Debating Michael Knowles: Is America a Christian Nation?
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Dissident Dialogues - for two days of debate and discussion, get your tickets now at www.dissidentdialogues.org
For early access to episodes, ad-free, support the channel at / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
Michael Knowles is an American conservative Catholic political commentator and media host. He has worked for the Daily Wire since 2016.
- TIMESTAMPS
00:00 Introduction
02:37 In What Way is America a Christian Nation?
08:46 Intentions of the Declaration of Independence
17:43 The Legal Separations Between Church & State
21:44 Michael’s Response to the Treaty of Tripoli
30:40 The American Motto of ‘In God We Trust’
33:00 Why Would a Secular Nation Have Blasphemy Laws?
38:29 America Wasn’t Founded to Separate Church & State
48:54 The Influence of Gouverneur Morris
55:29 Constant Fluctuations of Religiosity
1:05:52 The Hand of Providence in Early America
1:07:56 Do Americans Overstate George Washington’s Faith?
1:11:17 Was the Abolitionist Movement Really a Christian One?
1:23:48 Conclusion
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
Get episodes early and ad-free at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC
Alex fiddna single handedly bridge the intellectual divide between the atheist left and the DW
He has to have more misplaced smugness than any other human that's ever existed.
Would love to listen a continuation of the conversation Alex! Part 2!
@@joshuataylor3550 You sound a little bit gay
The Constitution actually says “ they are endowed by THEIR Creator” not “OUR Creator”. Big difference.
I hear this all the time... "Based on the principles of Christianity." What *_exactly_* does that even mean? Ask ten Christians, and you'll get ten different answers.
I once had eleven answers 😂
Exactly. Christianity, like all religion, has no values or principles other than "obey and spread the mindvirus to someone else if you can". If they have to butcher 10000 pagans they will, if they have to pretend to be meek and subservient they will, if they have to pretend to be progressive and modern they will. They don't have any actual principles.
Ask ten different Christians twice and you'll get twenty different answers.
@@sammael8472 .. what is the question?
It means no to shellfish and no gay
A nation of Christians, not a Christian nation. This is such an important distinction that many wishful thinkers don't seem to appreciate.
It is a nation of Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, etc. - not to mention that there are a thousand denominations of Christianity, which is evidence that there are at least that many ways to interpret the vague, poorly written, and contradictory holy book.
Or a Christian nation and secular state with Christian influence
According to atheist religion which rejects free will and therefore commands atheists to embrace their animal desires instead of fighting them, How can it be evil when a grown up adult pdf file atheist bones kids? He has no free will. All he can do, is to follow his animal desires, he has no choice. In fact he is innocent and there's nothing to be ashamed about.
How many actual John 3:16 pardoned Christians?
If this is a distinction -and an important one- why isn't it obvious what you mean?
Great conversation. Definitely up for a part 2
Michael does a good job of putting a nicely polished veneer on the insane idea that the establishment clause actually doesn’t mean what we’ve always understood it to mean.
He’s not saying it’s different than what we’ve always understood it to mean. The text is clear. He’s arguing as to why it was instituted in the first place, which is important when debating founding principles.
He always has to “explain” what we somehow all misunderstand
He filmed himself taking the Political Compass Test a few years back and it shows Knowles for the true ghoul he is. He has a veneer of coming off as having intellectual integrity, but that is absolutely not the case.
@@domenicgalata1470 You take that 2d political compass test seriously?
Original writing especially those by the first few justices of the supreme court, would disagree with your position, the framers of the nation were very clear on the federal government's rights
How many times will Michael find a way to mention the liberals in this debate about Christianity…
Not to mention that the vast majority of liberals are Christian.
He dismisses many of the founding fathers with a wave of the hand and a “he’s very liberal”. Lol
@@kevinpalmer9942 Knowles would've been a turncoat American. the founders would've been "too liberal" for him.
Children no longer have to play the parent once their free of their control but many continue while other don't bother causing their parents to hate them from afar or adept to this stranger child that they no longer know. What child wants to socialize with a parent in earshot. Parents are a foe that must be conned until the jail door is unlocked and freedom is achieved.
more times than he calls Alex a limey
Freedom of. No establishment. It's in the Bill of Rights. Americans are primarily Christian. But our government is a secular government, period. And rightfully so. Freedom of religion is fantastic. So is the establishment clause.
Exactly it's such a simple thing to understand. I think the USA is a secular nation of Christians and Britain is a Christian nation of secularists.
That's not what maga and mike johnson wants to hear
But can you really divorce the moral/ethical systems of the people who both created and operate the government?
Would we apply the same standards to other organizations, such as Chick-Fil-A?
@@ralphietwoshoesLabelling it a “Christian nation” holds political implications that go far deeper than government officials simply holding moral assumptions that are supposedly Christian. You wouldn’t call secular humanitarian NGOs Christian just because they promote general welfare.
