church is misunderstood - Some people take this to mean either, there can be no Church established anywhere in the US or THEY GO EVEN FURTHER AND SAY THE COUNTRY WOULD BE SECULAR, IT WOULD BE ABSENT FROM RELIGION". Again pure fudging. Sorry but "no establishment of the church" is WAY BIGGER than the country being secular. One denies the church completely, it denies Christianity out right. The other pushes the idea that the politics will not be beholden to the church and will be separate. He then he goes on to point out why the latter is what actually was meant, at least to anyone with a bit of critical thinking.
No. Why is it a morality based on anything. Let’s just be scientific. Your assumption is a foolish one. Name something that has functional complexity that hasn’t been formulated by a rational mind.
The US is what it is not because of Christianity, but in spite of it. The fathers were deists at best. They couldn't claim to be non believers at that time unless you made use of irony in an artful way as Franklin did for instance.
When I think of Christianity, I think of the evangelicals supporting a convicted felon, liar, a guy who was found liable for sexual assault, and instigator of insurrection as a candidate for POTUS.
Dear Alex, I get the need for views and clicks, but this dude is so far below your expertise. If it’s what you gotta do to make a living, I get it; but I believe that you know this is low-hanging fruit. Hopefully you won’t have to debate these dingbats one day.
Michael Knowles is very well versed on the subject. I’m not sure where this perspective is coming from. Anyway, I thought it was a good debate actually. Good conversation all around.
The date of the founding of our country is not an arbitrary point to begin discussing the culture of our country. Of course there are influences that came before that, but there was no country so it's not reasonable to talk about what the country was doing before it existed
It is purposefully Christ like for America to never legally establish a national religion and to allow free will. That was not by accident, nor was it to affirm the validity of any other world religion. If a nation aimed toward Christ is the goal, force would be it's antithesis. One must seek Christ to find him.
Since Thomas Jefferson was a Freemason, I wonder who or what he denoted with "creator" in the Declaration of Independence. Freemasonry is religiously indifferent. So, it lets Masons practice any religions they choose or no religion. "Creator" may have signified the Freemasonic Grand Architect, whatever he or it may be. That suggests Jefferson might not have written about God in that document. Jefferson produced the "Jefferson Bible" by deleting each Scripture passage describing a miracle. Thar tells me Jefferson probably doubted the United States was Christian. From what I can tell, the U.S. is the first country to adopt a secular government. During a lecture I watched on TH-cam, he said that in America's 13 Colonies, men got executed for being Catholic priests and that's is hardly suggests that each colony was Christian. Michael Knowles practices Catholicism, which makes me wonder whether he believes the Catholic dogma about Christ's social reign. That doctrine obligates each country to make Catholicism its official religion when most citizens there are Catholic. That's why Pope Leo XIII writes: " Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded." www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html Catholicizing the United States would be imprudent now when only 20% of Americans are Catholic, It would be imprudent partly because the Catholic Church teaches that it's immoral to force anyone to become Catholic. Though this country and its non-Catholic citizens may have a douty to become Catholic, the country's conversion may sometimes do more harm than good. It's one thing to have a moral obligation. It's another thing to be in circumstances that prevent a person or a country from fulfillinng it. I'm a patriotic native-born American. But I can't be a conservative in the American sense of that word. "American conservative" is oxymoronic because American conservatives conserve Locke's Classical Liberalism. That helps explain what make me a North American High Tory instead. I'm on the political right mostly because I'm a Catholic, My religion determines my politics, not conversely.
As long as any religion is formally seperated from the constitution or foundation of a nation, that's all that matters. That's more likely to ensure that religions within it, no matter how stupid and archaic, are protected.
I think the US was founded to be "secular" in some sense. It's a particular definition, though. It was an outgrowth of infighting between and among the religious sects. A "secular" state as neutral referee. Though it doesn't necessarily demand -- at least at the constitutional level where a SCOTUS decision gets the "final say" -- an *absolute* separation of Church & State, according to "reductio ad absurdum" logic. (The position of Michael Newdow, et al.) Another can of worms is that the Declaration of Independence does mention a God of some sort in four different places (it's a theistic, not a "Christian" document; there's no mention of Jesus or invoking of verses and chapters of scripture, etc.).
Amazing how Christian’s cans talk for so long without saying anything. And all those words to simply assert your conclusion again. If they weren’t so dangerous they’d be hilarious.
Alex. It’s easy for you to criticize and attempt to deconstruct religion. Fine. What you’re completely blind to is to offer a critique of your own beliefs BOTH on a personal AND societal-wide scale. Until you offer something better, and scientifically prove it works, you will always be wasting your time and perpetuate your tone-deafness in this regard. Yes, this is a challenge for you.
Are you making a case for an objective morality determined by a certain god-belief/religion? If so, you must accept that there have been thousands of different gods worshipped around the world, along with countless accompanying religions and many with their own holy books they devoutly believe is the divine word of their god. Who gets to decide which one is the best? No matter how you look at it, religious beliefs and moral codes are all subjective and based on human opinions. Alex has made the point before that we can come to a subjective agreement on what is acceptable and what is not as they pertain to human well-being. We can still make practical use of ethical statements, with a set of agreed-upon common laws and a criminal justice system supporting it. No god required. Even bees demonstrate an altruism that in any human narrative would be considered moral. And bees have been doing their thing for more than a hundred million years.
@@elitemindset9581 Nice deflection, but I'm still waiting for you to answer my question- Are you making a case for an objective morality determined by a certain god-belief/religion?
You either believe in secular governance or you believe in theocracy. There isn't a middle ground. You can't claim to value religious liberty while simultaneously subjugating everyone underneath of your favorite religious document or perspective. Either Americans are free to practice religion according to their own conscience or to practice no religion also according to their conscience or none of us are free.
So, freedom of religion to you should enable something like Jihad, or crusading? There needs to be an overarching framework that grounds the national identity upon a cohesive foundation. The argument advanced is that while freedom of religion should be enabled, it should be enabled on terms that restrict the aspects of those free religions which cause the erosion of the freedom itself. For an example of this identitarian framework, look at Singapore. Freedom of religion is encouraged there, but only after integration into the Singaporean identity, because Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father, saw that unchecked cultural freedom would lead to the establishment of a corrupt hegemony.
@@lepidoptera9337 Yes and no. It is not that easy. Yes, religion seems silly. But in my life, the very best people I have met are people who are devout in their beliefs and while you may look down upon them for 'abolishing reason', for what they lack in 'reason', they massively make up for in their humanity, generosity, respect, how they raise their family, etc. Now, I am non comparing 'pretend' Christians, many of who go to megachurches and do anything but live a 'Christian' life. Many so-called 'christians' are hypocrites and the worst kinds of people. I am talking about the old-fashioned people who genuinely believe in what they think and walk the walk with how the treat people, etc. I am not a 'believer'. But I understand when it comes to this realm of humanity, most of humanity needs something other than themselves and materialism to consider in order to focus and understand what is really important in life to live a happy and fulfilling life, in overwhelming cases, I see religion as a good thing for them to help guide them. Again, this is based on my vast experiences of humanity, where a lot of 'intellects' and 'amateur philosophers' are not very good people, but simple religious people, not necessarily the brightest, are very, very happy people and would help anyone in need
An englishman who knows so much more of American history than Knowles. Not surprised, as a Swede I most often know more about both American history and religion than my American friends.
