Andrew Wilson vs. Feminist HEATED MARATHON DEBATE | Whatever Debates 25

0:19Welcome to a debate edition of the

0:21Whatever podcast coming to you live from

0:24Santa Barbara, California. I'm your host

0:26and moderator, Brian Atlas. A few quick

0:27announcements before the show begins.

0:30This podcast is viewer supported, so

0:32please consider donating through

0:34Streamlabs. That's streamlabs.com/

0:35whatever. TTS is going to be $199 and

0:38up. There will be no instant TTS. TTS

0:42will come in batches at various breaks

0:44throughout the debate. You can see the

0:46description for all triggers and full

0:48details. Without further ado, I'm joined

0:51today by Andrew Wilson, host of The

0:54Crucible. He is a blood sports debater

0:57and political commentator. Also joining

1:00us today is Kyla, or as she goes online,

1:03not so aerodite. She has an

1:05undergraduate in psychology and a

1:07graduate diploma in psychometrics.

1:10She's a content creator, streamer, and

1:12is a political and social commentator.

1:15You each have a about three minute

1:17opening statement each and then straight

1:19into open conversation. I believe you're

1:21going first, Kyla.

1:22>> Sure. Do we have any prompts we want to

1:24read first? Do you want me to just jump

1:25into it?

1:26>> Uh, oh yeah, sure. Well, I I'll read the

1:28prompts then. Uh, so that we're going to

1:30cover four prompts, time permitting.

1:32There's Christian nationalism is

1:34unamerican. That's prompt one. Prompt

1:36two, Christians should attempt to

1:38maintain political power in US and rule

1:41through Christian ethics as it is the

1:43superior system. Prompt three, secular

1:46states are destined to likely revert

1:49back to religiously informed governments

1:52because atheists have no moral basis for

1:54which to govern, excuse me. Prompt four.

1:57Moderate liberal values are not

2:00compatible with Christianity.

2:02>> Modern.

2:03>> Oh, excuse me. Modern liberal values. My

2:06mistake. Go ahead.

2:09>> America is not a church and that is not

2:11a weakness. It is one of the greatest

2:13strengths of America. The American

2:14experiment was built on a bold idea.

2:17Faith must be freely chosen. Conscience

2:19must be protected. Political power must

2:21be limited. Limited. The founders, men

2:23of inquiry, men of science, men who

2:25built universities and ran experiments,

2:27drafted a constitution that banned

2:30religious tests for office. That was not

2:32hostility to Christianity. That was

2:34confidence in its integrity. Because

2:36when church and state merge, bias

2:38corrupts the state. But more importantly

2:40to me, power corrupts the church.

2:43Separation does not weaken the church,

2:45it protects it. America's ethos is

2:48simple. We do what works. And how do we

2:51know what works? Science. We test. We

2:55measure. We build. We refine. If it

2:57fails, we discard it. If it succeeds, we

2:58scale it. That instinct, that relentless

3:02pursuit of truth through evidence is not

3:04anti-Christian. It is a reflection of

3:07intellectual humility. America is

3:10industry. America is laboratories and

3:12shipyards and production lines that

3:14outwork empires. America is a Manhattan

3:17project. Physicists racing equations

3:19against tyranny and winning. America is

3:21a P-51 Mustang. Not sacred tradition,

3:24but engineering superiority screaming

3:27across the sky. That spirit defeated

3:29fascism. It destroyed communism.

3:31[clears throat]

3:32It mapped the atom. It put satellites in

3:34orbit. It built the medical systems,

3:35infrastructure, and technology that

3:37shaped the modern world. My America

3:40fears no truth. It preserves through

3:41discovery. It does not shrink from

3:43paleontology, geology, or evolutionary

3:45biology. Truth is not an enemy of faith.

3:48If God is sovereign, then no discovery

3:50threatens him. Evolution and belief have

3:52coexisted for generations. Scientific

3:55advancement need not displace

3:56theological conviction. America did not

3:59fight a revolution to resurrect sacred

4:02hierarchy. It did not cast off empire to

4:04create another throne draped in

4:06religious conformity. It created a

4:08republic confident enough to protect the

4:10liberty of conscience for all people.

4:13Religious principles need to know

4:15safeguarding anyway. Christianity

4:17survived the Roman Empire. It persisted

4:19despite Nero trying to kill them. It

4:21grew to prominence and converted the

4:23known word, not by sword, but by the

4:25quill. I wish my Christian brothers and

4:28sisters today still had the same

4:29confidence in the gospel that they had

4:31then. My America's equal protection. My

4:34America is equal protection under the

4:36law. Freedom of speech, limits on state

4:39power. Those are not principles foreign

4:41to Christianity. They echo the belief

4:43that every person bears dignity, that

4:45coercion cannot produce genuine faith,

4:47and that moral transformation begins in

4:49the heart, not in legislation.

4:52Christianity has flourished for many of

4:53the same reasons that America has. They

4:55have thrived without subjugation, and

4:57they spread they have spread without

4:59war. And when they did either of these

5:01two things, people came to hate it. The

5:04American dream and the holy word

5:06persuade because people believe their

5:08truth, not because it is enforced.

5:11America moves forward. America builds.

5:14America competes. America leads. Not by

5:16fusing church and state, but by

5:18unleashing human ingenuity without

5:19demanding theological uniformity first.

5:22America is doing what works. And that is

5:24why it leads the world.

5:30>> Are you just taking the water break or

5:31do you

5:33>> All done. Okay, perfect. Andrew, go

5:35ahead with your opening statement.

5:37I'm way too hung over for this [ __ ] But

5:39I got a beer, so that'll that'll help me

5:42hear the dog a little bit. So, just to

5:45be blunt, some of the reasons that I

5:48don't particularly enjoy debating with

5:50Aerodite is because there's a specific

5:52style she has, which is called the pop

5:54quiz style. When Kyla gets in trouble

5:56around arguments and worldviews, she

5:58drops a pop quiz. Uh, do you know what X

6:01is? X usually being a random obscure

6:04fact which has little to nothing to do

6:06with the conversation and your inability

6:08to answer it's met with smug delight and

6:10upspeak as she explains some random

6:12fact. The reason I bring this up is

6:14because I want the audience to be aware

6:16that I'm really just I hate pop quiz the

6:20pop quiz debates. It's an old Twitch

6:22takes and it's just to me it's cringe.

6:24It's not the Socratic method. It's just

6:27I'm going to I'm going to introduce a

6:29pop quiz about some factoid that is

6:31completely irrelevant to the debate. But

6:33anyway, when leftists say anything is

6:35unamerican, I'm forced to laugh about

6:38it. Progressives and liberals like

6:41Erodite here uh only have one single

6:43value structure ultimately and it's

6:45loyalty to an amoral liberal system. To

6:49progressive liberals, and I kid you not,

6:53let's give an example. The example of

6:56Bob. Bob can go buy a brand new deluxe

6:59PC for his 18-year-old daughter, put a

7:02camera on top of it, and manage her

7:04career as a porn star and Only Fans

7:06while he's upstairs with her former

7:08teachers fapping to it on his Oculus

7:11porn helmet. And there isn't a [ __ ]

7:13thing anybody can do about it cuz Bob

7:15pays taxes. Bobby gets up every stinking

7:19day and he goes to work and he rolls up

7:20his sleeves and he gets the job done.

7:23And by God, if Bob wants to fap to

7:25daughter porn with her former teachers,

7:27who the [ __ ] are you to tell him he

7:29can't? If Bob wants to loan his wife out

7:32to his friends for an allnight blitzed

7:34up legal drug field gang bang and then

7:36finish it off by snorting prescription

7:38painkillers so he doesn't come too

7:39early, then by God, that's his right as

7:42an American and a patriot. Who the [ __ ]

7:44are you sick fascist to judge Bob? He

7:48ain't breaking any laws. He pays his

7:50taxes and he's following the system,

7:52baby. And that's what matters. The

7:54liberal process of amoral systems rather

7:58than immoral. Everything's permitted.

8:02If the global hegeimon of the world

8:03needs to put machine guns to the back of

8:05little Africans heads so they can dig

8:07out the special Sudin cell phone

8:09crystals, then so [ __ ] be it. Bob

8:12needs his perfect reception for his

8:14satellit driven cell phone in order to

8:16get the perfect nude image of his wife

8:18being split down the middle like a piece

8:20of meat and an all-white bread sandwich.

8:22And who the [ __ ] are you to tell Bob

8:24[ __ ] Nobody. That's who. just a

8:28judgmental little fascist trying to

8:30legislate morality and an amoral system

8:33uh which is oriented around a nonsense

8:35of a smorgish board of moral buffets

8:39which boils down to a choose your own

8:41degenerate adventure. Nothing short of

8:44that is unamerican.

8:46Here's a bunch of unamerican stuff

8:48depending on when you were alive.

8:49Universal suffrage pretty [ __ ]

8:51unamerican. Abolishing slavery was

8:52pretty [ __ ] unamerican. Homosexuality

8:54was definitely unamerican. Age of

8:56consent laws were unamerican. Incest

8:58laws were unamerican. Income taxes were

9:00unamerican. Sex outside of wedlock was

9:02unamerican. Refusal to duel when being

9:04called out was unamerican. Not being

9:06white was unamerican. Co-ed schools were

9:08unamerican. Black people in white

9:10schools so unamerican we needed the

9:12military involved. The list goes on and

9:15on. But according to Arerodite,

9:17Christian nationalism is unamerican

9:18because America basically begins in the

9:20early 20th century based on Lincoln

9:22models of federalism. That's what's

9:24American.

9:26Part of that, of course, should be not

9:27listening to a person who grew up under

9:29a king in a constitutional monarchy like

9:31she did. Gross. Bunch of fascist

9:34bootlickers over in Maple Land. That's

9:37pretty [ __ ] unamerican, too.

9:40Christian nationalism is as compatible

9:43with Americanism as the liberal order of

9:45amoral systems allows, which means

9:47perfectly compatible, because there

9:49isn't any ought to tell it no. The

9:51entire proposition from the liberal

9:53angle itself is self-refuting. It just

9:55goes like this. If people vote for

9:57Christian nationalists, what are they

9:59doing which is unamerican? The answer

10:01[ __ ] nothing. If they vote in a KKK

10:04Nazi fascist Hugo boss SS uniform

10:07wearing lunatic who packs the court,

10:09prose persecutes all non-whites uh all

10:12within the whim and the confines of the

10:15aoral system, then what's unamerican

10:17about that? And the answer [ __ ]

10:19nothing. Because the progressive liberal

10:22system is built on nothing, just vague

10:24appeals to my rights and my freedoms and

10:27my own system, which allows you to get

10:30rid of the system. It's absurd and

10:33self-refuting.

10:35That's my opening.