I think Christianity has been secularized in the West, for want of a better way to put it.@@below_average7233
Definitely need a part two.
fascinating debate, can't wait read some more on this .
I think it's significant not only that they left the Christian god out of the Constitution, but also that it is written in the Declaration of Independence as "...by their creator..." rather than "by God" or "by the creator". It personalizes the belief system rather than institutionalizing it.
I found it interesting to know that the phrase "their creator" wasn't even in the earlier drafts.
And then notice how at 6:48 Knowles changes the text to say "our Creator" whether unintentionally or intentionally. Either way, giving another impression of the text that isn't there.
No, the words "their creator" should have been left out too. Not everyone believes in a creator.
That would be a great point if the word “God” itself wasn’t used in like 46/50 of the State Constitutions. And the other 4 all reference “the creator” or “the Supreme Being.” Pretty sure part of Knowles’ point is that a room of deists, Christians, and atheists can’t fully control how their created system can shift, and for 200 years the American creation shifted to what was decidedly Christian in culture and, to a lesser extent, law.
@@pnut3844able that's true, but at the time a significant amount of people did. Atheism is rather new, only really growing around the 1800s whereas the treaty of independence was signed in 1776, so it still makes sense that it says creator because it was kinda taken for granted. As we learn more, we realise that a lot of the things we thought were mystical where really explainable with an understanding of the world, which stopped us from requiring a god to understand the world.
It may be true that America should remove the 'their creator' now, but it's hard to change those things after they happen.
One thing about Michael Knowles is his studio looks comfy as fuckkkkkk
It did look pretty nice.
Don't swear
I'll second that objective truth 😂
FucKKK
The Christian Right spare no expence pushing their propaganda.
100% need a part two
Hey Alex! This is probably the 3rd video i've seen of yours in direct dialogue to popular conservative/religious thinkers and I wanted to say I appreciate your approach and grace afforded in these conversations
to be clear, Mike is a political thinker. Not a religious one. By his own admission.
Mike is a theocrat like many Republicans, but Mike & his cronies like Ben Shapiro pretend they're not theocrats.
@@VVeremoose whatever he is, he's an idiot
@@VVeremooseReligion is the basis behind his entire worldview.
@@PhysicsGuy1000 So? Politics is applied Theology like Biology is applied Chemistry.
You may not realize it, but your political views are informed by your theological views. But just like a biologist can be a biologist without having to be a chemist first, a political scientist can be a political scientist without being a theologian first.
I was so amused by Michael having several cameras set up and a crew changing angles for him 😂
The more right wing , the more kitsch that surrounds the set.
well, its called professionel... dont get me wrong, im an atheist, but i see no problem there!
@@mjsdc8072the more right wing you are, the more billionaire funders you have.
I mean atleast it isn't a Webcam man >:(
@@Christopher-taysoKnowles/Daily Wire dont have billionaire funders. On the other hand, major left wing outlets (Young Turks, anyone?) most definitely are... :)
Nice back-and-forth in this one, Alex!
Interesting conversation. You have a way if bringing out the best in the people that you speak to.
I'm so impressed with the arc of your career. Changing your channel name was a wise move.
What was his name before? I'm a new viewer.
@@ihatemondays33cosmic skeptic
@@themapisallocean thanks
@@ihatemondays33 I still type up his old CZcams name 😂 I’ve been a viewer for years 😂
His handle is still cosmicskeptic
This is why youtubers have long overpassed tv reporters: you let your guest, whether you agree with him or not, speak until finishing an idea. Watching tv shows in which reporters constantly interrupt their guests is quite sad and shows how better your content is, Alex.
Cheers!
Michael Knowles doesn't deserve respect.
Depends on the guest. Some people just like running their mouths.
@@adamcosper3308 I did get frustrated that Michael often wouldn't let Alex flesh out his points. As soon as Michael sniffed out an argument, he'd pounce on it rather than letting it be made more thoroughly. At one point Alex even suggesting having multiple possible rebuttals but never even got to flesh them out.
To be fair, they are different formats. CZcams videos have limits on length and also no market pressures. TV segments tend to be mch briefer so you have to cover a lot of ground quickly. There are pressures and incentives that are not in a youtube video. Also the stakes are way higher for everyone involved in a TV spot. Granted, I do think that people also cut each other off on TV to be aggressive or to "score points".
@@adamcosper3308 why? Should we not give basic respect to those we disagree with while having a civil conversation?
This is a great video and I enjoyed watching/listening .
I remember back when you were just starting. Great to see how much you've grown.
Knowles using Adams as an example for how we are founded on Christian ideals is odd since he literally wrote in the treaty of Tripoli, " United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". EDIT-- You brought this point up. Good on you!
But but Muslims lol
He didn’t write this. The treaty was originally written in Arabic, and Adam’s didn’t speak arabic.
He did sign the document and confirmed that everything written in the treaty was true, but it’s misleading to quote him.