”This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.” - Court decision in Church if the Holy Trinity v. United States, page 143 U.S. 465 and following. “The real object of the first amendment was not to countenance , much less advance, mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among the Christian sects.” - Justice Joseph Story, 1833 “By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.” - Justice Samuel Chase Providence has given to our people the choice of their ruler, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. - Chief Justice John Jay
Treaty of Tripoli (1797), which was unanimously ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams, it is stated: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion" - John Adams “Government has no Right to hurt a hair of the head of an Atheist for his opinions.” - John Adams “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - James Madison (Letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803)” "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” - Thomas Jefferson "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Jefferson “It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.” - Thomas Paine "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” - Thomas Paine "I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity" Benjamin Franklin "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - First line of the first amendment. Our founders were secularists, deists, skeptics, and enlightenment thinkers. Our documents and founding are secular.
@@TAOSCIENCE 1. The treaty of Tripoli was an attempt to stop the Muslims from attacking the ships of our fledgling nation and enslaving their passengers (“our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception” - Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin) and there are two viable explanations for the declaration therein: 1. it was stretching the truth to placate the Muslims (who believed their “right and duty [was] to make war upon [infidels/kafir] wherever they could be found”) 2. It was accurate according to the framework of the Muslims, whose understanding of a ‘religious state’ is a sharia caliphate; which is NOT analogous to how a ‘Christian Nation’ is structured. In that sense, the government is not ‘founded on the Christian religion’ in the sense that the Muslims would understand it. Either of these explanations would fit with what William Eaton said: “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen”. 2. True - also irrelevant. Having a ‘Christian nation’ does not imply that individual beliefs be forced or punished. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the reasoning for individual religious liberty in human government stems from Christian philosophy ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’ - Mark 12:17 (thus recognizing the distinction between church authority and state authority), “Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” - Jefferson Even Paine (who you reference later) argued on the grounds that “the adulterous connection of church and state” would “[prohibit], by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds and upon first principles of religion” and so hoped for a ‘revolution in the system of religion’ so that “human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and mankind would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief in one God, and no more”. 3. Yes, by avoiding Ecclesiocracy and government policing individual beliefs; so same as above. 4. Same as above. 5. Irrelevant. This is just advice to his nephew Peter Carr to prize reason over prejudice in his study of religion (‘divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion… you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it’). The thrust of this passage is that it is so important a subject that one should not decide it flippantly and on poor grounds. He seems to convey some degree of skepticism of certain biblical miracle accounts, but this is not relevant to our subject. 6. Interesting, but not relevant. No one claims every person of the time was in lockstep orthodoxy. Paine was apparently a deist (“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life”, “I do not believe in the creed professed by… any church that I know of” - The Age of Reason). 7. Same as previous. 8. Also irrelevant. This is just a weaker version of 6. If we want to consider the subject, though, one would be remiss in omitting certain other passages from that same source (Letter to Ezra Stiles). “I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this” “I think the System of Morals and his (Jesus) Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it... I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the World with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure”. 9. Apparently this quote is said to be a corruption of something he wrote in a letter in July 17 1757 after narrowly escaping a shipwreck, “The bell ringing for church, we went thither immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received. 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.” In other words, he would build a lighthouse to help prevent more shipwrecks. Even if the quote is accurate and indicated a diminution of churches it would still be the same as 6-8. 10. That’s not actually the “First line of the Constitution” but of the First Amendment. Typos aside, that is true - CONGRESS should not pass a law establishing a national ‘religion’ or prohibiting people from holding theirs. See 2 and 3, and the second quote in my previous post. Yes - a few of the founders were ‘deist’ and enlightenment thinking has influenced many; this does not make your case or counter mine - especially since the large majority of them (50/55 at the Constitutional Convention by some accounts) were much more orthodox (there are many quotes but I used none as they are less relevant than the ones I used), and the society was unarguably Christian - so much so that most of the state constitutions requires not only that you be Christian to hold office, but that you be the right denomination, and for a long time Protestant catechisms we’re used in public schools.
@@TAOSCIENCE 1. The treaty of Tripoli was an attempt to stop the Muslims from attacking the ships of our fledgling nation and enslaving their passengers (“our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception” - Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin) and there are two viable explanations for the declaration therein: 1. it was stretching the truth to placate the Muslims (who believed their “right and duty [was] to make war upon [infidels/kafir] wherever they could be found”) 2. It was accurate according to the framework of the Muslims, whose understanding of a ‘religious state’ is a sharia caliphate; which is NOT analogous to how a ‘Christian Nation’ is structured. In that sense, the government is not ‘founded on the Christian religion’ in the sense that the Muslims would understand it. Either of these explanations would fit with what William Eaton said: “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen”, but it seems to me the latter is more likely given the next phrase that immediately follows in that same sentence, “as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen”. 2. True - also irrelevant. Having a ‘Christian nation’ does not imply that individual beliefs be forced or punished. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the reasoning for individual religious liberty in human government stems from Christian philosophy ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’ - Mark 12:17 (thus recognizing the distinction between church authority and state authority), “Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” - Jefferson Even Paine (who you reference later) argued on the grounds that “the adulterous connection of church and state” would “[prohibit], by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds and upon first principles of religion” and so hoped for a ‘revolution in the system of religion’ so that “human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and mankind would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief in one God, and no more”.
@@TAOSCIENCE 1. The treaty of Tripoli was an attempt to stop the Muslims from attacking the ships of our fledgling nation and enslaving their passengers (“our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception” - Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin) and there are two viable explanations for the declaration therein: 1. it was stretching the truth to placate the Muslims (who believed their “right and duty [was] to make war upon [infidels/kafir] wherever they could be found”) 2. It was accurate according to the framework of the Muslims, whose understanding of a ‘religious state’ is a sharia caliphate; which is NOT analogous to how a ‘Christian Nation’ is structured. In that sense, the government is not ‘founded on the Christian religion’ in the sense that the Muslims would understand it. Either of these explanations would fit with what William Eaton said: “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen”, but it seems to me the latter is more likely given the next phrase that immediately follows in that same sentence, “as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen”.
9:05 INCORRECT. The preamble of the US Constitution states to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," which clearly from the outset, demonstrates a broad understanding that they were blessed by God and wanted to continue to have such blessings of liberty for there descendants.
America was never blessed by any god, they inherited a land teeming with riches in farmland, forests and rivers and lakes teeming with fish and they stole land from the natives.
@@georgesimon1760 So, when the men of that culture scribed those words, you are saying they are expressing a multi-cultural perspective encompassing their society of many different faiths? NO, their society was predominantly Protestant Christian, with the occasional atheist/jew/Catholic which together made less than 5% of the society. Daoism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. were not present in the American Society (and to a certain extent remain foreign theologies in the US) It was the French Revolution which adopted Rousseau; The American Revolution spawned from the teachings of Locke and the English legal tradition.
@@georgesimon1760 If a society is made up of 95% Protestant Christians, it is absurd to say that the American project emanated from a Deist culture. Additionally deists do not believe in "blessings of liberty" -nor do they believe in natural rights. Try again sport.....
Religion is what's wrong with the world. I can just close my eyes for a few minutes and find the meaning of life. I don't need a "God" to tell me what's what.
It's conception was founded on Christian Values by believers and non-believers alike who revered Christian values as the best foundation for a nation. Like how Richard Dawkins, Douglas Murray, historian Tom Holland, all atheists, refer to themselves as "Christian Atheists," acknowledging the West was Christian and so are they culturally.
So the main point is Christianity is the most Superior religion in the world! Based the Lord Jesus Christ who literally changed the world! And still changes the minds of humans everywhere every day! It's hard to fight facts, atheists.