10:36>> Cool. So, I guess um to clarify, maybe

10:39we should clarify Christian nationalism

10:41because I feel like that's going to be a

10:42bit of the crux of the conversation.

10:43[sighs] So um how do you want to define

10:46it

10:47>> to the definition of Christian

10:49nationalism would just be the

10:50proposition that Christians

10:52>> uh utilize influence and authority to

10:55stay in the moral majority and that they

10:58adopt systems towards Christian ethics.

11:00>> When you say moral majority what what

11:03does that mean to you?

11:04>> It means that um most most laws and

11:07social systems confined around Christian

11:09ethics.

11:10>> Okay. So you would like to basically see

11:13a change of current state craft to

11:16include more Christian policies.

11:18>> All Christian policies

11:19>> to Can I ask to what extent? Like does

11:22this

11:22>> to as much of a conent an extent as

11:24liberalism allows which is all extents.

11:27>> Okay. So would you when you advocate for

11:29Christian nationalism though a lot I'm

11:30sure you and I would probably agree

11:32probably if say the more of the moral

11:33majority becomes Christian particularly

11:35in the way that maybe you're advocating

11:37for we would probably move in the

11:38direction of reducing

11:41constitutional policy uh and increasing

11:44Christian policy specifically probably

11:46all the way up to including theocracy.

11:48>> No they're not incompatible.

11:49>> So you don't think that

11:50>> constitutional policies so under

11:52liberalism that this is the great thing

11:54about liberalism.

11:56So, do you remember like you had this

11:58conversation with a guy the other day?

12:00Um, I don't know how long ago it was,

12:02but he was like a fan of mine. He called

12:04in. It was about Christian nationalism.

12:05I think you got the clip on your

12:06channel. There was a point there where I

12:09started laughing because he said

12:13basically what I did, he was like, "My

12:15proposal is that I want all the systems

12:16and this and that to kind of reflect the

12:19image of my preferences." And you were

12:21like,

12:22"Fuck that. you're not allowed to

12:25bastardize my religion by implementing

12:28policies uh against, you know, what my

12:30preferences are. And I thought that's

12:32like the most American thing I can think

12:34of. The most American thing I can think

12:37of is that an a Canadian immigrant is

12:41like, "You know what? This is my country

12:44now, and you're not going to [ __ ]

12:47bastardize it with whatever your [ __ ] is

12:49cuz I don't want you to." And the other

12:50guy's like, "I don't give a [ __ ] what

12:52you want. we're going to do it anyway.

12:54And then it goes vice vers and it's like

12:56that is liberalism ultimately. If we

12:59want to uh get rid of alcohol via an

13:02amendment, we can. If we want to bring

13:03it back via amendment, we can and have.

13:06If we want to get rid of guns, we can

13:08and have. We want to bring them back. We

13:10can and have. It's like everything is

13:12permitted.

13:13>> So yeah. So by your logic then,

13:15Christian nationalists not only are

13:17trying to win the culture, they're

13:18trying to win the state

13:20>> to impose Christian policy on the state.

13:22Well, via well, not they're through

13:25Congress.

13:25>> They're imposing liberalism on the state

13:27actually.

13:27>> Well, spec well, in this case, let's

13:30Well, I don't want to I'm not I'm not

13:32going to equivocate. If Christian

13:34nationalists amend every single

13:35constitutional amendment within the

13:37confines of liberalism to reflect only

13:39Christian policy by by your metric,

13:41that's liberalism.

13:42>> So, the issue is that I'm not like a a

13:45democratic ab absolutist, right? I don't

13:47believe in democracy in the state. I

13:49believe in like some level of uh limited

13:50democracy. In fact, even now we have

13:52what we have like electoral democracy.

13:54We don't have we have elected

13:55representatives. We don't have direct

13:57popular vote which I think is good. I

13:59think that that's a better dem

14:00democratic system than for example uh

14:02pure absolute democracy like popular

14:04vote. So there's always limits on

14:06democracy. Right. So when you say

14:08liberalism I think the issue is like

14:10liberalism to you just mean it seems

14:11like what it means to you is we can vote

14:14for stuff.

14:15>> Is that what it means? What does it mean

14:16to you?

14:16>> It's an it's what you outlined in your

14:18opening. Liberalism is just a sequence

14:21of systems. It's science, man. And it's

14:24building [ __ ] and it's industry and it's

14:26all of these isms which really are just

14:29confined to I want a system. So

14:32liberalism is an amoral system.

14:34>> Do you think science is liberalism?

14:36>> No, but I think that liberals adopt

14:38science as part of their system.

14:39>> Well, yeah, they allow Do you think

14:40capitalism is liberalism?

14:42>> I think they adopt capitalism as part of

14:44their system.

14:44>> Could they adopt other things?

14:46>> Sure.

14:47>> Okay. So then what's liberalism?

14:48Liberalism is an adaptation of an amoral

14:51system.

14:52>> What what is this? Sorry. At a state

14:54craft level, what does this mean?

14:56>> That you have a system which is an

14:58amoral system.

14:59>> Why is the amoral piece essential to

15:02>> because that's what that's why you

15:04prefer secularism. You want a system

15:06which is amoral. So it's based on

15:09individualism. It's based on

15:11>> is individualism amoral?

15:13>> Yeah. Well, from from the liberal view

15:14it is. Yeah.

15:15>> How is li How is individualism amoral?

15:17Um because there's no ought there's no

15:20ought under a liberal system for you to

15:22do anything.

15:23>> Sure there is. There's often times right

15:25like a liberal system doesn't impose any

15:27certain moral. Well the most common

15:28consensual

15:29>> wait what did you say a liberal system

15:30doesn't impose any certain morals.

15:32>> That doesn't make it like so when you

15:33sayal means amoral.

15:35>> Oh so like they they're agnostic.

15:37>> No they're amoral. It's worse than

15:38agnostic.

15:39>> How is that?

15:40>> Because sorry. What's the difference

15:42between amoral and agnostic on?

15:44>> Yeah. So you can be agnostic about uh

15:47something which is moral or immoral,

15:49right? That's true. But that doesn't

15:51mean you're amoral. But what you're

15:53looking for is a system which is amoral.

15:55So you're saying like look, we're not

15:57going to make any moral prescriptions

15:59because that's not what the function of

16:01the state is.

16:02>> So do you think what the founding

16:03fathers did was amoral? Like it's not

16:06something to respect. It's not something

16:08valuable. What do you think about the

16:09founding fathers?

16:10>> What does that have to do with anything?

16:11uh the founding fathers created the

16:13American world. You're saying it seems

16:14like you're saying America is liberalism

16:16and this liberalism is weak. Or do you

16:18think America is something else became

16:20liberalism when you destroyed the

16:21republic with universal suffrage in the

16:2314th amendment?

16:24>> That's I mean the republic was just the

16:26language utilized to [laughter] talk

16:28about a specific type of democracy,

16:29right?

16:29>> No, it had a foundationalism. You're

16:31talking about 39 out of 50 signers. Only

16:34three of them were deists. And

16:36foundationally the states under the 10th

16:39amendment were allowed to adopt their

16:41own religions and did. It was only until

16:44we got to the 14th amendment way later

16:47that this was no longer the case. And in

16:49your opening you got that wrong.

16:51>> The establishment and free exercise

16:52clause specifically said Congress shall

16:54make no law respecting an establishment

16:56of religion prohibiting the free

16:58exercise

16:58>> at the federal level. That's true.

17:00>> The federal level implied to the states.

17:01>> No, that happened later under the 14th

17:03amendment. In fact,

17:04>> under the constitution. I'll show you.

17:05Brian, pull up. The 14th amendment stops

17:09states from adopting religion. I'll show

17:11you so that you understand how the

17:13process worked.

17:14>> So, do you think that the founding

17:15fathers establish a religion for the

17:17>> No, they established the 10th amendment

17:19which says that all all uh rights which

17:22are not given to the federal government

17:24are given to the prospective states

17:26because the first amendment covered that

17:28federally. This was part of a

17:29compromise. That compromise happened

17:31because of the articles of

17:32confederation. So the Articles of

17:34Confederation initially were the

17:36libertarian wet dream, but they didn't

17:38work because states couldn't have

17:40uniform commerce or uniform dollars or a

17:42uniform military. So they adopted a form

17:45of federalism and compromised. The

17:47compromise was the 10th amendment. The

17:4910th amendment stated that actually

17:52states could have their own religions

17:54and they did. Almost all the states had

17:56their own religion post constitutional

17:58ratification.

18:00>> Most people don't know that.

18:01>> By own religion, what do you mean? Do

18:02you just mean the test clause?

18:04>> No, no, no, no, no, no. They had state

18:05religions.

18:07>> The test clause you had to be

18:08>> No, not a test clause. They had actual

18:10state religions inside each independent

18:14state. They had their own religions

18:15minus, I think, two or three.

18:17>> So, why did the federal United States

18:18not have a religion? Why did it allow

18:20the states to make those choices?

18:21>> Because of the 10th amendment,

18:23>> what what was the principle? What were

18:24the founding fathers trying to do? What

18:26do you think the founding fathers?

18:26>> They were trying to separate the power

18:28of federalists between anti-federalist

18:30and federalists. So they compromised on

18:32two major amendments. The second

18:34amendment which initially was way looser

18:36in language uh and then they compromised

18:39on the 10th amendment as well because

18:41states wanted to have their own

18:43militias. They wanted to have their own

18:44militaries. They wanted to have their

18:45own currencies. Congress is like look we

18:48need to have the power to raise armies.

18:50We need to have the power to coin money.

18:52If you allow us to have those two powers

18:54then all the other perspective powers

18:56we'll give to the states which they did.

18:58That included religion. So if the

19:00founding fathers intended what for it to

19:03be a Christian nation to have some level

19:04of

19:05>> they intended for each state to be able

19:07to govern as they saw fit in order to

19:09implement religions that they chose to

19:11>> to the exclusion at a federal level

19:13specifically of any religion. Right?

19:15>> But that's not in what's in contest

19:16here.

19:17>> That is that isn't what's contest.

19:18Right? If we're talking about America,

19:20we're talking about the nation. We're

19:22talking about the founding fathers, the

19:24minds behind the founding of

19:25>> the founding fathers put in amendment

19:27processes for us to amend things,

19:29>> including the first amendment, right?

19:31>> Sure. Yeah. But why if they wanted to

19:33blend church and state, why wouldn't

19:36they write that?

19:36>> They did blend church and state because

19:38under the 10th amendment, they allowed

19:40states to adopt state religions. It was

19:43only when the Supreme Court looked at

19:45the 14th amendment way later in our

19:47history that they decided, and by the

19:49way, that amendment had nothing to even

19:50do with this. That was about

19:51citizenship.

19:52>> State religions isn't the same thing as

19:54America having a federal religion. We

19:55realize this, right?

19:56>> Who's who who ever postulated that we

20:00needed to have a federalized religion?