Which god is the one who is giving “Rights”? The founding fathers created a society that follows god. Which god? Seems obvious it is the Judeo-Christian god?
@@chach1288it's not mentioned which one and for a reason. They could've just establish Christianity as the official religion, they didn't
👍 Personal correspondence between Jefferson and ADAMS:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three, and yet, that the one is not three, and the three not one.... But this constitutes the craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams (August 22, 1813), Works, Vol. IV, p. 205
"Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents.
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813
"The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticism of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from it’s indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, July 5, 1814, Lester Cappon, ed, The Adams-Jefferson Letters (1959) p. 433
Benjamin Franklin - ‘Lighthouses are more useful than churches.’.
Cant a church be a lighthouse?
Only once with sufficient fuel @@Ghatius
i wonder of there are any combined lighthouse churches...
"Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."
Shithouses are far more useful than churches.
Definitely do a part 2 this was very nice to watch
Good civil conversation. Love to see it.
So good to be civil with people who want us dead. Where would we be as a society otherwise 🙄
Michael Knowles unintentionally making Seneca Lucius's point:
_“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”_
For me what is more scary these days is that atheistic world views believe they are inherently free of ideology and dogma.
We're more likely to sleepwalk in to catastrophe that way than we are through religion these days.
@@villefere6968 Oh no! My sides! 😂 I wonder if there's a political leader who came into power by appealing to the authoritarian nature & persecution complex found in Christianity? Hmmm.
You're wrong. If a politician can pander & appeal to Christians to get their votes despite having a life time record of being unChrist-like, then exploiting those Christians to gain power was a VERY useful maneuver. Come on.
@@villefere6968read Nietzsche. The masters of a society will assimilate in slave morality as a means of greater control. Point to the celebrities for instance, who participate in charities and are well loved by the people as they further go up in wealth and power. Look at any major corporation who try really hard to appeal to the people by changing their logos into a rainbow once a year to stay relevant and attract a greater audience, and it happens on the other side to. By every metric this quote is correct
@@tecategpt1959 I was thinking of Nietzsche too when he was trying to argue that christians are harder to control than non-believers xD
@@villefere6968 christianity neither teaches individual rights and justice or provides a strong moral framework
O'Connor just gets bigger and bigger Jesus Christ
Hope he teams up with us
I hope Alex gets Jesus Christ on the podcast next
Maybe he can get a fracking billionaire to buy him a media outlet?
nah this is sus bro pause on that
@@CSRL8 I Am Here to Help.
Evangelical Christian American Conservative here. Came here to say I just say I appreciate your dialogues so much. You handle yourself with such tactful grace and it is a breath of fresh air to hear these conversations you have. Thank you for your candor and respectfulness you have with those you disagree with.
I would love to see a discussion between you and Gavin Ortlund in the future.
So you are admitting to believing bullshit?
@@seanjones2456 Congratulations! Your results are in. 5/5 angst. 7/5 immaturity. 8/5 need for validation.
Please go away and start your "christian" nation somewhere else. So sick of you hypocrites.
Love Gavin. I would also be really interested to see Alex talk to him, or even to Trent Horn, who I think has more experience talking to non-believers. Gavin is somewhat in a Christian bubble (which is fine! just maybe wouldn’t make for the best discussion.)
Edit: it does seem he’s breaking out of that bubble with his engagement with Bowen and people recently so maybe I’m wrong!
@@seanjones2456this is why no one likes atheists
Amazing discussion! It's nice to see people with different views be calm and nice to each other. We NEED a part 2!
I found Michael Knowles being “strategically civil”, definitely had some disingenuous digs and condescending remarks throughout the discussion. The “Limey” thing was super annoying after the 3rd time.
@@tylerparker1567civility is by its nature ‘strategic’. You know how easy it would be otherwise to just berate or even outright physically assault?
It’s almost impossible to get the civility displayed in the video on something like Twitter cause people usually would rather be dumb and lazy. It’s easier.
@@tylerparker1567 Personally every time I’ve seen Michael debate someone of different views he’s very been very civil and friendly. Even tho he is quite arrogant when he’s on his own
The obsession with civility is so funny here. Why does it matter at all if Michael's only goals is to strip every minority imaginable of their rights?
Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.
Thomas Jefferson
What an astute dude
I'll give you almost verbatim what Knowles response to that would be: "NUH UH, that's just the silly writing of a liberal" or essentially "Yeah maybe I'm using anecdotes to prove my point, but YOU CANNOT use anecdotes to prove your point. You must adhere to a higher standard of proof than me because I am implicitly correct."
man is full of deception, lies and games believing their smarter then everybody else only to deceive themselves in the end. but woe to the destruction unleashed.
What do you think faith means in this quote?