I know former Christians that have converted to Islam, does this mean Muhammad changes the minds of the lost everyday, no obviously not, Special pleading, next time you attempt to make an argument that people should reject logic and just believe without thought, ask why that argument couldn't work for another religion, if it can you have made an unfalsifiable argument and therefore an impossible to prove one. But I'm aware you probably see your religion specifically as special and beyond all criticism, so good luck dealing with that solipsism if it is infact there. It's actually very easy to argue with facts (you no doubt do everyday) what's harder is establishing facts, but you can't do that for things that are not material, therefore there can be no facts about God, atleast not known ones.
@itsdodger1176 One conclusion is that all of us humans are stupid and devoid of knowledge. A few reasons Most people that are easily persuaded or lead astray from Christianity: 1. They never believed in the first place. 2. They never listen to True Pastor teachers. 3. they never actually read their Bible The Bible gives us information about who and what God is and what He has done and is doing and going to do. You're right it is true I (a Christian) can't put God who is declared to be Spirit (John 4:24) in a test tube and present it to you. I have to live by faith. (Romans 1:17) Also, ignorant people follow Muhammad. Muhammad was a false prophet on so many subjects, including raping a 9-year-old. Either way, it's a FACT from a historical and theological standpoint that Christianity is Superior regardless of who fights against it or gets persuaded out of it. Nice chatting with you. Hope you will read it sometime. Farwell
@itsdodger1176 No, it just means ignorant people are easily persuaded away from the truth of Christianity to follow a false prophet Muhammad who raped a 9 year old. The Lord Jesus Christ and His teachings are without a doubt Superior! Theologically and historically, it's a FACT Christianity is Superior.
As an atheist, I have a personal relationship with reality and have no reason to believe your claims are true. You've made assumptions and assertions, but no credible or verifiable evidence for your god's existence or for your claim that Christianity is superior above all other religions. (Just because something is popular, doesn't make it superior.) How, specifically did your Jesus change the whole world? If that were true, 100% of the population of the world would be Christian. As it stands, that number is only about 32%. You are certainly free to worship any way you please. However, your free exercise of religion ends where the rights of others begin.
whatever you want to say about Knowles he is a smart guy and nice to see the smug O'Connor countered by an intelligent articulate christian for once, i think Alex actually lost this one
Thomas Paine as Alex likes to mention wasn't a member of American political congress, an elected member or wrote down any of the official documents of American Constitution. also, none of the Founding Fathers of America ever met with Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was just a political journalist and at best an activist that believed in American independence from the British. creating the country from the initial 13 independent states that formed the USA. so is so pathetic of Alex to mention Thomas Paine that was indeed an American patriot but with no real influence or power that wrote down the official documents or was part of the official political class elected into Congress that created the nation we now know as USA.
Of course culture and law aren't totally distinct. Essentially anything in our country which is a law is going to be a part of our culture. That said the reverse is not true, just because the thing is a part of our culture doesn't mean it's a part of our laws. This is a country that enjoys watching satirical cartoons, does that mean it's part of the law?
That was in a letter signed to Muslim Barbary pirates to end a war. Now why do you think they would write the US "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen"??
I hope Michael Knowles understands when he talks about Christianity early on in the history of the USA, the Christianity was primarily the Calvinists, Reformed. Knowles as a Catholic should know the Protestants even created laws in various states to ban creation of Catholic parishes. So when he talks about America being a Christian nation...a Protestant Calvinist nation?
"I don't trace American history back to when we became a country, that seems pretty arbitrary. I trace it back to the arrival of one specific boat."
Your comment is brilliant
And not even the first boat of the first colony, which was not Massachusetts but Virginia.
😅😂
That’s not what he said though
This is not even close to what he was saying.
"In God we trust" is not in our pledge of allegiance, and in fact "God" was not in it at all until the Cold War re-write.
It was written in the Star Spangled Banner, third stanza. The pledge of allegiance is much less important from a historical perspective than the star spangled banner.
@@SevereFamine Irrelevant. He said it was in the pledge of allegiance, and he was wrong.
The separation of church and state was only a thing for the federal government and states were allowed to have state religions until the Civil War. What’s the difference in argumentation? You’re making an argument based on revisionism when your side does the same thing.
Eisenhower using religion to fight communism and the Soviet Union is really no different than the Lincoln using nationalism to erode American federalism because of the fear of sectionalism and the possibility of future secession.
@@kylevernon No clue what you're on about or what "side" you think I'm on, I'm simply correcting a factual inaccuracy that was uttered. I made no arguments.
@@bokoura You have no idea that the states within America were not beholden to the Bill of Rights until the 14th amendment? No, thank you for the self report buddy.
But great, he made a minor mistake and you pointed it out.
The beliefs of the founders is a pretty moot point. It doesn’t matter what they believed, they wrote out pretty clearly what kind of country this should be. They didn’t found the country “in the make of the church” or in the name of God. It’s been clearly established for over a century that there is a clear separation between the church and the state. This silly gaslighting is pointless.
They literally established a country that cites the Creator in its founding document and grounds all inalienable human rights. That's not just a belief of the founders. It's in our founding document.
michaels cigar business plug was super smooth
It was cringe as fuck
as a leader for culture and politics , he did not find anything more objectively bad for people than cigars. I always find these tradcons very contradictory and hypocrytical
@@RobotRocker615 Buddy... you're dying of jealously, that was a smooth af plug lol, gotta admit.
@@Jaryism Utterly gross and irrelevant.
@@patrickquinlan3056 gross?
"John Adams mentioned Christianity"
Are you referring to President John Adams who signed the Treaty of Tripoli? I'd suggest you read Article 11 😂
John Adams also had a particular definition of "Christianity." He bitterly rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Some folks would argue that in doing so that took him "out" of "mere Christianity." And that his religious system was "something else."
They discussed this in depth in the original conversation, but to summarize: they had good reason to deceive the Islamic pirates into thinking America wasn’t very Christian. Because Muslims are commanded to subjugate Christians and Jews wherever they find them, it would be wise to downplay the role of Christianity in a treaty with Muslims. Ultimately, the treaty of Tripoli proves nothing.
As Knowles said, it's almost like the US had a motive for appearing as un-Christian as possible to appease Muslim Barbary pirates by writing the US "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen". Hmm I wonder what possible rationale the US had for this framing....
Let's not look at what Thomas Jefferson said in a private letter. Instead, let's look at what John Adams said in private writings!
I and so glad Alex is finally debating the daily wire cast
Michael is quite intelligent and well-spoken - obviously so is Alex. Michael also has a sense of wit to him. I disagree with virtually everything he posits re: blending faith and politics, while maintaining he's mostly correct politically. Really loved this conversation, and so appreciate Alex for bringing all sides on to his podcast.
We haven't had a charming Brit who argues with everybody since Christopher "up with which, I will not put" Hitchens
Daily "Jewish" Wire*
I love how people say “we have to go back to the beginning,” in this case citing the beliefs of the pilgrims, and then cite “in god we trust” and the pledge of allegiance as similar evidence when those were not introduced until the 20th century during the red scare as a reactionary measure. They are not originalist at all.
He mentioned that incidentally. It is ancillary to the point he was making.
Believing that there is some Creator responsible for human rights, does not make someone Christian
Which pagan god gave you rights then?
Ptah
@@UltraVioletKnight Is that an answer or are you pretending to spit?
@@SevereFamineare you serious or is this a joke because all religions and societies have a set of rights that their citizens or adherents have. You honestly believe that human rights are unique to Christianity? Can't be. Must be a joke.
@@sordidknifeparty could you answer his question tho?
This was a good conversation. Glad you both agreed to it.
An important note about Thomas Jefferson. He has, at his direction, only three items on his tombstone in regard to his life's accomplishments. Two of these are writing the Declaration of Independence and founding of the University of Virginia. The third is his authorship of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, which was the basis for the First Amendment Establishment Clause and very clearly defined the idea of separation of church and state in Virginia in 1777.