20:02>> Well, I'm talking about separation of

20:03church and state. Yeah.

20:05>> For America,

20:06>> if states can have their own religion

20:08inside the state and it becomes the

20:10state religion, does that in your

20:12opinion violate that separation of

20:13church?

20:14>> If there's a test clause, yeah, it

20:15probably potentially would violate that.

20:17So, if the state imposes a test clause

20:18for federal power, that would be an

20:20issue. And do you know when the last

20:22>> it was super common at the time that

20:23most states had clauses. In fact, the

20:25founding fathers were so intense about

20:27ensuring separation of power that

20:28despite most colonies at the time having

20:30a test clause for holding power of being

20:33religious, they explicitly barred it in

20:35what was it? Article uh article six.

20:38>> Oh yeah. Then how come in Maryland you

20:40had to declare until 1960s something I

20:42believe that you believed in God in

20:45order to hold office?

20:46>> Because in Maryland they made that

20:47decision. But at a federal level, well

20:48we're talking about we're not talking

20:49about Maryland. We're talking about

20:50America.

20:51>> Yeah. America

20:52>> is Maryland. America.

20:53>> America is a coalition of states which

20:56have federalized. That's what's going

20:58on.

20:58>> But don't you think that the

20:59Constitution of America maybe matters

21:01when we're talking about the ethos of

21:02America?

21:03>> Sure.

21:03>> Okay. So, one you mean that completely

21:06amendable thing.

21:06>> Well, completely amendable is very makes

21:09it sound way looser than it is. Amending

21:11and adding amendments.

21:11>> It is way look what's unamerican about

21:14amending the first amendment?

21:15>> Nothing.

21:15>> Okay. So then inside of your worldview,

21:19it's completely constitutional to amend

21:21the First Amendment to get rid

21:24to get rid of the establishment clause.

21:25That would be totally appropriate under

21:27your

21:27>> I think that would be a violation of the

21:28American ethos. I think it's bad. And

21:30well, here how

21:31>> because America believes America's built

21:33on these things. I think that the

21:34founding fathers,

21:35>> you don't believe America Okay. Does

21:37America have

21:37>> Do I get to finish my thoughts or you

21:38going to go ahead go ahead? Okay. Right.

21:40I think what's really important here is

21:41that like the founding fathers I think

21:43are essential to understanding the ethos

21:45of America. I don't think they're the

21:46only piece. But if we want to look at

21:47like a litany of America over time, what

21:50we have, for example, is the founding

21:51fathers, despite the nation being

21:53dominantly Christian, despite the states

21:56having test religious clauses, the

21:58founding fathers looking at that going,

22:00>> "No, we need a separation of church and

22:03state."

22:03>> That's not what happened.

22:04>> That is that is absolutely what

22:06happened.

22:06>> Not only is it not what happened, but

22:07within the framework that you're talking

22:08about, you just said it's not unamerican

22:11to amend.

22:11>> How did it not happen?

22:12>> Hang on. You just said it's not it's not

22:15in any way unamerican to amend the first

22:17amendment. The first amendment is

22:18>> I should I should have clarified that

22:20because when we say American I'm meaning

22:22the ethos. What I should have said is

22:23it's not anti-constitutional. The

22:24constitution would allow.

22:25>> So okay then let's follow that line of

22:27logic and see if that's true. Does

22:29American have any sort of like ethnic

22:31ethos?

22:32>> Yeah.

22:33>> What is it?

22:34>> Dominantly white culture hedgemonically.

22:36>> So that's part of the American ethos.

22:39>> Yeah. To some degree. Yeah.

22:40Significantly. Right. like

22:41>> should it stay that way?

22:42>> Uh I I like it. Yeah.

22:44>> So it should America should stay a white

22:46Protestant nation.

22:47>> Uh but that's not the central piece of

22:49the ethos. You said does it have a

22:51cultural e ethos? And I said

22:52>> I'm asking [clears throat] if Okay.

22:53Should it stay white?

22:55>> Um no. I don't care about the whiteness

22:57>> and that's not part of American ethos.

22:58>> How is that the case? Absolutely.

23:00Something that can be a part of the

23:01ethos and also change because the ethos

23:03here that's central isn't the whiteness

23:04that I was pointing to. It's some of the

23:06cultural values that come in. For

23:07example, Protestant work ethic, right?

23:09taking value in the product produce that

23:11you in the product that you make as

23:12well.

23:12>> And if America no longer had any of that

23:14and became completely atheistic but

23:16still followed these constitutional

23:17amendments, that's still plenty

23:19American, right?

23:19>> As long as they hold to central ethos of

23:21what I think the American dream and

23:22vision is outlined, for example, with

23:24the founding fathers at the Declaration

23:26of Independence.

23:26>> Well, then if it's not whiteness and

23:28it's not cult anything and it's not

23:30anything cultural

23:31$69.

23:32>> Oh my god.

23:33>> It means that according to

23:34>> No idea what happened there. I

23:35apologize.

23:36>> If it's not So here's what I'm asking.

23:38If it's not ethnic,

23:40>> what do you think American ethos is? Do

23:41you have any American

23:42>> ethos? And it's not cultural.

23:44>> I said, it is cultural.

23:45>> It's cultural. Yeah. Okay. So, what are

23:47the cultural things? What is American

23:49culture?

23:50>> Uh, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness,

23:53doing things that work, ingenuity,

23:55discovery.

23:56>> Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

23:58>> Wait, what do you think? American

24:00>> and what? Hang on. What was the other

24:01thing you said?

24:02>> I think ingenuity.

24:03>> Ingenuity.

24:04>> Those are some of them.

24:04>> So, as long as

24:06>> Do you reject these as part of the

24:07American ethos? I do. So as long as none

24:09of these life, liberty or pursuit of

24:12happiness or ingenuity is violated then

24:16it's in the spirit of America

24:17>> potentially. We would have to look at it

24:19in a relativistic right like the e these

24:21ethos like things we have to understand

24:23like what we're talking about. You'd

24:24have to give me an example.

24:24>> That's what I'm asking you about is what

24:26we're talking about. So if any of these

24:27things

24:27>> what do you think is American? I well so

24:30I I think that what's core at the the

24:32central kind of product of Americanism

24:35is this idea of systemic liberalism. The

24:38system itself

24:40is what mean

24:42>> what's that?

24:42>> What is systemic liberalism?

24:44>> Yeah. So that it's just the idea that

24:46like ah there's a secular separation.

24:50There's uh systems in in place within

24:52the constitutional confines. There's

24:54things which we're appealing to in law.

24:57Uh I don't think that liberals I don't

24:59think that liberalism and modernity is

25:02doing anything other than looking at

25:03those systems. I think that originally

25:05founders our founders wanted to have

25:08something which was much more akin to

25:09ethnationalism for sure. I think that

25:12they wanted to have something that was

25:13much more akin to nobody voting in

25:15universal suffrage at all because it

25:16didn't give anybody the right to vote.

25:18So I don't think that those things were

25:19foundational to the American experience

25:21because the founders didn't allow it.

25:23>> Why didn't they? because they they

25:25didn't want people to come over here who

25:27weren't uh western English basically.

25:30>> That's not why.

25:30>> Yeah, it is why.

25:31>> No, you can read it in Federalist number

25:33two. Like the the uh argument for

25:34suffrage is very clear from Hamilton.

25:36>> Okay. Wait on when have you read the

25:39anti-federalist papers?

25:40>> No.

25:41>> Do you realize there's there's

25:42federalist papers? There's the

25:43anti-federalist papers.

25:45>> Yes.

25:45>> These were compromises which were made

25:47from the original articles of

25:49confederation.

25:50>> What did suffrage mean to

25:51>> originally? the 39 the the 39 I believe

25:54it's 39 out of 50 delegates who signed

25:56the constitution only three were deists

25:58most of them were Protestants loyalist

26:00Protestants by the way and on top of all

26:02of that most of them wanted only white

26:05states and made it very clear they only

26:07wanted white states they put that into

26:09the very ethos of what they considered

26:11Americana do I think that modern

26:13liberalism is looking at any sort of

26:15people group is uh modern liberalism

26:18looking at any sort of like um uh

26:21cultural uh environmentalism in order to

26:24like say, "Hey, this is what America

26:26is." No. All you can appeal to is

26:28systems. That's it. That's all you have

26:29is a system. Liberalism is a system of

26:32life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and

26:34ingenuity. Whatever the [ __ ] that means.

26:36Doesn't even mean anything.

26:37>> Of course.

26:38>> What?

26:39>> What? What do you mean?

26:40>> What is life, liberty, and pursuit

26:43of happiness? I could completely amend

26:45the first amendment and still do all of

26:46those things. I think the issue is that

26:48most of the country would oppose you

26:49amending the first amendment because the

26:50first amendment is is foundational to

26:52what makes America great.

26:53>> So what so what if most of the country

26:54opposes it that it's built into

26:56liberalism if all it is is

26:59>> the whole country opposes it is because

27:01like America is this consensual

27:02emergence of a bunch of people that

27:04believe in something

27:04>> and what if we decide that we don't

27:06believe in the first amendment anymore

27:08and amend it? What's unamerican about?

27:09>> Do you not believe in the first

27:10amendment anymore?

27:11>> That has nothing to do with the

27:12argument. What is unamerican about

27:14amending the first amendment? Well,

27:16again, the American is this ethos. It

27:18would be technically constitutional, but

27:19I would argue that it would be a bad

27:21constitutional move, and I think it

27:22would violate the founding fathers. And

27:23I think the founding fathers were on to

27:25something when they made that first

27:26separation of free speech and separation

27:28of church and state.

27:29>> Is vi do we should we adhere to

27:31everything the founders said or no?

27:32>> No, not necessarily.

27:33>> Well, then how who cares if we violate

27:34it?

27:36>> There's there's What do you mean who

27:38cares?

27:38>> Yeah. If if you're like, look, if you

27:40violate the things that the founders

27:42wanted, that's not unamerican. But this

27:44is unamerican because it might violate

27:45what the founders wanted. You're in

27:47contradictions. P

27:48>> not contradictions. Like pluralism

27:50allows for competing values, right?

27:51Obviously, right? And so what you're

27:53kind of doing right now is you're

27:55sitting here and you're being like,

27:56well, there's two children. They're your

27:58children one side and your husband's on

27:59the other side. Who are you picking? And

28:01let's say I pick the two children.

28:02You're going, why do you hate your

28:04husband? And I was saying, that's not

28:05what's happening here.

28:06>> I don't even know that that first of

28:08all, that's not the analogy. The analogy

28:10would actually be this. You have your

28:11husband and your children on both sides.

28:14You pick both. This other guy has his

28:16husband and children and he doesn't pick

28:17both.

28:18>> That's not how pluralism and monism

28:19work.