First the Declaration of Independence, then this? The revolutionaries really had a great man in Thomas Jefferson. The Conservatives have Michael Knowles lol
I never expected these two to meet, this is gonna be great
They met before to talk about TLM.
we shouldn't be surprised. Michael kwoles is desperate for relevance lol
Nah, so far it sucks. I’m getting close to a half hour in and Alex is letting him get away with so much bullshit idk how much longer I can stand it
@@Johnny.bar99he is more famous than Alex
@@donalddude7568 my point still stands lol.
This was amazing!
As a Christian, I gotta say, Alex is definitely my favourite athiest, he seems like the kind of guy I could sit down with, have a drink and talk for ages...albeit get absolutely schooled by his superior knowledge to me.
Awesome interview guys!
I'm atheist but I'm willing to get schooled by Alex too 😅 He's good example for atheists, I wish there more atheists like him sadly.
For anyone outside the states, the blasphemy laws (local or state) aren't enforced and thus go unchallenged on court, and there is t much upside for legislators to nullify laws that haven't been enforced in their lifetime.
Thanks for stating that. Far too many non-Americans don't seem to recognize this.
It's easily for people to not understand American jurisprudence. American jurisprudence means a lot of these old laws are unenforceable and have been unenforceable for a long time. @@Garrett1240
Blue Laws are enforced, and I can speak from experience having lived in Boston
that was not the point. they were not debating 2024. they were talking about how such laws end up in the books in the first place ..
This comments an absolute lie, They were enforced on state levels many of times throughout the later half of the 20th century. Nulfying them removes the ability of monster who want to enforce them, that is without a doubt a benefit
“Under god” and “in god we trust” were added much later being 1954 and 1955 respectively
In God is Our Trust and Great God Our King are both from 19th century music. Not to mention the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Knowles already addressed this in the video.
The short clip with Ben and I am subscribed to your channel.
These two are so good together in a debate. Very entertaining!
Thank you so much for all your time and effort and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate these kinds of conversations.
I am so ready for this ❤
I am ñot. I need ice cream
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper Quick! To the freezer!
@@damarcuscolfer1485 I have a bowl of new cinnamon swirl ice cream
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpeppergive up, it’s too long for you
@@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper Sounds delicious! I just had a Pie and Chips :)
WHAT AN INTERVIEW! As a subscriber to both channels, fantastic interview Alex.
I really love how friendly this conversation was
I'm so glad to see your channel grow!
Alex, I doubt you read all these comments, but I think you would love this history professor Heather Cox, Richardson's book, "Democracy, Awakening" she goes over all these nuances, without ideological undertones, greatly supporting all of your points, yet at the same time, giving the Christians, their credit as well.
Excellent job Connor and Mike!
It’s interesting that Michael Knowles decides to arbitrarily set the start of the United States at 1620 with the landing of the Mayflower, rather than with the establishment of the Jamestown colony which was founded more than a dozen years earlier.
Jamestown is the first permanent English settlement in North America. The Jamestown colony was backed by the Virginia Company as an economic enterprise rather than an effort to escape religious persecution or to spread Christianity.
He didn’t do it arbitrarily, he does it conveniently to support an obscure view.
He clearly stated in that part that some people say American history starts at 1776, some say 1787, others say 1620 and you can even go back further than that.
I can't imagine any American being able to speak so eloquently and knowledgeably about the history of the U.K. as Alex does about the U.S.
Americans, in general, aren't the brightest ones.
One step at a time. Lets first get them to learn the history of U.S.
@@Nomercy4UXD Great point!
You would be surprised - if you looked.
The sad reality is that this is rare on both sides, the way historical education is treated in both of our cultures.
Cool too see Alex becoming a real celebrity after finding him as some awkward teenager with a camera with like 50 followers. Now he's climbing the publicity ranks to Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles and Richard Dawkins and co and it's super cool to see
Shapiro and Knowles are clowns, especially compared to Dawkins.
@@spoenk7448 I 80% agree but I love seeing Alex bridge the intellectual divide between the daily wire and the atheist left
Yes, amazing to see him become so famous!
He's been doing it for years now. Remember his debate with Douglass Murray in 2019?
@@bluebird5173It is a really solid revenue model.
You are a better man than I, Alex O'Connor. I can imagine this convo continuing in the cigar bar where the air would literally grow toxic smoke and self-regard.. Smugness as a cologne.
Great conversation. I’ve actually seen this area as one I’m not as educated in as I’d like/need to be so this was very informative and educational for me.
Very good chat!
Absolutely wonderful content. Very insightful. I'm a history student at an American university and this idea that we pick "arbitrary dates" to study the beginning of American history is so true
Well they don't want to be held accountable for things like slavery or murderous religious hysteria during the founding so they have to start in 1776.
You two have such amazing chemistry. Both very snarky sarcastic witty men. I would love to see a podcast.
Overall an excellent exchange of ideas. Well done to both interlocutors.
This was really good. Thanks Alex.