James Madison was a strong supporter of this bill, which finally passed in 1786 after a proposed law for "teachers of the Christian religion" was put on the floor and vehemently opposed by Jefferson and Madison. So, this is the author of the Declaration of Independence in Jefferson and the primary writer of the Constitution in Madison both strongly pushing this concept. Seems like a pretty ringing endorsement of the separation of church and state.
In America, you are free to practice whatever religion you'd like to or you're free to not practice any religion at all.And that's the way it should remain.
Why does it seem like this is just not good enough for some American religious practitioners?
Practitioners by the way who are definitely afraid of any other religion infecting our government other than their own.
Probably because as the number of faith practitioners decreases, the number of people that believe in their imaginary friend becomes the minority and they start to feel a little stupid and it’s easier to digest when EVERYONE around you is ALSO delusional
Because we have brains and can understand cause, effect and history. Other religions have some abominable figures in their reverence - Mohammad is evil and so is Allah. Jesus is perfect in every way.
That's a great answer to an argument nobody made or is making...
Yes because the west has lost its marbles. If you look over at Academia and Europe, we have lost our ways. We are letting backward and 7th century barbarians taking over our societies, countries, and compromising our principles..we need to get back to what made us great which are Christianity and the enlightenment!! On one hand, we want to give rights to every and anybody while at the same time importing people who want to take these rights away and turn us back into the 7th century
Because they want to force you to believe the same thing.
Michael Knowles forgets that the Europeans are Romans first, and have been Romans far longer than they have been Christians. The Romans valued religious liberty, and so did the Founding Fathers. The exodus of many early immigrants escaping religious persecution was not lost on them. The presumption of innocence unless guilt is proven is clearly anti-Judaic.
Anytime I hear "Judeo-Christian" culture, my mind just corrects them to "Greco-Roman", with an eyeroll
@@SpikeTFA, Exactly. People forget that Saint Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, clearly stated that the Old Testament is obsolete and ready to vanish.
@@pmaitrasm very good point
You forgot that the early immigrants were strictly religious puritans who came to practice their religion freely, not to be free of religion.
@@ollikoskiniemi6221, Strictly religious from one angle is heretical from another.
America was founded by people who were seeking religious freedom. This wasn't meant to mean you could be whatever you wished so long as it was Christian. They were from Christian dominated Europe and thus the vast majority of thought and ideas came from Christian teachings. If the founding fathers had intended America to be a Christian nation they would have said so, these were intelligent people.
lol.
No. No they weren’t.
That is a revision view of history.
@@poerava It’s true, what do you mean.
@@SuperEdge67
Let’s start with ‘America was founded’
Who are you talking about?
(It’s ok to say that we’ve just written off the indigenous peoples from this story if that’s how you see it)
@poerava
The indigenous people didn't have a nation. They were tribal and communal. So yes, America, a nation, was created by the founding members. That doesn't mean there weren't people here before.
@poerava
I'm actually a bit in disbelief you think the concept of europeans founding a nation (which is pretty obvious) to be revisionist. I don't think you know what a nation is.
Edit: apparently I dont know what a nation is in historical contexts. I mean Nation State.
Ugh. Winthrop did not declare that America would be a shining city on a hill. He used the phrase "as a city upon a hill" referring to their new community, i.e., Boston. Reagan added the word shining, and politicians have been repeating that error ever since.
Catholic here. When Christians call America a "shining city on a hill," it irks me because that shining city is supposed to be the Church, not any nation. I fear too many Christians have turned the U.S.A into their "church," with the Constitution and Declaration as their Bible, and the Founding Fathers have replaced the Church Fathers.
USA is secular but usa citizens are... not
Some are, some aren't. Obviously.
@@ricardocimathe majority is in fact Christian.
@@DoctorTaco20 and so…?
@@ricardocima right back at yah… what was the point of your comment? You even said obviously.. if it’s obvious, why do you need to say it?
To be fair a lot of “religious” Americans hardly even participate in their religion, only going to church a few times per year. In my mind, those people barely count.
Where's the full interview?
th-cam.com/video/p0x2iDjfW3g/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Sk_ceznAfq7T_xLZ
How can Thomas Paine be the leader of the revolution if he didn’t even sign the Declaration of Independence.
Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" not only attracted public support for the Revolution but put the rebellion's leaders under pressure to declare independence. He got the ball rolling, so to speak. Even after the victory over the British, Paine’s influence persisted, and some of his ideas found their way into the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Christian arrogance annoys me.
@10:12 the way he suppressed his laughter😅
The behavior of the citizenry defines the character of a country. If someone were to allege America were a murderous country, or a debauched country, it would be no rebuttal to say, "I don't see anything to indicate as much in its founding documents."
Typical Knowles, asked a straightforward question, kind of answers 5 other questions while mentally flailing. Seems out of his depth when Shapiros not there in his corner
Alex has such a fantastic mind
I honestly don't understand why we even need to have these conversations. If the founding fathers had intended for this country to be a Christian nation, and had intended Christian ethics to be enshrined in law, they would have said so. There was literally nothing stopping them from saying so if they wanted to, and they chose not to, and perhaps even more to the point they explicitly excluded religious consideration from the law. Why this is a debate I just will never know
It's a debate because people want to constantly revise history in order to push their narrative.
Probably because for the last thousand years Christian morality WAS MORALITY. They clearly did enshrine Christian ethics into law and the constitution.
You can quite literally say the same thing for anything? Why didn’t they enshrine the ethics of why free speech as a moral good? They didn’t because it is assumed. The reason free speech is important to them is because of Protestant history and the Protestant concept of the personal relationship with god.
They did say so... "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Other founding fathers echoed similar sentiments. The idea the Constitution is devoid of moral and religious underpinnings is wrong. The Declaration of independence states it flat out... "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
The danger we face as a nation is the notion by both believers and non-believers that somehow the Constitution can survive the atheistic moral relativism our society has so ardently embraced. History acquaints us quite well with those who have tried.
@@taylordl28None of those windowdressing statements means the Founders wanted the states to be ran according to biblical law.
You are trying to separate America from its context. It is the typical hustle of people pushing narratives, where the only facts to be considered are those convenient to the current thing.
I was about to buy some cigars until I heard him say “an historic”
Ahah. The common error in English
so this guy is trying to make the case that his ancestors arrived on the mayflower. really?
Sorry to break it to you Michael but countries don't have souls.
Neither do people, btw.
Countries are built of the people who create them. These people have common ideals and worldviews that can be called the soul of the nation. I feel like you're denying this only because you must disagree with everything and anything that Michael says before he even says it.
@@peterp-a-n4743 probably not yeah
@@KevinSmile There have been times I have shared opinions with Knowles, I even shared one (just one) with Thatcher. The people who make up a country are not a homogenous lump of unified ideas and culture. The USA in particular, while founded by dissenters, Quakers and Puritans (who all disagreed with each other) has long been home to immigrants from all over the world with all their own beliefs and disbeliefs. "E Pluribus Unum" and all that.
@@peterp-a-n4743Well, certain philosopers contradict you.
Read the Mayflower Compact. The separatists who came over came over with Geneva Bibles who were Calvinists.
Over 40 founding forefathers held seminary degrees and each state had its own Constitution before 1776 that was thoroughly Christian. Their idea wasnt a hodgepodge of various religions represently, but Christianity. They knew if Gods blessing was upon them that they could not fail.