28:19>> Wait, wait a second. As long as you're

28:22saying that both of these sets are both

28:24moral behaviors because you have an

28:26amoral system, meaning you wouldn't

28:28restrict either of these things.

28:29>> That's not nec we absolutely restrict

28:31people's behaviors and we al we often

28:33restrict people's behaviors for the

28:34benefit of the state. Right. Laws exist.

28:36>> And who makes them?

28:38>> Uh the people that we vote elect. I see.

28:41So if we elect people who vote in

28:43different laws, how's that unamerican?

28:45>> So it would be against the American

28:47ethos if a whole bunch of Christian

28:48nationalists for example convince people

28:50that we should actually reduce things

28:52like liberty. I think that we would be

28:53moving away from

28:54>> you wouldn't be reducing liberty.

28:55Absolutely.

28:55>> It would just be a different kind of

28:56liberty.

28:56>> If you start imposing church into state

28:58for example and the only religion that

29:00you can practice is Christianity that

29:02would be violating liberty. How if we

29:04amend the process? How

29:06>> even if you amend the process? So you

29:08can amend the process to make us a less

29:10free nation. But what I would say is

29:11that would be wrong. That would be

29:12unamerican. Yes. How?

29:14>> Because America is built on life and

29:15liberty.

29:16>> America is built on the fact that you

29:17can amend America.

29:19>> No. America is built on why

29:21>> why do we have an amendment process?

29:22>> Why wouldn't TJ when he's writing the

29:24Declaration of Independence, why

29:26wouldn't he, for example, say America is

29:28just what we vote for? It's just like

29:29consensus stuff, man. It's just like

29:30loosey goosey. He says specifically an

29:32ethos that drives the dream. Right? And

29:35you're saying, well, this ethos, this

29:36dream, it's just silly. It's nothing. I

29:38mean, it's it's just not nothing, right?

29:40It makes me go foundational America on

29:42liberalism, on the liberal view, right?

29:44>> So, you think America's nothing.

29:46>> Let each other finish.

29:47>> It's not built on any sort of ethnicity.

29:50It's not built on any sort of cultural

29:52union.

29:52>> Well, I did say culture.

29:54>> Well, but you just said life, liberty,

29:55and pursuit of happiness.

29:56>> Is that not cannot that be cultural

29:58values?

29:58>> Yeah. No.

29:59>> Why not? What's what does it mean?

30:01>> What's an example of a cultural value?

30:02>> What the [ __ ] does it mean? Let's learn.

30:04>> What's an example of a cultural value if

30:05not something like life and liberty?

30:07>> A unison of cultural values are usually

30:08foundation to ethical systems.

30:10>> No, they're not. So, what what what's a

30:12cultural value that you would say that's

30:13a cultural value?

30:14>> I just told you I would use I would

30:16utilize for culture some kind of glue.

30:18That would be a unison. Otherwise, it's

30:20not cultural.

30:20>> Okay. What's a Scottish cultural value?

30:23>> Um

30:24>> Irish. Sorry, you're Irish. That's an

30:25Irish cultural value.

30:26>> Yeah. So I think that Irish cultural

30:28values would again revolve around

30:30foundationalism, religious ethical

30:32systems

30:33>> like what

30:34>> well for that for uh Ireland I think

30:36what the Protestant Catholic

30:38>> so the cultural value is of being Irish

30:41is being Catholic.

30:42>> I think that the there's a union between

30:44the people group and the ethical

30:46foundations.

30:47>> So how are Irish people different than

30:49British people who are also al also on

30:50the back of Anglican or Catholic?

30:52>> Well because they're not right. So

30:54England has a completely different set

30:56of people groups which come from

30:57Britannians. The Britannians uh who came

31:01in settled all of England.

31:03>> Um when the church came in and then they

31:05separated into Anglican, they have now a

31:07completely different set of value

31:09structures than other places do

31:11including Western Europe.

31:12>> Anglican

31:13>> what

31:14>> the British cultural value.

31:16>> So the only thing that makes British and

31:18Irish people different is one's

31:19Catholic.

31:20>> I said different people group. Let's

31:22Okay. Okay. Steel man.

31:23>> What's the cultural value?

31:24>> Steel man my position real quick.

31:25>> I'm I'm asking you actually to steal man

31:27mine cuz you're insisting that when I

31:29list these ethos.

31:30>> How can I steal man your position when

31:31you're asking me questions?

31:33>> I'm asking you questions because you

31:34seem to be unsatisfied with the answers

31:36that I have supplied because you're not

31:38granting me ethical.

31:40>> You're going if you're going to get

31:41someone interrupting it has to be

31:42mutual. Okay.

31:43>> Yeah.

31:43>> So I I gave you an example of a couple

31:45of cultural ethos and you said what?

31:47This is nothing. It doesn't mean

31:48anything. Well then I said hold on. So

31:50then I said, "Can you give me an example

31:52of let's say Irish culture?" Hold on.

31:55And you said Catholic. And I said, "What

31:58makes them different then from just

31:59another group of people that are also

32:01Catholic?"

32:01>> They have different set values.

32:02>> Like what?

32:03>> Like for instance, they have different

32:04religious foundationalism. They have

32:06different values in their society that

32:07they honor.

32:08>> Irish cultural value. Give me one.

32:10>> Not life, not liberty, not pursuit of

32:12happiness. How am I wrong?

32:14>> I don't know. I'm not Irish.

32:16>> Well, I don't just value isms. If it's

32:19just isms of like a cultural value is

32:22life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,

32:24then it's like, okay, then cultural

32:25values are also just not life, not

32:27liberty, and not pursuit of happiness.

32:28Then

32:30>> does that make any sense to you?

32:31>> That's not what anyone's saying. I'm

32:32literally saying it is what you're

32:33saying. Let each other finish, please.

32:35>> I'm just asking you for a single example

32:37of an Irish culture.

32:38>> When you're talking, let each other

32:40finish.

32:40>> And you're just saying Catholic.

32:42>> Uhhuh.

32:42>> So, what's an example of an Irish

32:44cultural value? So would do you agree

32:46that Catholic would be an example of an

32:48Irish cultural value?

32:49>> I wouldn't say it's unique to Ireland.

32:50No.

32:50>> So why would it need to be unique?

32:52>> We're talking about

32:53>> is life, liberty, and pursuit of

32:54happiness unique to America?

32:56>> So are you just saying that cultures

32:57don't really exist? They're just the

32:58religions. Like there's no difference

32:59between Irish people and let each other

33:02and another group that's uh Catholic as

33:04well, like Spanish people.

33:06>> So what a culture is is going to be the

33:07grouping of the people,

33:08>> the consideration of the value group of

33:10those people, and then the foundations

33:11of those people.

33:12>> So what's an example of an Irish

33:13cultural Catholicism.

33:15>> So how is that different than Spanish

33:16people who are also Catholic?

33:18>> Because they have a different people

33:19group.

33:20>> So what emerges that's different between

33:21these two groups?

33:22>> Language, customs, orders.

33:24>> Yeah. Values.

33:25>> Not just values. No,

33:27>> of course not. Of course not. Just

33:28values.

33:28>> They can have actually they have a lot

33:30of shared values.

33:31>> Sure. Of course. Yeah.

33:32>> But again, you have to take the people

33:34group. Then you have to take the social

33:35orders. Then you have to take the

33:36foundationalism in order to create

33:38culture. For you, you're saying life,

33:40liberty, pursuit of happiness. Now I

33:42gave you concrete examples of cultural

33:44values. Can you tell me what this means?

33:47What does that mean?

33:48>> So if we're talking about the culture of

33:50people,

33:50>> I think one of the re relevant things

33:52for the American culture might be not

33:55excluded to the founding fathers and

33:57what they thought you know the founding

33:58of the entire nation kind of matters. So

34:01in the declaration of independence for

34:02example, Thomas Jefferson outlines life,

34:05liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

34:06But that is a unique thing, a unique

34:08hallmark of being

34:09>> Jefferson didn't sign the Constitution.

34:11>> That doesn't mean that he didn't write

34:13the Declaration of Independence. We're

34:14talking about the Declaration of

34:15Independence.

34:15>> Declaration, the Declaration of

34:17Independence was a propaganda piece

34:19built on an axiom which said under God,

34:21right?

34:22>> So as an American, you just don't care

34:23about the Declaration of Ind.

34:24>> I'm saying that when we're talking about

34:26foundationalism, the reason I bring up

34:28that Jefferson didn't sign the con, we

34:31are

34:32>> we're talking about value structures.

34:33You're saying that life, liberty, and

34:35pursuit of happiness You're saying life,

34:37liberty, pursuit of happiness is the

34:38foundation of Americanism. Nope.

34:40>> Then what is

34:42>> um the what is the foundation? It's the

34:45the foundation of America is the

34:47founding fathers. It's the Constitution.

34:49It's the Declaration of Independence.

34:50It's the entire idea.

34:52>> It's systems.

34:52>> Well, it's systems and its ethos.

34:54>> What's Well, you see what I mean though?

34:56That's circular.

34:57>> You say life, liberty, life, liberty,

35:00pursuit of happiness. That is not the

35:02foundation of America,

35:04>> right?

35:05I I suppose they can be foundations in

35:07that like they're irreducible. Life,

35:09liberty are kind of irreducible.

35:12>> Why couldn't they be reduced?

35:13>> Because it's going to become circular

35:14eventually. Like most things will become

35:16circular. Say you have a culture that

35:17values work ethic.

35:19>> Yeah.

35:19>> How do you reduce that? What does that

35:21mean?

35:22>> But that people work really really hard.

35:24>> Yeah. Isn't that kind of just like

35:25you're just kind of saying? So it's it's

35:28circular.

35:28>> I'm not sure that it's circular, but

35:29it's a horistic.

35:30>> How is saying work ethic is people work

35:32hard, not circular. Well, you could give

35:34qualifiers for what hard work is.

35:36>> Well, you didn't. You just said hard

35:38work is you just asked me how and I

35:39explained it.

35:40>> So, this is one of the key talking about

35:42foundationalism. You said life, liberty,

35:43and pursuit of happiness, but then said

35:45that that's not a foundation and then

35:47only pointed to systems.

35:48>> I said it's no, no, no. I didn't say

35:49it's not foundation. I said it's not

35:51foundationalism. Cuz when I'm hearing

35:53that, and I could be wrong. When I hear

35:54foundationalism, I'm assuming that you

35:56mean the like the philosophical

35:58framework.

35:59>> Yeah.

35:59>> Yeah. So when I'm saying foundational, I

36:01just

36:02>> what's the philosophical framework of

36:04the United States other than a system?

36:07>> I'm not I'm not So when I'm saying the

36:10cultural ethos, I'm not talking about

36:11the philosophical framework necessar.

36:13>> I'm asking you what is the philosophical

36:14framework of the United States other

36:16than a system? What?