I don't get what he's after bringing up states establishing religion prior to the Civil War. States also inhibited free speech before the Civil War, and it's not because there wasn't a Constitutional right to free speech, but because states were not bound by constitutional rights (other than their state constitutions) until the Civil War amendments were interpreted to apply federal constitutional rights to people against their state governments. This is taught to every American law student in their first year.
(I'm leaving this comment having only watched half of the video so far, so I apologize if this is addressed later).
He’s trying to deflect and distract. His argument either supports a secular US or is indifferent. States having state religions does not prohibit a national religion unless they conflict. In that case, Knowles is supporting a non-religious US.
He doesn't directly address that but it's addressed enough with the fact that he said he was talking about the inception of the country as the basis for it being a Christian nation, and therefore those amendments and interpretations don't mean anything to his argument.
Thank you Alex for hosting such a wonderful episode! And thanks to both participants for treating one another respectfully and doing their research. This was enjoyable.
Nice and civil. Well done.
I enjoyed this. Please do part two.
no thanks, Knowles is not an honest interlocutor at all.
I love the way Alex doesn’t shy away from any contentious points that he might have!
Usually in these debates it's the religious that dodge every question
That was a civil and quality exchange of viewpoints.
this was an insanely respectful, mature and listenable conversation, holy shit. down for part 2 🙋♂️
The first question was - "what are you talking about specifically?"
Knowles - "i keep everything ambiguous and vague and mix match concepts on purpose so I seem more right. Also buy my cigars."
also "this confuses a lot of liberals"
Have you ever thought about buying a non-woke razor?
Exactly. They can't give a straight answer
It's all part of the grift
I'm glad other people see this about him.
Great conversation Alex!!
what I enjoy about the conversation is that I see both Alex and Michael and enjoying to engage in the debate (without being too passionate) - they seem to be having fun!
Having fun?
Seems like Knowles have abit of agitation here because Laex didnt seem like a normal US college students who he normaly debate.
@@cnachopchopnewsagency I don't see that at all. It seems like they both respect one another with a great enjoyment for the others knowledge and playful way of communicating on the topic.
This was a good discussion
Not seeing a lot of engagement with Knowles' comments in this comment section. Did he really not say anything of substance in almost 90 mins?
As far as I can tell, he believes that because the first few generations of immigrants to the future United States were for the most part Christian, that means the nation is Christian. Does he think we should promote Christianity with laws? I don't think he outright states his stance on this keystone issue that is the driver of much of the current discourse. He also uses states rights to talk around the restrictions of the federal government passing religious laws. We are not talking about New Mexico's Christian history, we are asking if the United States was founded with the intent to be a Christian Nation.
I think that is really the crux of the issue. Knowles didn't clearly define what he meant by a "Christian nation", and he argues his point based mostly by saying that a lot of early Americans were Christian and/or framed their ideas within a Christian worldview. But this isn't what most people are talking about when they ask whether the US is a Christian nation; the important question is whether its actual legal and governmental structure does (or should) preferentially support Christianity.
Right wing talki g heads like Knowles always back off their most extreme statements and beliefs when confronted in a debate because first of all, they’re cowards, but second of all, they would lose all plausible deniablility of being a respectable conservative and not a wacko who gets the Nick Fuentes treatment (ie ostracized from open fascism).
This is BS. It’s irrelevant who the first European immigrants were. By the time the US revolted, it was a mixture of many, many beliefs. That’s what the Constitution reflects.
What happened before is meaningless and Knowles knows it.
I’d wager he didn’t explicitly say that current US laws should favor a Christian worldview, because that is the subtext of what he is saying. He wants the audience to draw the conclusion that because America may have been colonized by Christian peoples who brought with them their Christian culture, we are a de facto Christian nation, and the current push to legislate based on specific Christian ideas is a natural conclusion of that. All of these colonials came from explicitly Christian countries, so it’s not a surprise that they’d bring their familiar culture with them. And atheism was culturally frowned upon if not illegal in many of those places, so the likelihood that we’d have a lot of atheists populating the colonies is historically unrealistic.
This is a bastardization of Knowles' position; a Christian nation is not merely one with Christian founders and immigrants, but also one where its governmental and legal systems derive from fundamental principles of natural human rights only present (at least up until that point in history) in the Judeo-Christian ethical framework. The fact that many of the founders held vastly differing views on religion is irrelevant. The fact that less Americans today than ever before identify as Christian is also irrelevant to this definition.
Perhaps Knowles should have been more specific here, but if you watch other religion debates with him, he clarifies these points.
An atheist would have a difficult time justifying the existence of natural human rights (except by appealing to the categorical imperative) in the same way that a Christian or a Jew would be able to.
It’s interesting that Michael cites the star spangled banner’s other verse to demonstrate his claim. If he were consistent, he would also claim that the verse about slaves and slave owners demonstrates that we’re a racist nation. Perhaps the fact that these two verses are expressly not a part of the national anthem points to the fact that we’re neither?
I totally forgot about that verse. Great point.
So to be clear, you don't think the Us was Christian or racist?