Christianity is dying in the US, as it is in other modern countries. The proportion of the US population identifying as Christian has dropped from 90% in 1990 to 63% in 2022. A drop of about 1% per year, every year. And it seems the rate of decline is accelerating as churches shut down and older, heavily indoctrinated generations die out.
Can't happen soon enough. I was brought up having to learn all that BS.
I'm sorry michael, am I confused? Weren't all the founding fathers British, or at least from right around that area? I mean, definitionally, before the United States was founded the Americas where they lived were british, which would mean definitionally that all of the people who live there were British. Maybe I've missed something
Many of the Founding Fathers were born and raised in America as British citizens. Imagine a Hawaiian U.S. Citizen (who’s never been to the mainland) revolting against Washington D.C. and declaring Hawaii independent. The founding fathers rejected their British citizenship when they declared independence. Not all of them were British necessarily as colonists from other countries were present as well (e.g. Marquis de Lafayette was French). ❤️🔥
Michael back tracks a lot in this debate. He is very smooth wirh cherry picking a lot of hid information then trying to disregard a lot
Dude is dangerous. By the way he answered the first question , he would turn this country into a Christian theocracy if he could. People seem to forget that Europe has tried that for most of its past and all it produced was religious wars within Christianity and with other religions like the Cathars and Islam. At its height it gave us the Dark Ages.
The fathers understood this. At the beginning, there were states in the US where you couldn't work if you weren't catholic; and in others, if you're weren't Protestant. Once everyone admits they believe in God ( even a Christian one), the conflict always quickly moves to -how you believe,ie what kind of doctrines and rituals do you believe in.
The US , by his founding fathers and founding legal documents wasn't a Christian Nation. And even if it were, it doesn't mean it would have been good for it to remain so.
Dark ages? Europe a theocracy? Tell me you know nothing of history without knowing nothing of history.
@@lastnamefirstname850I’m not sure what your problem is, but it’s a pretty well known part of European history. We had the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches endowing our kings with the divine right of ruling over the masses, as such dictatorships sanctioned by the Church. We had the Spanish Inquisition violently enforcing Christianity and punishing any perceived heresy with confiscation of property, torture and/or death, and most European kingdoms had severe penalties for heresy. We had a series of brutal religious wars between Catholics and Protestants. Heck, the Thirty Years' War is considered to be one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European history.
@@El3ctr0Lun4 Yeah, looks like this guy doesn't know his history. It's often the case that religious people have no idea how destructive their religions have been.
@@lastnamefirstname850, Ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire? Ever heard of the terms Bishopric, Diocese, Parish, etc.?
@@MrSidney9 Nice of you to jump to conclusions,but you are mistaken. Try again.
All of the founding fathers were British!!! They were all British citizens! Additionally the colony of Virginia was founded 13-14 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth and it was founded for purely capitalistic reasons. No religious society was foreseen in Virginia. The Massachusetts colony was so wrong that people were either banished or left for Rhode Island which was founded on the philosophy of total Religious Freedom! The Puritan society died out and partially returned in the Great Awakening which brought it back for a short time and later 'Great Awakenings' pop up throughout the history. Knowles is an F'ing charlatan and talking out of his rear-end!
Alex is a hottie.
Nope. He looks permanently stoned.
@@martam4142and? Still 😻
He's a cutie. Plus, that British accent.
What American libertarians say politics is separate of culture? Name them.
And why does it even matter? Not sure why he even mentioned libertarians. They're a fringe group
Michael Knowles has said some of the most racist and dumb stuff I’ve ever heard.
Here here. He’s not a nice guy.
racist?
Can't comment on the racist aspect, but he's definitely said indoctrinated, stupid stuff. I'm a Christian and a voluntaryist, and he's been wrong on a lot of things.
@@litigioussociety4249
The Daily Wire, of which Michael is a part of, is a cesspit of misogyny, racism, transphobia and homophobia.
Name one.
Im getting sick of atheism being 94% attacking religious texts and beliefs. Yes its easier to attack a belief than to hold them. Lets see some society building atheist beliefs then shall we?
A poet including the phrase In God We Trust in a poem does not indicate the feeling of all people in the country, nor does it reflect the laws which have been legislated in that country
Is Alex Knowles a part of the Daily Wire?
I think O’Connor is trying to become a part of it with all the grifters that he invites
Why speak to a cigar salesman about religion ?
America is a Christian nation. America is not a government, it’s a people. The idea of separating church and state assumed the goverment would remain small and it originally only applied to the Federal Government only. It was always just a slogan and the idea of separation of church and state was never fully realized in the first amendment, it’s not the legal or American standard. We have the freedom of religion, not separation between church and state and state.
The separation between church and state is necessary for the survival of both. They cannot be allowed to influence each other.
Calling America a Christian nation because a majority of the people are Christian is like calling America a white nation. Is that really the standard we’re using?
The First Amendment is part of the foundational governing documents of this nation. It is the law. By definition it is legal. You are full of it. Keep religion out of government.
@@sorgeelenchus Well, sure. Yeah. America was a white nation. Americas founding was created as a white nation. Do those words bother you?
Now it’s not. Things change. That’s the point. Continuously holding up the false narrative that the founders didn’t intend this to be a Christian country is simply false, but things change. Other people took the reins of power and they changed this country in a way the founding fathers wouldn’t have wanted. That’s all a want people to admit.
the way he pronounces L's creeps me out
This should have started with “separation of church and the state” … *cough coigh* why we came to the Americas
Age of reason, I have to read it now, thanks Alex
SO some people basically stole a country 300 years ago.., and anyone who moved here, or was born here afterword is outa luck as far as having any input?
You realize that's the entire story of human history. We originated in Africa(Currently in dispute) if that's the case then we conquered and colonized the entire world to the same outcome.
@@alexanderwilliamson7431 Yeah, and in that context, you realize that there is no point in history where you can say THESE PEOPLE FOUNDED THE COUNTRY AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY HOW IT IS GOING TO BE RUN FOREVER AFTER
@@MrArdytube Yet we do. Do you have a solution?
@@alexanderwilliamson7431 yeah… lets stop pretending like we have to run the country based on the views of the pilgrims. I mean the Italians dint run the country based upon Romulus…. Greeks do not run their country based on the views of Plato, etc
@@MrArdytube Your eventually going to have to decide on a set of unified views. Otherwise the other option is anarchy. Which views are the correct ones. Yours?
1:49 shameless advertising.
Felt to me like it was both fluid with the conversation and relevant. Not sure where the ‘shameless’ comes in. Perhaps you’d prefer if no one ever advertised their own products and instead kept any entrepreneurial behavior inside where it can’t hurt you? Grow up
Don't insult someone if you expect to have a real conversation.
@@THG1995 The issue for me is the vitriol in your comment without explanation. You can’t just insult someone as shameless because you either don’t agree with them or do know them enough. Perhaps I could have been less aggressive for sure but, you were just as quick to insult a man you likely never watch. I imagine you’re more of an Alex O’Connor subscriber which would explain the perception of Michael’s comment as shameless. I very well could be wrong in your consumption of Knowles content though
Shameless comment 🤦🏻♂️
I wanna see u debate Andrew Wilson... and destroy him
So much ignorance in the video and the comments section. Supreme Court already decided this-
Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, 1892-
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457"
That's the law.
You are correct. Justice Brewer did deliver that opinion; however, it was in context of the specific case. It no way does it impact the current legal framework that emphasizes religious neutrality.
P.S. Mentioning "ignorance" of others isn't becoming, particularly when the ignorance does not exist.
@GaryLutchansky It's a precedent that is still in effect. As far as "the current legal framework" goes, it's pretty obvious the framework is fluid. All it takes is a change at the highest court.