36:18>> Well, it is a system.

36:19>> Yeah, exactly. So all you're appealing

36:21to in your liberal ethical system is a

36:24[ __ ] is just systems. It's an amoral

36:27system. That's it. So state crafter

36:29systems. Yes.

36:30>> Yeah. So me. So here we can make this

36:34super easy. We can make this super easy.

36:36Then

36:36>> is changing the first amendment immoral?

36:40>> No. But I think it would make the

36:41country worse.

36:42>> So it's an amoral system.

36:44>> I would argue like it's probably immoral

36:46because probably the people doing it,

36:48right? Like which which people want to

36:49change free speech?

36:50>> Who cares what would make it what would

36:52make it immoral?

36:53>> Well, the context and the individual

36:54who's doing it might make it immoral or

36:55not.

36:56>> Yeah. Yeah, but in and of itself it's

36:57not

36:58>> uh it might be right. Things are

36:59relative.

37:00>> Okay. So in and of itself is not

37:03relative anymore because it's just in

37:05and of itself.

37:06>> So I am a moral objectivist and a

37:10relativist, right?

37:11>> What

37:12>> you're a P and not P.

37:13>> No, I believe in that morals are

37:15objective.

37:16>> Uhhuh.

37:16>> But also that they are relative.

37:19>> This is standard. This is like Aristotle

37:21stuff.

37:22>> What the [ __ ] What?

37:23>> Okay, so uh stealing is wrong. Uh-huh.

37:26>> However, the guy whose family is going

37:28to die if he doesn't steal relatively

37:30contextually might be okay for him to

37:31steal in that situation. Right.

37:33>> You're just talking about pluralism.

37:34>> I'm not just I'm not what's the

37:36competing values here?

37:37>> Because under pluralism, what you're

37:39saying is that there's many pathways to

37:41get to what the spirit of the thing is.

37:43>> That's not what pluralism is.

37:44>> It is.

37:45>> Nope.

37:46>> Okay. What is it?

37:47>> Okay. I wrote it down cuz I It's when

37:49Google.

37:49>> It's multiple irreducible competing

37:51goods in moral pluralism.

37:53>> Multiple what? irreducible competing

37:56goods.

37:56>> Meaning that there's multiple pathways

37:58to get to somewhere.

37:59>> Nope. That means, for example, that you

38:01have two moral systems that are both

38:03good. So, justice and mercy,

38:05>> and there's multiple ways to use them to

38:07get to the thing we're trying to get to.

38:09>> Nope.

38:09>> In this case, they're competing against

38:11one another. So, in the case, for

38:12example, of somebody who's cheated on

38:14his wife, there's morals of justice that

38:16we would want to uphold, but there's

38:18also maybe morals of mercy or union of

38:20family. And so to make a decision, there

38:23isn't an obvious correct answer between

38:24justice or mercy. Usually we have to do

38:27some type of balance between the two.

38:29>> Or we could do no type of balance and

38:30utilize one in order to get to the same

38:32objective as the other.

38:34>> What would what's the objective?

38:35>> So for instance, if we wanted to like

38:37prosecute a guy for a crime, we could

38:39say we're only going to prosecute him on

38:41this crime based on justice. That could

38:44be one value set which we adhere to,

38:46right?

38:47>> Yeah. Sure.

38:47>> Uh we could also appeal to something

38:49else like dignity. I don't know. Let's

38:51just say we put that up and say that's

38:53what we're going to use instead. Well,

38:54the justice people and the dignity

38:56people, right? Neither one of them are

38:58wrong and they're both going towards the

39:00same goal, which is execution of guy

39:01just or execution of guy good or

39:03execution of guy fine.

39:05>> Well, I guess if the goal if you want to

39:07make this like pluralist, I guess if

39:09you're

39:09>> because it is virtue ethicist.

39:11>> Yes, of course.

39:12>> You're a virtue ethicist. Okay. So, you

39:15want to basically utilize and

39:16>> Well, I'm a Christian ethicist, but

39:17virtue ethics is involved. Yes.

39:19>> Okay. Gotcha. So in the case of um why

39:23are we here? Yes. We were talking

39:24>> because we're talking about systems. How

39:26is the United States something other

39:27than just a system?

39:29>> You said in and of itself if we changed

39:31the first amendment that would not be

39:33immoral.

39:36Finish, please.

39:36>> So you don't think America is anything

39:38but its system. There's nothing else

39:39that makes America unique that you can

39:41point to and say that's America

39:43>> under the liberal view. No,

39:44>> under your view. I'm asking your view.

39:46>> Yeah. Well, under my view, I think that

39:47there was once upon a time a powerful

39:51idealism which was founded around

39:53Christian ethics that was foundational

39:55to America, which is now basically

39:57destroyed by

39:58>> foundational founding fathers or

40:00foundational in what way?

40:01>> It was foundational to the moral the

40:03moral character of the people who lived

40:05here.

40:05>> So then why did they write it out in the

40:07federal papers?

40:08>> Write what out?

40:09>> Uh the church from statecraft.

40:12>> They didn't.

40:12>> Yeah, they didn't.

40:13>> No, they didn't. They separated they

40:15separated in the first amendment only

40:17that the federal government couldn't

40:19pass a religion on the people but under

40:21the 10th amendment states could still

40:22maintain their religions

40:23>> and then most states came to agree that

40:25actually the federal uh precept was

40:27better right.

40:28>> No yeah

40:29>> no what happened actually was a lot of

40:31states were looking at moving back

40:32towards that which is why the this whole

40:35idea of the 14th amendment being

40:37reinterpreted the way that it was to say

40:39that states couldn't do that happened.

40:42Um I I feel like we have a very

40:45different understanding of suffrage.

40:47>> I'm not That's not suffrage. That's the

40:4919th amendment.

40:50>> 14th Amendment.

40:51>> Yeah. 14th Amendment, I think, is

40:52citizenship. It's about birthright

40:54citizenship.

40:54>> You're right. It's about birthright

40:55citizenship. Yeah.

40:56>> The 14th amendment.

40:57>> Yeah. Yeah.

40:58>> It said the 14th amendment prohibits

41:00states from infringing on religious

41:01freedom by applying the first amendment

41:04to them through the due process.

41:06>> Read the 14th.

41:08Uh

41:09>> read it.

41:12I just did. But uh hold on. Wait.

41:15There's

41:15>> He wants you to read it in a way that

41:16goes to his argument.

41:18>> I just wanted him to read the amendment,

41:19but I think that that's the case.

41:21>> Besides, even if it wasn't, it's not

41:23dunk for you. You didn't remember.

41:25>> Wait, it is. So the idea of remembering

41:27isn't what matters in a conversation of

41:29like which idea is more true, right?

41:31>> Yeah. Hang on.

41:32>> So it's not about me.

41:34>> Read the amendment.

41:35>> I don't know why you said that.

41:36[laughter]

41:37>> Aren't we trying to talk about ideas

41:38here? Yeah. So whether I remembered or

41:40not like poo poo for me I should have

41:42remembered 14th amendment but if the

41:4314th amendment says what I'm suggesting

41:45that's point to my ideas not me

41:48>> different clauses should I read all all

41:50the clauses okay one citizenship clause

41:53>> yes there we go

41:54>> it declares that anyone born or

41:56naturalized in the United States is a US

41:58citizen including formerly enslaved

42:00people overturn the DreadScott versus

42:03Sanford decision number two due process

42:05clause it says states cannot deprive any

42:07person of life, liberty or property

42:10without due process of law. This

42:12protects individuals from unfair state

42:13government actions. Clause three, equal

42:15protection clause. It requires states to

42:17provide equal protection of the laws to

42:19all people. This clause became the

42:21foundation for many civil rights

42:23decisions, including Roie Wade, Brown

42:25versus Board of Education, Oberfell

42:27versus Hodgeges.

42:29>> So these were all interpretations of the

42:31amendment. There's nothing in there

42:32about religion.

42:33>> You're right. But you said that that was

42:35the 14th amendment was saying that

42:36states could have their own unique

42:38religion. But in fact,

42:39>> no, that's the 10th amendment.

42:40>> Wait, why were you citing the 14th

42:42amendment?

42:42>> Because I was telling you that most of

42:44the reason states wanted to move back to

42:47the idea of religiosity. It was through

42:49the interpretation of the 14th

42:51amendment, which had nothing at all to

42:53do with religion, had to do with

42:55birthright citizenship

42:56>> and due process.

42:57>> They were they focused on that. And

42:59here's how they did it. What they were

43:01saying was uh basically states aren't

43:05going to be able to tell uh anybody who

43:07is or isn't a citizen. Okay? They're not

43:09going to be able to do that anymore and

43:11it [snorts] needs to be uniform. So what

43:13happened is the Supreme Court began to

43:14rule that oh well since it has to be

43:17uniform we'll apply the first amendment

43:19there too. This is way way way late in

43:22the game though. Okay. Early

43:25Constitution remember at this time your

43:27founders are all dead, right? all these

43:29people are dead.

43:30>> They didn't want anything to do with

43:32that. They wanted the states to be able

43:34to make those prospective decisions

43:35themselves, which they were doing.

43:38>> Sure. So, there was a compromise,

43:39particularly the compromise was because

43:41they needed to unite the colonies, but a

43:43lot of the colonies had a lot of

43:44different predelections about how to run

43:45state craft, right? And so, one of the

43:48reasons why they wrote out separation of

43:49church and state at a federal level, but

43:51allowed states to maintain it, is

43:52because they wanted states to still

43:53join. It was very important to them

43:55particularly since the revolution was

43:56about to happen that they had the states

43:58none of that one another.

44:00>> Well again so the 14th amendment didn't

44:03s none of that proved that you were

44:05right about

44:06>> yes it did 100% did

44:07>> it has nothing to do with religion.

44:09>> That was my point not yours.

44:12>> That was my point.

44:13>> I never said the 14th amendment had

44:14anything to do with religion.

44:15>> You did you said I said the first I

44:17haven't written I've only said no it was

44:19citizenship and you were like nope nope.

44:22Oh, wait. It is citizenship. And then

44:24Brian, he did a quick Google search. And

44:26what he was reading was an

44:27interpretation of it. When he read the

44:29actual amendment, no, I was correct.

44:32>> I've never denied that it was about

44:33citizenship. I said, "What does the 14th

44:35amendment have to do with religion?"

44:36>> Read it so that it favors Andrew. But it

44:38did favor me cuz I was right.

44:39>> Well, he started reading it and had

44:41nothing to do with religion. It had

44:43everything to do with like equal

44:44liberty.

44:44>> No, it was the opposite. He was saying

44:47first that, hey, this was about religion

44:49when it wasn't. No, he was. What? No, he

44:52was not.

44:53>> Yes. What was the first thing you read,

44:54Brian?

44:54>> Okay.