@@gabrielethier2046 notice the present tense in both the video and my comment
not really? Slavery is itself, racist elements can be interpreted ontop sure, though you could to the same extent say that America is an anti-mercantile nation because in the same verse it repudiates hirelings.
I mean I have a little bit of a quibble with that these things were created at times at the detest of some but everyone agreed with the fact that Christianity was important in America's founding at least, that is not to deny America has become more secular in some things, even more Christian in others, last 30 years pretty secular, but I'd add it's a pendulum it will swing back in the Christian direction. Although most if not all states had slavery, which would be a good point, but I would also argue that those verses about slavery aren't Christian beliefs, which is why later in we repealed slavery or emancipated the slaves. Ironically you can argue the country wasn't founded on Christianity because of this because you can say well the decisions weren't guided by Christian beliefs or in fact racist ones which isn't compatible with the Christian faith, but I'd argue the Christian beliefs revised these things. There are also prejudices developed by mere practicality by the rulers in control, this happened in very vividly Christian nations such as old Russia. There's also a debate on whether that verse talks about American slaves or British troops as some sort of metaphor so depending on the writing and based off how it's worded I'm inclined to believe it's about the British since during that time there was high tension towards the British, it was literally written during the war of 1812 after all. If it was really about African slaves then why 70 years after slavery was eradicated would they adopt it as the national anthem it just wouldn't make any sense.
I love these conversations they are always so fruitful
Great discussion/debate. Both guys are thoughtful and highly intelligent. Would love to see a part 2.
I really don't think Alex is biased or uninformed about America just because he is British. I would accuse Micheal of poisoning the well with all that stuff.
That's what most people from the two parties do. Divide and conquer, a learned behavior from their "leaders."
Used the pejorative "Limey" quite a few times, too. Right-wing billionaire money sure can't buy class.
Americans tend to do that, they think the rest of the world does not understand them or their history, yet they feel they know better when it comes to foreign matters.
I don't think Michael thinks that either lol. The only times I remember him bringing up Alex being British was during lighthearted jabs or jokes
@@montrealronin have you heard of a joke before?
It's quite impressive that a British man is able to know and debate American history at this level. It's even more impressive that an American knows American history 😂
americans are notoriously ignorant of most subjects, they can tell you where the nearest mcdonalds is, but not where cuba is, they can tell you they have freedom of speech, but they have no idea what amendment gave them that right, nor what it even says. they even think they are a christian nation when they aren't. they are shocked when you tell them satan has the same rights as god.
I showed three of my coworkers a picture of Thaddeus Stevens. None of them knew who it was, and all assumed it must have been Lincoln.
The American's version of history is quite selective.
Michael Knowles graduated from University of Yale with BA History..but it seems here that Alex have more knowledge and understanding of US documents and history than Knowles.
PART 2!!!!
I appreciate when you interview Daily Wire hosts because their camera crew gives all the footage plus shot changes so it looks classy
Id start off with, "Micheal what is the very first sentence of the Constitution say?"
Like the preamble or article one? Cuz it's not the first amendment
“We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
How the heck did you get THAT out of a statement of intention with about as much flavor as paper
@jan_Kilan I cannot ever read this without hearing Schoolhouse Rock. 😂
You mean the Constitution that was based on John Adam's Massachusetts Constitution and not Thomas Jefferson/Madison's Virginian constitution that led to 2 dictators and were thus rejected by Congress? You mean that one? John Adams was in the select Committee with Madison and Madison even agreed to John Adams' MA constitution being the frame. Source: Gordon S. Wood's book Friends Divided: Jefferson and Adams Chapter 6.
@@GiovanniAdaminext you’re going to be talking about Gordon Wood
I just can't imagine ever making the argument:
"All human conflict is theological" right after saying "I wish we could get back to more sense".
Well of course you do. Because you aren’t very smart.
I guess youre implying that theology doesn't make sense? you need to try thinking just a little longer before you comment
@@ryanthomas924 Right back at ya. I am implying that "Getting back to more sense" and then saying "More sense is the cause of all human conflict" is clearly idiotic.
This is because you are very, very stupid. If you can't see the sense in theology, it's your failing.
This was a great episode. I wasn't really sway'd one way or another but I did walk away with a lot more information. I'd love to see a follow up really challenging Michaels belief in religion.
I vote for a part 2
How kind of this guy to make Alex's case for him... how thoughtful.
Mr. O'Connor - you are a patient, self-controlled man. The smugness of Michael Knowles would make it a difficult challenge for me to interact with him. I don't think I would be up for the task.
What smugness? occasional smiling doesn't make you smug
@georgewashingtom6516 I like Alex as a thinker and youtuber but SOME of his followers' attitudes boil down to thiking his debaters are somehow dishonest or bad but don't offer any explanations beyond that to justify their accusations.
@@andresdanielem
Well, Michael Knowles is not exactly known for his honesty.
@@unduloid How so? How has he been dishonest?