@@GaryLutchansky As far as "ignorance" goes, if you're asking the question and not even referring to a Supreme Court decision that is still law and explicitly answers the question, I can only assume you don't know about it.
@@controlclerk Isn't Brewer's statement just a notable historical observation? If so, then this observation carries no legal authority. The case at hand certainly did not have anything to do with regards to "a Christian nation". Why did you bring it up?
I would like to know if I'm incorrect. I'll update my knowledge if you share information that contradicts mine. Thank you.
@GaryLutchansky It's the justification behind the decision. There was no exemption in the statute for priests.
11:55...
Bill of rights - Free exorcise of religion - "there will be not establishment of a/the (fudged..on purpose?) church is misunderstood - Some people take this to mean either, there can be no Church established anywhere in the US or THEY GO EVEN FURTHER AND SAY THE COUNTRY WOULD BE SECULAR, IT WOULD BE ABSENT FROM RELIGION".
Again pure fudging.
Sorry but "no establishment of the church" is WAY BIGGER than the country being secular.
One denies the church completely, it denies Christianity out right.
The other pushes the idea that the politics will not be beholden to the church and will be separate. He then he goes on to point out why the latter is what actually was meant, at least to anyone with a bit of critical thinking.
Aquinas on human laws could do much on the burden of secularism without even trying to admit any judeochristian element.
No. Why is it a morality based on anything. Let’s just be scientific. Your assumption is a foolish one. Name something that has functional complexity that hasn’t been formulated by a rational mind.
The US is what it is not because of Christianity, but in spite of it. The fathers were deists at best. They couldn't claim to be non believers at that time unless you made use of irony in an artful way as Franklin did for instance.
When I think of Secular I think of the STREETS OF CHICAGO, and shoplifting. Thanks for promoting that garbage Atheism. 😊
When I think of right wing Christian nationalists I think of Florida man and all the cult members supporting a convicted sexual abuser for president
When I think of Christianity, I think of the evangelicals supporting a convicted felon, liar, a guy who was found liable for sexual assault, and instigator of insurrection as a candidate for POTUS.
Dear Alex, I get the need for views and clicks, but this dude is so far below your expertise. If it’s what you gotta do to make a living, I get it; but I believe that you know this is low-hanging fruit. Hopefully you won’t have to debate these dingbats one day.
Knowles is the clown who seems to think that Christopher Hitchens is an intellectual lightweight who can be swept aside like a bug.
Is any country a Christian nation?
The Vatican
Michael Knowles is very well versed on the subject. I’m not sure where this perspective is coming from. Anyway, I thought it was a good debate actually. Good conversation all around.
The date of the founding of our country is not an arbitrary point to begin discussing the culture of our country. Of course there are influences that came before that, but there was no country so it's not reasonable to talk about what the country was doing before it existed
It is purposefully Christ like for America to never legally establish a national religion and to allow free will. That was not by accident, nor was it to affirm the validity of any other world religion. If a nation aimed toward Christ is the goal, force would be it's antithesis. One must seek Christ to find him.
Freemasonic country 😢
Since Thomas Jefferson was a Freemason, I wonder who or what he denoted with "creator" in the Declaration of Independence. Freemasonry is religiously indifferent. So, it lets Masons practice any religions they choose or no religion. "Creator" may have signified the Freemasonic Grand Architect, whatever he or it may be. That suggests Jefferson might not have written about God in that document. Jefferson produced the "Jefferson Bible" by deleting each Scripture passage describing a miracle. Thar tells me Jefferson probably doubted the United States was Christian.
From what I can tell, the U.S. is the first country to adopt a secular government. During a lecture I watched on TH-cam, he said that in America's 13 Colonies, men got executed for being Catholic priests and that's is hardly suggests that each colony was Christian.
Michael Knowles practices Catholicism, which makes me wonder whether he believes the Catholic dogma about Christ's social reign. That doctrine obligates each country to make Catholicism its official religion when most citizens there are Catholic.
That's why Pope Leo XIII writes: " Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded."
www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html
Catholicizing the United States would be imprudent now when only 20% of Americans are Catholic, It would be imprudent partly because the Catholic Church teaches that it's immoral to force anyone to become Catholic. Though this country and its non-Catholic citizens may have a douty to become Catholic, the country's conversion may sometimes do more harm than good. It's one thing to have a moral obligation. It's another thing to be in circumstances that prevent a person or a country from fulfillinng it.
I'm a patriotic native-born American. But I can't be a conservative in the American sense of that word. "American conservative" is oxymoronic because American conservatives conserve Locke's Classical Liberalism. That helps explain what make me a North American High Tory instead. I'm on the political right mostly because I'm a Catholic, My religion determines my politics, not conversely.
As long as any religion is formally seperated from the constitution or foundation of a nation, that's all that matters. That's more likely to ensure that religions within it, no matter how stupid and archaic, are protected.
I think the US was founded to be "secular" in some sense. It's a particular definition, though. It was an outgrowth of infighting between and among the religious sects. A "secular" state as neutral referee. Though it doesn't necessarily demand -- at least at the constitutional level where a SCOTUS decision gets the "final say" -- an *absolute* separation of Church & State, according to "reductio ad absurdum" logic. (The position of Michael Newdow, et al.)
Another can of worms is that the Declaration of Independence does mention a God of some sort in four different places (it's a theistic, not a "Christian" document; there's no mention of Jesus or invoking of verses and chapters of scripture, etc.).
Amazing how Christian’s cans talk for so long without saying anything. And all those words to simply assert your conclusion again. If they weren’t so dangerous they’d be hilarious.
Knowles actually had something worthwhile to say for once- it caught me off guard.
Yes, it is. No need to watch.
Alex. It’s easy for you to criticize and attempt to deconstruct religion. Fine. What you’re completely blind to is to offer a critique of your own beliefs BOTH on a personal AND societal-wide scale.
Until you offer something better, and scientifically prove it works, you will always be wasting your time and perpetuate your tone-deafness in this regard. Yes, this is a challenge for you.
Are you making a case for an objective morality determined by a certain god-belief/religion? If so, you must accept that there have been thousands of different gods worshipped around the world, along with countless accompanying religions and many with their own holy books they devoutly believe is the divine word of their god. Who gets to decide which one is the best? No matter how you look at it, religious beliefs and moral codes are all subjective and based on human opinions.
Alex has made the point before that we can come to a subjective agreement on what is acceptable and what is not as they pertain to human well-being. We can still make practical use of ethical statements, with a set of agreed-upon common laws and a criminal justice system supporting it. No god required. Even bees demonstrate an altruism that in any human narrative would be considered moral. And bees have been doing their thing for more than a hundred million years.
Are you coming from an objective viewpoint? I’ll wait…
@@elitemindset9581 Nice deflection, but I'm still waiting for you to answer my question- Are you making a case for an objective morality determined by a certain god-belief/religion?
AOC DESTEOYS WOKEWire again! Next!
From the first question I knew this guy's grift. Why do people who have nothing to say say the most?
😂 go on, say something else!
Very interesting stuff. I love history.
You either believe in secular governance or you believe in theocracy. There isn't a middle ground.
You can't claim to value religious liberty while simultaneously subjugating everyone underneath of your favorite religious document or perspective.
Either Americans are free to practice religion according to their own conscience or to practice no religion also according to their conscience or none of us are free.
So, freedom of religion to you should enable something like Jihad, or crusading? There needs to be an overarching framework that grounds the national identity upon a cohesive foundation. The argument advanced is that while freedom of religion should be enabled, it should be enabled on terms that restrict the aspects of those free religions which cause the erosion of the freedom itself.