44:55>> It was the the citizenship clause.

44:58>> Mhm.

44:58>> Uh there's the due process clause.

45:00>> No, no, before that. The first thing

45:02that you read.

45:02>> Oh, the first one. Uh before I looked it

45:06up again. Oh. That the 14th Amendment

45:08prohibits states from infringing on

45:09religious freedom by applying

45:11>> Thank you. infringing on religious

45:12freedom.

45:13>> Thank you. He was saying that the 14th

45:16Amendment was about religion. I said,

45:17"No, it's not. That was about That was

45:20literally about citizenship. I can look

45:22stuff up for you, too.

45:23>> I appreciate that.

45:24>> [ __ ] crazy.

45:25>> Wait, nothing crazy's happened here.

45:27>> Yes, it has.

45:27>> So, would you agree that in this

45:29conversation I brought up the first

45:30amendment around religion?

45:32>> You have brought up the 10th and 14th to

45:34justify why actually the states were

45:36given power to decide their own

45:38religion.

45:38>> Just the 10th. The 14th was how it was

45:41reinterpreted to get away from the idea

45:43that states could have their own

45:44religion.

45:45>> Okay. Gotcha. I see. So, can we read the

45:4810th?

45:49>> Yeah.

45:50>> Yeah, sure.

45:51>> Uh, one m one moment.

45:56>> All right. The 10th amendment. The

46:00powers not delegated to the United

46:02States by the constitution nor

46:04prohibited by it to the states are

46:07reserved to the states respectively or

46:09to the people.

46:11>> Which is why post foundation

46:12>> just state power. So none of that is

46:14states establishing a religion.

46:16>> Yeah. No. You know,

46:17>> this is saying the federal government

46:19respects the the state's right to make

46:20certain decisions. Like in suffrage, the

46:22state reserved the right to decide who

46:24is people, right?

46:25>> How many states maintained a state

46:27religion post constitutional

46:29ratification?

46:30>> I believe all of them did initially.

46:32>> Then what is your argument?

46:33>> My argument is that the states are not

46:35America. The founding fathers what is

46:37America?

46:38>> Well, the founding fathers are probably

46:39a lot closer than what Maryland thought.

46:42>> That's not Maryland. The states

46:44>> Yeah. Well,

46:45>> the states are would be all

46:47>> Is Maryland a state?

46:48>> Uhhuh. But all states is different than

46:50one state.

46:51>> Sure. And yet all states felt that

46:52religion and church should be unified,

46:54that they should have a state religion,

46:55that there should be a test for

46:56religion. And the founding fathers knew

46:58that and despite that wrote it in

47:01explicitly that Congress shall make no

47:03law respecting establishment of religion

47:05and prohibit the free exercise thereof.

47:07>> That way the states could do it. Yes.

47:09>> That they were not saying what the

47:11states were going to do. They were

47:12saying America

47:13>> Uhhuh. which is federal.

47:15>> Yeah. No, it's also state which is why

47:17we have the 10th amendment.

47:18>> America is federal government

47:20>> and state government.

47:22>> So Maryland is the is America.

47:24>> America is a state or Maryland has a

47:26state government.

47:27>> I didn't say that it didn't.

47:28>> Great. And is that state government

47:29allowed to do all the things that the

47:31federal government can't do that it's

47:32not in the powers of the federal

47:34government via the 10th amendment?

47:35>> What matters more to what

47:36>> now what matters is answering my

47:37question. Is Maryland allowed to do

47:39whatever Maryland wants to do under the

47:4110th amendment? As long as that's not in

47:43the hands of the federal government as

47:45long as those aren't things which are

47:46allocated to the federal government, can

47:48Maryland do what it wants?

47:49>> Uh by and large as long as it's not

47:50violating any of the constit

47:53great. So if that's the case, then uh

47:56there was actually no reason at all why

47:57states could not have their own state

47:59religions and they did.

48:01>> So if the So what do you think is more

48:02important for America? what a state did

48:05like Pennsylvania or what the founding

48:07fathers wrote into the founding

48:08documentation.

48:09>> The founding fathers wrote the 10th

48:11amendment into the founding documents.

48:13>> Yes. To respect the state's ability to

48:14make decisions

48:15>> like have a state religion.

48:16>> Sure. But also multiple things like

48:18commerce

48:19>> and also state religion.

48:20>> Sure. But then they also explicitly

48:22prohibited at a federal level any

48:25dispute.

48:26>> Any involvement of a state religion.

48:28There's no federal state. No, there's no

48:30federal religion.

48:31>> Uhhuh. And um

48:32>> that's never been in dispute.

48:34>> Yep. That has been in dispute because

48:35the question here is what's more

48:37America, what's more American. What

48:39Pennsylvania did in like the 1700s.

48:42>> The question is nationalism.

48:45That's my question to you. What matters

48:47more for America, the American ethos,

48:49understanding America as a country, what

48:51Pennsylvania did at the founding of

48:53America or what the American founding

48:55fathers wrote?

48:56>> Both. Both are important.

48:57>> Which matters more.

48:58>> Neither one of them matter more than the

48:59other.

48:59>> Equally valid. equally mattered.

49:01>> The system wouldn't work without the

49:02validity of both state and federal

49:04government.

49:04>> That's not what we're saying. You're

49:05saying that the Pennsylvania policies

49:07are equally as valid as the federal

49:09>> under the 10th amendment. Yes.

49:10>> No. To No, no, no. Hold on. You're

49:13you're you're equivocating again. How

49:15>> you're being naughty? Because you're

49:16pretending like what we're talking about

49:18is now statecraft. That Pennsylvania

49:20policy was valid under the Constitution.

49:22But that's not what I'm saying. I'm

49:23saying I'm asking about the American

49:25idea. The idea of America. What matters

49:27more to the history and understanding of

49:29America as a nation?

49:31>> Both.

49:32>> Which matters more?

49:34>> That's you're saying they're equal. When

49:35you say Pennsylvania matters just as

49:37much as the founding fathers more or

49:39less, which is fine. It's just absurd.

49:40>> Absent. How is it absurd? The system

49:42doesn't work unless you have the state

49:44governments. It doesn't work.

49:45>> That's not what anyone's saying. Nobody

49:47here is denying that.

49:48>> So, how could it be more important what

49:49the founders did when it was intricate

49:51that the states had the rights

49:52>> to America as an idea? I think what the

49:55founding fathers write kind of matters

49:57like the most. Yeah.

49:58>> Why?

49:58>> Because they're founding the federal

50:00government. They're founding

50:01>> based on a compromise with the states.

50:03>> Yeah. But they're founding a nation

50:05>> based on the states.

50:06>> But that the nation is not Pennsylvania.

50:08The nation is not

50:09>> the nation is a collection of states.

50:11>> So why is it the case that if all the

50:13states had all these religious practice

50:14and all these religious law, why didn't

50:16the federal government, if they wanted

50:17to unify them, why didn't they just

50:19write in uh you know that America is a

50:21Christian nation? Why didn't they do

50:22that? because you had what was called

50:24panrotestantism.

50:26Each one of these states had different

50:28religious organizations in them. And

50:30some of them wanted to be this type of

50:32Protestant. Some wanted to be Catholic.

50:34Some wanted to be Quakers. So they gave

50:36them the 10th amendment. And the 10th

50:38amendment said that they could do that

50:39[ __ ] They could be a Protestant state.

50:41>> Why not just say they have to be

50:42Christian? Why not just say at a federal

50:44level that they can just be the

50:45Christian?

50:45>> Because the states demanded that the

50:47federal government not step in to tell

50:50them what their state religion had to

50:51be. That's not true. Actually, the

50:53>> that was the compromise.

50:54>> So, one thing.

50:55>> Yes, it was.

50:56>> So, no, no, no, hold on, hold on. The

50:58compromise here is that states are

51:00allowed to make certain rules of law

51:01within state that don't that are not

51:03within the federal purview. That is the

51:05compromise, right?

51:06>> Yes.

51:07>> That's one compromise.

51:10>> Okay. I don't know why you're

51:11interjecting there at all. Um, thank you

51:13for the clarification.

51:15>> This is like being like there's there's

51:18three ways of feminism and I like

51:19there's four and you're like three's

51:20within four. It's like, okay.

51:21>> No, it's nothing like that. It's like

51:23saying this. It's like saying the

51:24states, the reason that this compromise

51:26happened in the first amendment is

51:28because a Catholic state didn't want the

51:30federal government tell them they had to

51:31be a Protestant state.

51:32>> So why did they just have

51:33>> they did want the federal government to

51:35say that they could have a Catholic

51:36state and they did under the 10th

51:38amendment.

51:38>> So why is it the case that within like

51:40the first uh federal address all of the

51:42states were extremely upset because they

51:44mentioned nothing about God. There was

51:46no establishment of America as a nation

51:48of God. There are ways, for example,

51:50that they probably could have

51:50compromised between all of the religions

51:52so that it wasn't saying a Catholic

51:54leader, but just saying a Christian

51:55leader, right? They could have done

51:57that, but they didn't do that explicitly

51:59to to the upset actually to the upset of

52:02the religious leaders, to the upset of

52:04some of the founding fathers.

52:05>> It's because

52:05>> So why did they do that?

52:06>> Because Protestants didn't consider

52:08Catholics to be Christians. That's why

52:10>> that that's not why.

52:12>> It is why.

52:12>> No, the TJ writes about this. The reason

52:14why, right, and you have this in the

52:16federalist papers, the reason why is

52:18because they were breaching away from a

52:21king who was also a spiritual leader,

52:23right, in the UK. And they had a huge

52:26issue with it. They viewed this blend of

52:28church and state, especially at a

52:30federal level as a problem. In fact, I

52:32suspect if you go into it, a lot of the

52:34founding fathers thought that all the

52:35states shouldn't have a state level

52:37religion. They just weren't going to

52:38comment on that because they needed to

52:39unify the countries. Correct. Over time,

52:42the colonies adopted the exact same

52:43framework. A couple of them

52:47let each other.

52:47>> So, first of all, there was a couple a

52:50couple of them who didn't want to.

52:52That's true. But the thing is is like

52:55the entirety the entirety of the federal

52:57Well, I'm talking about there was a

52:58couple of founders who didn't want

52:59states to have a religion. That's what

53:00I'm specifically. You're

53:01>> talking about the deists,

53:03>> not just the deists. There was others

53:04who weren't deists, but by and large,

53:06most of them were fine with the

53:07compromise. So a majority of the

53:08founding fathers are

53:09>> Is it my turn now? So here's what

53:11actually happened because since you have

53:13revisionist history that I don't know

53:14where you came up with.

53:15>> Okay.

53:16>> You couldn't say in the first amendment

53:19u that this is to be a Christian nation

53:22specifically unless you gave a specific

53:24denomination cuz denominations did not

53:26recognize other ones as being Christian.