The smugnorance indeed.
both participants seemed to enjoy this cnversation, very pleasant
This was a masterclass in debating. Both men, from start to finish, didn't raise their voice once, kept the exact same pace, stayed on topic, while doing it all with a smile. I would love to see Knowles come back for other debate topics.
Michael Knowles is really good at saying wrong things very calmly
Alex O' Conner is really good at saying wrong things in a British accent. @@erikanderson1402
I love that Alex engages every guest on their topic of expertise, is not the same arguments against God over and over
Though, tbf, Knowles is slightly more known for advocating genocide against my community, so treating him like a regular interlocutor strikes me as a bit weird.
@@ChristyAbbey you’re allowed to feel like that, but in my life I’ve realized having conversations is the best way to approach these people. They tend to embarrass themselves with their own words
He never advocated for genocide against anyone. Your rhetoric is not only dangerous but also completely insensitive. I have holocaust survivors in my family, how dare you equate what Knowles has said with atrocities like the holocaust and other genocides. Shameful@@ChristyAbbey
@@ElephoontOfTheShapes *hands you /s*
here, you dropped this.
@@ElephoontOfTheShapesThis is very much a ''playing the Nazi card''. Trans people are literally going through a genocide *right now* and especially in America. At this point it ticks multiple boxes on the 10 stages of genocide. What happened to the people in the Holocaust is horrible, but that doesn't mean that the genocide on trans people is not happening. And you can bet your ass that Knowles is a huge proponent of this genocide. Passing laws and bills that endorses and allows for the discrimination, the ''us vs. them'', dehuminazation, and persecution of trans people for just being trans, are simply acts of genocide.
Two things I am very thankful for as a brit is the separation of church and state and the NHS
The separation of church and state was to protect the church from the state. Not the other way around. And the NHS is garbage.
We don't have a separation of Church and state in the UK... Even though our country acts more secular than the US often.
@@thomaspickin9376 In what conceivable way? Your leader is literally the head of the Church?
The Monarch is not the leader of the country. It's a figurehead, a PR person basically.@@Tomyum19
Fair doos, we have (unfortunately) no separation of church and state.
I think this discussion would have immensely benefitted from defining what it means to be a Christian nation. Is it about the beliefs of the founders, the leaders, or the majority of Americans? What defines what it means to be Christian (the practices, how people identify, or how people act outside of church)? Is "Christian nation" more of a legal status for the government, social status of its people, or some amalgamation of both?
Yes! This. This. This.
Very refreshing discussion
What a great conversation... I had no idea that Alex had such a deep historical knowledge of the founding fathers and American history in general. I can understand Michael Knowles being very knowledgeable about the history of his own country but I am very impressed by Alex's knowledge of a country not of his own. It would be like Knowles talking to Alex about the British Parliamentary system of the 1800's. In fact, the more and more I watch Alex I find my self surprised on his sheer breadth of knowledge in different subjects, not just theology or philosophy where his academic expertise lie in, but quantum physics, American History, Law, etc. I suppose philosophy has something to say about each of those areas, so I shouldn't be THAT surprised that a public thinker on Alex's level would have a knowledge pool on a wide variety of subjects. Still.... Very impressed.
You are so easily impressed.
@@mkhosono1741 Not really. I consider myself pretty well versed in a wide variety of subjects, including American History, but I'm perfectly fine admitting that I didn't know anything about some obscure 18th century American treaty with Muslim pirates called the Treaty of Tripoli or the secular ramifications behind it. That's impressive to me that a British citizen with an academic background in Theology/Philosophy would have that kind of detailed knowledge of American History.
I guarentee that Alex has at least a 50 point higher IQ than you.
@@michaeladair6557 I'm a history teacher and I agree 👍🏼
The thing about Europeans is, we get an education where these things are taught.
When Michael said "I don't always neatly separate these two things" I couldn't help but think to myself "No Michael, with your track record you probably only neatly separate them when it's convenient to you"
I dont get it why poeple still listen to him his ideal world would be misrable
@@davidschrauwen1536 miserable like... the atheist regime of mao? How many did mao slaughter, you know?
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppableexactly lol! Atheistic states have already been tried, and have ended up beyond terribly!
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppableHow did you end up here? I find it hard to believe any viewer of Alex would use this silly argument. I guess we should ask how many nukes the Christian nation of the US threw?
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppablethis is such a dumb argument, how would killing millions be intrinsic to secular societies. the rest of the western world is significantly more secular (with exceptions) than America both culturally and governmentally. so why havn't they pulled the shit Mao pulled?
Knowles was better in this than I expected. In no small part due to Alex's style of treating his guests with respect, and engaging with their arguments.
this feels surreal to have them debate each other
The Olympian level mental gymnastics these people perform, in order to arrive at anything other than a perfectly secular basis(I mean, its seriously black and oxidized parchment) for the establishment of the USA, is simply AWE inspiring.😯
Exactly. Often times Knowles didn't even answer the question. He rambled and wound up somewhere else entirely.