For an example of this identitarian framework, look at Singapore. Freedom of religion is encouraged there, but only after integration into the Singaporean identity, because Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father, saw that unchecked cultural freedom would lead to the establishment of a corrupt hegemony.
Saying Creator doesnt mean you're Christian. Hitler also referred to our Creator and also "Providence".
Stopped watching immediately he said I’m a cigar salesman. You’ve just told me all I need to know. I’m out.
Is he wearing makeup?
I am not a believer anymore, but I really like Michael Knowles. I think he is a very reasonable religious person
Religion is the opposite of reason. The belief in Adult Santa requires a complete abolishment of reason.
@@lepidoptera9337 Yes and no. It is not that easy. Yes, religion seems silly. But in my life, the very best people I have met are people who are devout in their beliefs and while you may look down upon them for 'abolishing reason', for what they lack in 'reason', they massively make up for in their humanity, generosity, respect, how they raise their family, etc.
Now, I am non comparing 'pretend' Christians, many of who go to megachurches and do anything but live a 'Christian' life. Many so-called 'christians' are hypocrites and the worst kinds of people. I am talking about the old-fashioned people who genuinely believe in what they think and walk the walk with how the treat people, etc.
I am not a 'believer'. But I understand when it comes to this realm of humanity, most of humanity needs something other than themselves and materialism to consider in order to focus and understand what is really important in life to live a happy and fulfilling life, in overwhelming cases, I see religion as a good thing for them to help guide them.
Again, this is based on my vast experiences of humanity, where a lot of 'intellects' and 'amateur philosophers' are not very good people, but simple religious people, not necessarily the brightest, are very, very happy people and would help anyone in need
I would just not entertain Michael he is just a Hollywood reject
A history of religion, however distorted, is not a convincing argument for the country being based on a religion in 2024
An englishman who knows so much more of American history than Knowles. Not surprised, as a Swede I most often know more about both American history and religion than my American friends.
Yes in many ways a Christian nation and that was/is the problem certainly for the slaughtered original Americans and the enslaved, etc.
”This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.” - Court decision in Church if the Holy Trinity v. United States, page 143 U.S. 465 and following.
“The real object of the first amendment was not to countenance , much less advance, mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among the Christian sects.”
- Justice Joseph Story, 1833
“By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”
- Justice Samuel Chase
Providence has given to our people the choice of their ruler, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. - Chief Justice John Jay
Treaty of Tripoli (1797), which was unanimously ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams, it is stated: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion" - John Adams
“Government has no Right to hurt a hair of the head of an Atheist for his opinions.” - John Adams
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - James Madison
(Letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803)”
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” - Thomas Jefferson
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even
the existence of a God" - Jefferson
“It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.” - Thomas Paine
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” - Thomas Paine
"I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity" Benjamin Franklin
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - First line of the first amendment.
Our founders were secularists, deists, skeptics, and enlightenment thinkers. Our documents and founding are secular.
@@TAOSCIENCE
1.
The treaty of Tripoli was an attempt to stop the Muslims from attacking the ships of our fledgling nation and enslaving their passengers (“our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception” - Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin) and there are two viable explanations for the declaration therein: 1. it was stretching the truth to placate the Muslims (who believed their “right and duty [was] to make war upon [infidels/kafir] wherever they could be found”) 2. It was accurate according to the framework of the Muslims, whose understanding of a ‘religious state’ is a sharia caliphate; which is NOT analogous to how a ‘Christian Nation’ is structured. In that sense, the government is not ‘founded on the Christian religion’ in the sense that the Muslims would understand it.
Either of these explanations would fit with what William Eaton said: “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen”.
2.
True - also irrelevant. Having a ‘Christian nation’ does not imply that individual beliefs be forced or punished. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the reasoning for individual religious liberty in human government stems from Christian philosophy ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’ - Mark 12:17 (thus recognizing the distinction between church authority and state authority), “Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” - Jefferson
Even Paine (who you reference later) argued on the grounds that “the adulterous connection of church and state” would “[prohibit], by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds and upon first principles of religion” and so hoped for a ‘revolution in the system of religion’ so that “human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and mankind would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief in one God, and no more”.
3.
Yes, by avoiding Ecclesiocracy and government policing individual beliefs; so same as above.
4.
Same as above.
5.
Irrelevant. This is just advice to his nephew Peter Carr to prize reason over prejudice in his study of religion (‘divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion… you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it’). The thrust of this passage is that it is so important a subject that one should not decide it flippantly and on poor grounds. He seems to convey some degree of skepticism of certain biblical miracle accounts, but this is not relevant to our subject.
6.
Interesting, but not relevant. No one claims every person of the time was in lockstep orthodoxy. Paine was apparently a deist (“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life”, “I do not believe in the creed professed by… any church that I know of” - The Age of Reason).
7.
Same as previous.
8.
Also irrelevant. This is just a weaker version of 6.
If we want to consider the subject, though, one would be remiss in omitting certain other passages from that same source (Letter to Ezra Stiles). “I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this” “I think the System of Morals and his (Jesus) Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it... I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the World with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure”.
9.
Apparently this quote is said to be a corruption of something he wrote in a letter in July 17 1757 after narrowly escaping a shipwreck, “The bell ringing for church, we went thither immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received. 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.” In other words, he would build a lighthouse to help prevent more shipwrecks.
Even if the quote is accurate and indicated a diminution of churches it would still be the same as 6-8.
10.
That’s not actually the “First line of the Constitution” but of the First Amendment. Typos aside, that is true - CONGRESS should not pass a law establishing a national ‘religion’ or prohibiting people from holding theirs. See 2 and 3, and the second quote in my previous post.
Yes - a few of the founders were ‘deist’ and enlightenment thinking has influenced many; this does not make your case or counter mine - especially since the large majority of them (50/55 at the Constitutional Convention by some accounts) were much more orthodox (there are many quotes but I used none as they are less relevant than the ones I used), and the society was unarguably Christian - so much so that most of the state constitutions requires not only that you be Christian to hold office, but that you be the right denomination, and for a long time Protestant catechisms we’re used in public schools.
@@TAOSCIENCE
It doesn’t seem to like my response. I’ll try breaking it up.
Edit: Nope - the filters still don’t like it.
@@TAOSCIENCE
1.
The treaty of Tripoli was an attempt to stop the Muslims from attacking the ships of our fledgling nation and enslaving their passengers (“our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception” - Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin) and there are two viable explanations for the declaration therein: 1. it was stretching the truth to placate the Muslims (who believed their “right and duty [was] to make war upon [infidels/kafir] wherever they could be found”) 2. It was accurate according to the framework of the Muslims, whose understanding of a ‘religious state’ is a sharia caliphate; which is NOT analogous to how a ‘Christian Nation’ is structured. In that sense, the government is not ‘founded on the Christian religion’ in the sense that the Muslims would understand it.
Either of these explanations would fit with what William Eaton said: “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen”, but it seems to me the latter is more likely given the next phrase that immediately follows in that same sentence, “as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen”.
2.
True - also irrelevant. Having a ‘Christian nation’ does not imply that individual beliefs be forced or punished. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the reasoning for individual religious liberty in human government stems from Christian philosophy ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’ - Mark 12:17 (thus recognizing the distinction between church authority and state authority), “Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” - Jefferson
Even Paine (who you reference later) argued on the grounds that “the adulterous connection of church and state” would “[prohibit], by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds and upon first principles of religion” and so hoped for a ‘revolution in the system of religion’ so that “human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and mankind would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief in one God, and no more”.
@@TAOSCIENCE
1.