53:29So what they did instead was they said

53:30look Congress is not going to make an

53:32establishment of a religion period.

53:35We're going to leave that to the states.

53:36Mhm.

53:36>> And then they put in the 10th amendment.

53:38That's exactly what the states did. They

53:40put in their own religions.

53:42>> Why could they have So why do they ban

53:44religious test clauses? You could easily

53:45make religious test clauses.

53:47>> They still have them in almost every

53:48state.

53:49>> No, no, no. At a federal level, it's

53:50article 6. It's explicitly banned. No

53:52religious test shall ever be required as

53:54a qualification to any office or public

53:57trust under the United States. Because

54:00there could be instances where you had

54:02people who were representatives of

54:03states who for some reason needed to

54:05operate at the federal level, right?

54:07They didn't want to be like, "Hey,

54:09you're a Catholic, so your oath is no

54:11good here." Or, "You're a Protestant, so

54:13your oath is no good here." Or, "You're

54:14a this, your oath is no good here." That

54:16was part of the compromise.

54:17>> Why didn't they just use the Apostles

54:18Creed? I all both Protestants and

54:20Catholics at the time acknowledged the

54:22Apostles Creed

54:22>> because they didn't recognize each other

54:23as Christians. So that doesn't matter.

54:25They both recognize the apostles creed

54:27isn't Catholic or Protestant. It's just

54:29Christian, right? Whether or not they

54:31would fight about who's a heretic or

54:32not. Why not if you want a religious

54:34test clause that compromises between

54:35these two religions? Why didn't they

54:37just write in the Apostles Creed? I'm

54:38sure they were familiar with it

54:39>> because they didn't recognize each other

54:41as Christians. Meaning at the federal

54:43level, if you sworn in as a Catholic,

54:45let's say, right, in order to [ __ ] I

54:48don't know, help with some piece of

54:49legislation or do something that you

54:51weren't, you know, you were supposed to

54:52do at the federal level, the Protestant

54:54nations or states might be like, we

54:57don't recognize that cuz that's an oath

54:58of a Catholic. So, at the federal level,

55:00they had to stay secular.

55:02>> Would have said that the Apostles Creed

55:03is Catholic.

55:04>> What does the Apostles Creed have to do

55:05with anything we're talking about?

55:06>> The Apostles Creed is like one of the

55:08central creeds to like what we say is

55:10Christian. So what? That has nothing to

55:12do with what I'm saying.

55:13>> Of course it does. Why would So you said

55:15if a Catholic takes the apostles

55:16creatures, why don't

55:19the federal government, it was not

55:21within the federal purview to make the

55:23determination of getting the states to

55:25compromise on the [ __ ] apostles

55:27creed. It was under their purview to

55:29say, "Hey, what we're going to do is

55:31make it so that you don't have to swear

55:33any oaths from the Catholic or

55:34Protestant perspective, but rather we'll

55:36leave that to the states. the states can

55:38make it so that you can swear uh that

55:40you're a Protestant or you can swear

55:42that you're a Catholic or you can swear

55:43this or you can swear that. It was up to

55:46states perspectively under the 10th

55:48amendment.

55:48>> Right. But at a federal level, it was

55:51barred and you're saying nobody's

55:53disputing that.

55:53>> Hold on.

55:55>> I don't we we're just like going in a

55:56circle.

55:57>> We can keep going in the circle, but I'm

55:58not going to let this point go cuz I

55:59think that one of the issues is that

56:00what you're trying to do is say, well,

56:02because the states had this rule, that

56:04means that was the founding of America.

56:05And it's like no, the founding fathers

56:06knew that this existed. Knew for example

56:08the Apostles Creed existed and there and

56:11they and despite all of this, despite

56:12the standard of all of the states

56:15utilizing a religious test, they

56:17rejected they not only did they reject

56:19it, they explicitly wrote it in in

56:21article 6 that no test can be utilized.

56:23Despite the fact that the founding

56:25fathers were pretty smart, I imagine if

56:27they wanted a religious test in there

56:28that could satisfy both Protestants and

56:31Catholics, they probably could have

56:32found it like the apostles did. So your

56:34whole position is why didn't the

56:36founders try to find some way that all

56:39of the different religious denominations

56:41could agree to some creed and enshrine

56:43it in the first amendment? That's your

56:44argument.

56:45>> My argument would be if they wanted a

56:47blending of church and state, they were

56:48pretty intentional to go out of their

56:50way to ensure there was no blending of

56:52church and state.

56:53>> Except they gave the states the 10th

56:54amendment so that they can blend the

56:56church and the state.

56:56>> Tell the states what to do. That was

56:58part of the colony deal.

56:58>> No [ __ ] That's my point. But at a

57:00federal level, they went be above and

57:02beyond to explicitly bar this.

57:05>> They went above and beyond to make the

57:07compromise that each single state could

57:10have their own religion if they wanted

57:12it. And the federal government wasn't

57:14going to tell them what that had to be.

57:16>> Would no religious clause would not.

57:19>> Yes. That way that was the compromise.

57:21Federal government can't tell us what

57:23our religion's going to be.

57:24>> Why are you spuring out?

57:25>> And the the feds were like, "Okay, we

57:28could do that." Do you think the

57:30founding fathers were like maybe a

57:31little bit thoughtful and intentional

57:33that they like worked pretty hard to

57:34figure out the compromises?

57:35>> Some of them were lazy [ __ ]

57:36womanizing pieces of [ __ ] But what's

57:38the point?

57:39>> They could be womanizing and also my

57:41point would be that if they wanted a

57:42religious test clause that could unify

57:44the religions, they probably could have

57:46found one that would have worked because

57:47they found a whole bunch of other

57:49compromises. The Apostles Creed is one

57:51good example.

57:52>> And Okay. Did Quakers follow the

57:53Apostles Creed?

57:54>> Yes, I believe the Quakers follow the

57:56Creed. I believe Mormons also follow the

57:57Apostles Creed. Yes. Really? Yes.

57:59>> Let's find out if Quakers follow the

58:01Apostles Creed. Can we Can you look it

58:03up?

58:05>> Look up if Quakers follow the Apostles

58:07Creed.

58:09>> Do you Do you know what the Apostles

58:10Creed is?

58:10>> Are we Oh, pop quiz. Kyla.

58:12>> Well,

58:13>> pop quiz Kyla.

58:14>> Are you saying you don't?

58:15>> Yeah. Uh, most Quakers do not formally

58:17use or recite the Apostles Creed. Really

58:19quick,

58:20>> really quick. We're coming up on the

58:22hour. Would you guys like to shift to a

58:25new prompt here in in a few minutes or?

58:28>> Yeah.

58:28>> But

58:29>> so you're telling me that they so they

58:30don't acknowledge the apostles creed?

58:32Are you saying that they don't believe

58:33that Jesus was born of a virgin that he

58:35died and rose again?

58:38>> Who ky?

58:39>> That's the apostles creed.

58:40>> They don't recognize it.

58:44>> That's the apostles.

58:45>> They don't recognize I do have a bit of

58:47more information here. It says many

58:49[snorts] Quakers, especially in more

58:51evangelical branches, would agree with

58:54much of the theology in the apostles

58:56creed. However, they gener generally do

58:59not recite it in worship or require

59:01reciting doesn't matter.

59:02>> Require members to affirm it. I don't

59:04know if that changes.

59:05>> So, as long so, so that wouldn't have

59:06been a unifier.

59:07>> How would that not have been a unifier?

59:09>> Because even if they theologically think

59:11it's sound, they're not going to recite

59:12the Apostles Creed.

59:13>> No, no, no. That's not what they said.

59:14They didn't say they won't say it. It

59:16said that they don't require people to

59:17say it, which is not the same thing. I'm

59:19not talking about a catechism. I'm

59:20talking about a

59:21>> entire argument is why couldn't the

59:23founders find some compromise that every

59:26single independent Protestant

59:27panrotestant religion could agree to for

59:31some kind of creed for oaths.

59:32>> My argument is that if

59:33>> that's the dumbest thing I've ever

59:34heard. Here's what they did instead.

59:36They went, "We're just not going to

59:37legislate any sort of formal religion on

59:40your states and you can do that

59:41instead."

59:41>> Classic Andrew, it's just absurd.

59:43>> That is that's an actual absurd

59:44position. answer. The founding fathers

59:46were pretty smart guys. I think that

59:47they could think about things. They

59:49wrote a lot. I think if they wanted to

59:50blend church and state intentionally,

59:52they would have done so. But instead,

59:54hold on. But instead, they explicitly

59:56wrote into the Constitution that they

59:58would not do so federally. And over

59:59time, all states agreed with that and

1:00:02wrote out religious clauses.

1:00:04>> What was the 10th Amendment for?

1:00:05>> I don't know.

1:00:07>> Okay, we just hit the hour mark. Shall

1:00:10we

1:00:10>> You want to tell me?

1:00:11>> Uh shall we switch prompts?

1:00:13>> The thing we've been talking about for

1:00:14the last I assumed that you were going

1:00:15to give me more information about it.

1:00:16>> What do I need to give you more

1:00:17information? You don't even know what it

1:00:18is.

1:00:18>> We do have a TTS coming in. So, maybe

1:00:20>> Can I just pause? I think something I

1:00:22don't I don't know what you're doing

1:00:23right now. Um because I feel like we

1:00:25need to talk about these. Okay.

1:00:27>> No, continue. Continue.

1:00:28>> I'm going to wait for his tantrum to be

1:00:30over and then I'll go.

1:00:31>> Okay. Well, let me I'll I'll let you

1:00:32know when it's over.

1:00:40>> Okay. Are we done or are you still

1:00:43tantruming?

1:00:44>> Me just sitting here as a tantrum.

1:00:46>> You like were throwing in not willing to

1:00:48listen to me and throw your hands in the

1:00:49>> air like this. That's all.

1:00:50>> I'm doing cross eyes and like making fun

1:00:51of me.

1:00:52>> Well, that was silly. It's silly to say

1:00:53that you think that the founders should

1:00:55have found some way that every single

1:00:58indiv independent panrotestant religion

1:01:01would find some kind of unifying creed

1:01:03they would all just suddenly agree to

1:01:05rather than them just saying, "We're

1:01:06just not going to impose any religious

1:01:08uh standards on states. You guys can do

1:01:10it yourself." Yeah, I think that if the

1:01:12uh founding fathers actually believed

1:01:13that the merging of church and state was

1:01:15important, they would have found a way

1:01:16to write it into the constitution. They

1:01:18>> did via the 10th amendment. They did.

1:01:20>> No, allowing states to have to have

1:01:22choice and purview is not the same thing

1:01:24as writing

1:01:26>> are states are were states allowed to

1:01:28make their own religions or not.

1:01:29>> Yeah.

1:01:29>> Okay.