Rght wing grift-o-sphere conservatives always lie to support their mythical view of US history. It's one devoid of acknowledging any facts that makes the US look bad.
What do you mean "these people"?
@@ScienceHelpUs theists
@@ScienceHelpUs ANYONE that interprets the constitution in such a manor that construes it's purpose of establishing a government with a framework that is even loosely inspired by religion.
The first Amendment is in direct conflict with the first commandment. This is a secular nation with the majority being of several sects of Christian.
No, it's not. The commandments are to God's followers. It doesn't say "you will force people to worship me"
@@MrGgabberTechnically true. The things God commands to do to non-followers are WAY worse.
Like what?@@Leith_Crowther
@@MrGgabber Yes it is.. No other gods before me means you don't have freedom of religion. Look at the header.
@mikeekim242 No, that's not what it means. God gave man free will, with that comes freedom of religion. That's why there is no mention of religious prosecution.
I wish this debate/conversation had started with definitions of what is meant by secular and what is meant by Christian. I think the lack of these definitions being established left the conversation with too much vagueness about the topic at hand. I like that both Alex and Michael were both cordial in their conversation with each other.
I understand the debate for academic reasons but i dont understand when people use "we were founded as a Christian nation" in an argument for what we should do now. So what if we were founded as such? Why does the agreement between multiple individuals at that time bind us?
Dailywire feelings not facts
perfect summary of the conservative movement
@@poisonvolkswagon9431 lol.
You can't be serious.
@@timothymatthews6458 my guy, literally all political movements are emotional in nature.
@@timothymatthews6458 it’s true. When it comes to God and religion, literally everyone on the Daily Wire goes feelings over facts.
@@joebriggs5781 Okay that makes sense. Only on religion and God, right? Right?
32:00 ish. The Star Spangled Banner didn’t enter official use until 1889, and didn’t become the National Anthem until all the way in 1931.
E Pluribus Unum, Latin for “Out of Many, One”, has a much stronger claim to the title of national motto.
None of what he said contradicts that.
Except maybe the claim that the first motto has more claim to the title but thats an opinionated claim.
We need to get that mcarthyist propaganda off our currency and return to the true and original motto
@@concernedcommenter8258 he was responding to Alex saying how "In God we Trust" is a very recent edition to the American mythos, and part of his evidence was that it was in "The Star Spangled Banner", the national anthem. When you hear that you wouldn't think, unless you had prior knowledge like myself, that it dates back 20 odd years before it was added, you would think closer to 200 odd years.
Michaels expression before the commercial cut freaked me out 7:50
lmfao I noticed that too.
Hey Alex, I'm from the Mormon Belief system and I really appreciate how you as an atheist are so respectable in your conversations with people of differing beliefs. You just earned another subscriber!
idk why anyone would debate someone from the Daily Weirdo about anything lol, Michael Knowles is an extension of a brand not a person with his own ideas
Why your comment isn’t pinned. I well never understand.
Well said.
I think these ideas are worth debating because America being a Christian nation is a pretty mainstream conservative talking point in the US.
If Alex really wants to branch out into conversations with people who deal primarily in the political sphere, then he has to correspondingly branch out of his religious philosophy bubble. It’s very difficult to show how insane these people are purely through religious discussion, right now he’s essentially just giving people a gateway into Knowles and his circle of fascists.
The vast majority of Americans know it isn't already. We are just endlessly arguing with people who are stuck on an apologist/fundamentalist talking points loop. @@mkwke215
What an absolutely idiotic thing to say. Could you possibly be any more ignorant. Try watching a DW Backstage and seeing how little they all agree upon. Saying Knowles doesn’t hold his own ideas is recklessly idiotic.
Sorry, but the pledge didn't ADD under God until the 50's, the 1950's.
the money BS too
yeah and it was only because we were dealing with the atheist communists in the soviet union Im pretty sure in god we trust was added to the money around then too
Also the anthem was based on a poem from a non-founder, and the anthem wasn't made the anthem until 1931. I am not sure what this guy is on about.
Knowles says exactly that, that it was added around the Cold War period but was derived from early 19th century
@@TheBenevolentDictatorship indeed, I had commented before that part, which is why I added the comment about the anthem not even being official until 1931.
Excellent conversation about the founding of the American nation and those involved! I look forward to a future talk regarding the claims of the Bishop of Rome over the rest of those espousing general Protestant Christendom. I pray that your future talk may be enlightened and the ultimate truth claims of the Bishop of Rome as the head of Christendom will be fairly investigated versus those of the secular materialists. Such a wonderful conversation between two individuals well versed in the history both of the founding of America and the authority of Biblical interpretation!
I look forward to future discussion between the two of you!
God bless!
Side note: an AKG 414 is an interesting choice for a voice over mic, really demonstrates how universal they are lol