The treaty of Tripoli was an attempt to stop the Muslims from attacking the ships of our fledgling nation and enslaving their passengers (“our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception” - Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin) and there are two viable explanations for the declaration therein: 1. it was stretching the truth to placate the Muslims (who believed their “right and duty [was] to make war upon [infidels/kafir] wherever they could be found”) 2. It was accurate according to the framework of the Muslims, whose understanding of a ‘religious state’ is a sharia caliphate; which is NOT analogous to how a ‘Christian Nation’ is structured. In that sense, the government is not ‘founded on the Christian religion’ in the sense that the Muslims would understand it.
Either of these explanations would fit with what William Eaton said: “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen”, but it seems to me the latter is more likely given the next phrase that immediately follows in that same sentence, “as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen”.
Is north america being a christian nation seriously in dispute. We literally have more churchs than mcdonalds and starbucks 😂
Would you call us a Caucasian nation, too? After all, the majority of Americans are white.
9:05 INCORRECT. The preamble of the US Constitution states to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," which clearly from the outset, demonstrates a broad understanding that they were blessed by God and wanted to continue to have such blessings of liberty for there descendants.
America was never blessed by any god, they inherited a land teeming with riches in farmland, forests and rivers and lakes teeming with fish and they stole land from the natives.
"God" does not equal Christianity.
@@georgesimon1760 So, when the men of that culture scribed those words, you are saying they are expressing a multi-cultural perspective encompassing their society of many different faiths? NO, their society was predominantly Protestant Christian, with the occasional atheist/jew/Catholic which together made less than 5% of the society. Daoism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. were not present in the American Society (and to a certain extent remain foreign theologies in the US)
It was the French Revolution which adopted Rousseau; The American Revolution spawned from the teachings of Locke and the English legal tradition.
@@FromAcrossTheDesert you're forgetting the deists. So yes, god does not equal Christianity.
@@georgesimon1760 If a society is made up of 95% Protestant Christians, it is absurd to say that the American project emanated from a Deist culture. Additionally deists do not believe in "blessings of liberty" -nor do they believe in natural rights. Try again sport.....
Religion is what's wrong with the world. I can just close my eyes for a few minutes and find the meaning of life. I don't need a "God" to tell me what's what.
False.
Damn I actually agree with Michael. Too bad people are still full of shit 😒
Still not sure what Knowles means when he calls America a Chridtian nation.
It's conception was founded on Christian Values by believers and non-believers alike who revered Christian values as the best foundation for a nation. Like how Richard Dawkins, Douglas Murray, historian Tom Holland, all atheists, refer to themselves as "Christian Atheists," acknowledging the West was Christian and so are they culturally.
Is it ? It should be that’s for sure
So the main point is Christianity is the most Superior religion in the world!
Based the Lord Jesus Christ who literally changed the world!
And still changes the minds of humans everywhere every day!
It's hard to fight facts, atheists.
I know former Christians that have converted to Islam, does this mean Muhammad changes the minds of the lost everyday, no obviously not,
Special pleading, next time you attempt to make an argument that people should reject logic and just believe without thought, ask why that argument couldn't work for another religion, if it can you have made an unfalsifiable argument and therefore an impossible to prove one.
But I'm aware you probably see your religion specifically as special and beyond all criticism, so good luck dealing with that solipsism if it is infact there.
It's actually very easy to argue with facts (you no doubt do everyday) what's harder is establishing facts, but you can't do that for things that are not material, therefore there can be no facts about God, atleast not known ones.
@itsdodger1176 One conclusion is that all of us humans are stupid and devoid of knowledge.
A few reasons Most people that are easily persuaded or lead astray from Christianity:
1. They never believed in the first place. 2. They never listen to True Pastor teachers.
3. they never actually read their Bible
The Bible gives us information about who and what God is and what He has done and is doing and going to do.
You're right it is true I (a Christian) can't put God who is declared to be Spirit (John 4:24) in a test tube and present it to you. I have to live by faith. (Romans 1:17)
Also, ignorant people follow Muhammad.
Muhammad was a false prophet on so many subjects, including raping a 9-year-old.
Either way, it's a FACT from a historical and theological standpoint that Christianity is Superior regardless of who fights against it or gets persuaded out of it.
Nice chatting with you. Hope you will read it sometime.
Farwell
@itsdodger1176 No, it just means ignorant people are easily persuaded away from the truth of Christianity to follow a false prophet Muhammad who raped a 9 year old.
The Lord Jesus Christ and His teachings are without a doubt Superior!
Theologically and historically, it's a FACT Christianity is Superior.
@itsdodger1176 No matter what you say or what other people do.
Christianity is and will always be Superior.
# FACTS
As an atheist, I have a personal relationship with reality and have no reason to believe your claims are true. You've made assumptions and assertions, but no credible or verifiable evidence for your god's existence or for your claim that Christianity is superior above all other religions. (Just because something is popular, doesn't make it superior.) How, specifically did your Jesus change the whole world? If that were true, 100% of the population of the world would be Christian. As it stands, that number is only about 32%. You are certainly free to worship any way you please. However, your free exercise of religion ends where the rights of others begin.
whatever you want to say about Knowles he is a smart guy and nice to see the smug O'Connor countered by an intelligent articulate christian for once, i think Alex actually lost this one
Religion is not culture Alex, religion replaces culture. Get an education please.
I love you Alex. And I appreciate you wanting to talk to a variety of people. But people like Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh are a waste of your time.
Thomas Paine as Alex likes to mention wasn't a member of American political congress, an elected member or wrote down any of the official documents of American Constitution.
also, none of the Founding Fathers of America ever met with Thomas Paine.
Thomas Paine was just a political journalist and at best an activist that believed in American independence from the British. creating the country from the initial 13 independent states that formed the USA.
so is so pathetic of Alex to mention Thomas Paine that was indeed an American patriot but with no real influence or power that wrote down the official documents or was part of the official political class elected into Congress that created the nation we now know as USA.
Of course culture and law aren't totally distinct. Essentially anything in our country which is a law is going to be a part of our culture. That said the reverse is not true, just because the thing is a part of our culture doesn't mean it's a part of our laws. This is a country that enjoys watching satirical cartoons, does that mean it's part of the law?
"I'm a cigar salesman" is Michael's academic credential.
he went to yale lmao
He went to an ivy league school
Credentials do not matter much, matters if you are actually educated
@@ricardogarcia-vi6hv But it's YALE.
Who cares about academic credentials? That's the best argument you got? Weak
The 1st amend had more to do with the govt not establishing a government church. Basically a separation of any religious ideology and the govt period.
Michael doesn’t want to recognize a “Brit” founding father but a bunch of Brits that came over on a boat that had nothing o do with the revolution
You need help
🤦♂️ man understanding has gone down hill
It was a joke, homes. Lighten up.
John Adams also said “The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion."
That was in a letter signed to Muslim Barbary pirates to end a war. Now why do you think they would write the US "has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen"??
all founding fathers were british
Racist much?
I hope Michael Knowles understands when he talks about Christianity early on in the history of the USA, the Christianity was primarily the Calvinists, Reformed. Knowles as a Catholic should know the Protestants even created laws in various states to ban creation of Catholic parishes. So when he talks about America being a Christian nation...a Protestant Calvinist nation?
I'm a Christian and I'd prefer the company of Alex over Knowles all day long.
I couldn’t agree with you more!
Nothing against Alex, but Knowles always comes off as a really genuine guy who I think I could get along with despite our differing views 🤷♂️
Why?
@@gideondavid30 his humility
@sudokode I think that's fair enough but I interpret the personalities in a totally opposite way.
Thomas Paine was a founding father Michael
Standard american history myth
Not really
Standard America-hating atheistic revisions...
Standard Leftist cognitive dissonance with unfavorable facts.