1:01:31That has nothing to do with for example

1:01:33saying that the church doesn't get a

1:01:35hand in states craft which is written

1:01:37exclusively into the

1:01:39>> only at the federal level.

1:01:40>> Yes.

1:01:41>> Because they couldn't they didn't have a

1:01:43unification for things like oaths and

1:01:45other things that all the panroestants

1:01:47would agree to at the federal level.

1:01:49>> They just couldn't think of any they

1:01:50they were like man we really

1:01:52>> they argued about it.

1:01:53>> This is your premise. This is your

1:01:54premise. The founding fathers actually

1:01:57really wanted to write in the merging of

1:01:59church and state. It was something that

1:02:01they really cared about,

1:02:03but they couldn't find a way to

1:02:05federally write these things in

1:02:06together. And so, don't interrupt me.

1:02:08And so, instead, what they did is they

1:02:10wrote it out and they just let states do

1:02:12so. They could sneakily blend in their

1:02:15their uh their blurring of church and

1:02:17state. That's your argument.

1:02:18>> Truly truly your intellect is dizzying.

1:02:23No, my argument is that

1:02:25>> Are we getting personal?

1:02:26>> That the founding fathers

1:02:27>> Are we getting personal? Because you

1:02:28said no personal when we started this.

1:02:30Do you want

1:02:30>> Wait a second. You said my intellect.

1:02:32You can call me. Yeah, you can call me

1:02:33stupid. So the thing is is like I am so

1:02:36curious about this. I actually don't

1:02:38even understand the

1:02:39>> I just want to be clear that we're

1:02:40breaking the rules.

1:02:40>> So the federal so the federal government

1:02:44was that was that really harsh like

1:02:46truly your intellect is dizzying. That's

1:02:48harsh. That's a movie line by the way

1:02:50that if we want to have a good

1:02:51engagement back and forth we for example

1:02:53agreed to things like not getting

1:02:54personal.

1:02:55>> That's not personal. It's from the

1:02:56princess bride. It's a joke. So, you

1:02:58only meant it as a joke. You weren't

1:02:59trying to call me stupid.

1:03:00>> Well, this position's stupid.

1:03:02>> Are you calling me stupid? Cuz when you

1:03:03say my intellect is dizzying, it feels

1:03:05like you're saying

1:03:05>> it is. It is dizzying. But the thing is

1:03:07here, I don't get

1:03:08>> I don't know why I wouldn't just that

1:03:09you're insulting.

1:03:10>> It's like you go you go, "Wait a second,

1:03:13Andrew.

1:03:14It would have been way better for a pan

1:03:17for the panrotestant and Catholics at

1:03:20the federal level for them to somehow

1:03:23agree on some kind of unifying creed."

1:03:25didn't say better

1:03:27>> or make more sense that they would agree

1:03:28to some sort of unifying creed. Even

1:03:30though Protestantism can also change,

1:03:32they can have like a new denomination

1:03:34which pops up that doesn't agree with

1:03:36this. And so they're like, "Wait a

1:03:38second. Instead of doing that, what

1:03:40we'll do instead is we'll leave it up to

1:03:42the prospective states and then they can

1:03:44impose whatever religion.

1:03:47Calm down, Kyla. I just want to finish.

1:03:49Okay.

1:03:49>> Okay. The states can blend and always

1:03:53were able to blend church and state.

1:03:55Yes.

1:03:55>> And yet the federal level can't and

1:03:57doesn't.

1:03:58>> That was never in question.

1:03:59>> So what is in question here is by your

1:04:01logic, the founding fathers,

1:04:03>> Yeah.

1:04:03>> they actually secretly wanted the church

1:04:06and state to be blended, but they

1:04:07couldn't write it in because Where did

1:04:08you get that?

1:04:09>> Your argument. I never argued that.

1:04:11>> This is the implication of your

1:04:12>> It's not even the implication. It is.

1:04:14You're saying that actually the founding

1:04:15fathers, they did want the blend of

1:04:17church and state. Do you think that

1:04:19>> they wanted the states to be able to

1:04:20blend church?

1:04:22>> That the founding fathers wanted America

1:04:24to have a blend of church and state.

1:04:26That they wanted the church.

1:04:27>> It depends on which ones you're talking

1:04:28about. Some of them did.

1:04:29>> You said the majority. You said the

1:04:31majority of founding fathers.

1:04:32>> No, the majority of the founding fathers

1:04:33who signed, I said, were not deists. You

1:04:36also said the majority of them were

1:04:40>> like some

1:04:40>> foundational Protestants.

1:04:41>> Yeah. They were they were men of God,

1:04:43right?

1:04:44>> From different denominations.

1:04:45>> And do you think that those men of God

1:04:46couldn't have tried to like if they

1:04:48wanted to write in

1:04:50>> that the federal government has a

1:04:51blending of church and state that they

1:04:52couldn't have found a way to possibly do

1:04:54that

1:04:54>> or they just give it to the states

1:04:56perspectively, which makes more sense?

1:04:58>> Why why would they then explicitly write

1:05:00it out of the federal government?

1:05:01because they wanted it to go to the

1:05:03states specifically so that for purposes

1:05:06of things like oathkeeping and things

1:05:07like that

1:05:08>> make a rule then that says states must

1:05:10maintain some form of Christian religion

1:05:12>> because because that doesn't mean

1:05:14anything if you say uh you have to be a

1:05:17form of Christian who gets to make the

1:05:19determination of who a Christian is

1:05:21>> usually it's going to be the Christian

1:05:23people of that state right how does

1:05:24>> exactly that's my whole point it's not

1:05:27your whole point

1:05:28>> yes it is

1:05:29>> no it's not

1:05:30>> who if the founder ers if at the federal

1:05:32level they can't make a determination of

1:05:34who a Christian is or isn't and you

1:05:36that's why you leave it up to the state

1:05:38the state determines.

1:05:40>> So by your implication you're saying the

1:05:41founding fathers did actually want

1:05:43church and state to not be separate.

1:05:45However, they couldn't find a way to

1:05:47write it in the constitution other than

1:05:49through the 10th amendment which doesn't

1:05:50even talk about this.

1:05:51>> Don't interrupt me. Don't interrupt me.

1:05:53You can correct me after. Just write it

1:05:54down.

1:05:55>> Go ahead. [clears throat]

1:05:55>> Okay. So you're saying the founding

1:05:57fathers by implication, they actually

1:05:59did want the church and state to be

1:06:01blended. They actually valued that

1:06:03because you're saying that they wrote it

1:06:04into the constitution by allowing the

1:06:06states to do it. Which is implying then

1:06:08that the founding fathers did want

1:06:10church and state to be blended. They

1:06:12just couldn't write it in within the

1:06:13first amendment clause. So they allowed

1:06:14the states to do it as a sneaky way to

1:06:16smuggle in church.

1:06:18>> Lord, this is like the worst straw man

1:06:19ever. No, here's my actual position. The

1:06:21actual position is due to the Articles

1:06:23of Confederation and that not working.

1:06:25We knew that we needed to have a

1:06:26federalist nation. Otherwise, we

1:06:27couldn't have currency, a standing army,

1:06:29anything like this. Because of that, the

1:06:30states who were completely distrustful

1:06:32of having a federal government, cuz they

1:06:33had just fought off a massive [ __ ]

1:06:35kingdom, uh were very distrustful. And

1:06:37so, they needed to sell it to them. The

1:06:39way that they sold it to him is they

1:06:40were like, "Well, since it's all pan

1:06:41Protestantism, we can't figure out our

1:06:43foundationalism. We will take a secular

1:06:45approach at the national level and and

1:06:47what we'll do is institute the 10th

1:06:48amendment and each of you can put in

1:06:50your own religions if you want to. That

1:06:53was the compromise. It has nothing to do

1:06:55with the motivation of the founders at

1:06:57the federal level wanting it, not

1:06:58wanting it, loving it, not loving it. It

1:07:00has to do. Okay, that's great. But it

1:07:04you just said what you're saying is

1:07:06which infers that's my argument and it's

1:07:08not. My argument is there's a compromise

1:07:11between the states and between the feds.

1:07:13And the compromise was that the feds

1:07:16were not going to tell the states what

1:07:18religions they could or couldn't have.

1:07:20Period.

1:07:20>> And was the compromise why are the

1:07:22fathers were the founding fathers

1:07:24compromising? Because they had a hope

1:07:25that the church and state would stay

1:07:27connected. They just couldn't write it

1:07:28in. Is that what you're saying?

1:07:30>> At which level?

1:07:32>> So they were hoping that the nation

1:07:33broadly would stay Christian within the

1:07:36statecraftraft. that there would be no

1:07:38separation of church and state. However,

1:07:39they couldn't write it in.

1:07:40>> No, they they wanted at the national

1:07:43level

1:07:44>> to uh to adhere to the the idea that

1:07:47only the states could impose uh whatever

1:07:51their religious value structures are.

1:07:52>> I'm asking does is it more reasonable to

1:07:54conclude that the founding fathers

1:07:55wanted a separation of church and state

1:07:57or that they did not want a separation

1:07:58of church and state? At

1:08:00>> you have to explain express at which

1:08:02level.

1:08:02>> I'm assuming that if they felt it at the

1:08:03federal level, they probably felt it at

1:08:04the statehood level. I don't know why a

1:08:06founding father would be like I don't

1:08:07want it at the state level but I

1:08:08actually do you said compromise right

1:08:10>> Jefferson Jefferson didn't like that

1:08:12states had religions and he made that

1:08:14clear but other other presidents made it

1:08:16clear they were fine with it

1:08:17>> so the majority of the founding fathers

1:08:18do you think that they wanted separation

1:08:20of church and state

1:08:21>> at the national level that was the

1:08:22compromise yes

1:08:23>> do they want it though

1:08:24>> I don't know I can describe you each of

1:08:27their motivations

1:08:28>> what's your presumption

1:08:28>> some of them did and some of them didn't

1:08:30>> do you think most of them did or most of

1:08:31them didn't

1:08:32>> I don't know if it's most do you

1:08:33>> well you said well you said a majority

1:08:34of the founding fathers. Well,

1:08:36>> theist I said weren't

1:08:37>> deists.

1:08:37>> No, you also said that they were loyal

1:08:39Protestant Christian boys. So, my

1:08:42argument would be that these good old

1:08:44Christian boys all agreed that

1:08:45separation of church and state mattered.

1:08:47That's why they wrote it into the

1:08:48constitution

1:08:48>> at the federal level.

1:08:50>> They didn't even prescribe states having

1:08:52a state religion. They just didn't take

1:08:53the states right.

1:08:55>> They just didn't take the states right

1:08:57away from them doing so. That's not the

1:08:59same.

1:08:59>> So, the state So, they allowed the

1:09:01states to implement their own religions.

1:09:04at at a state level, but they would not

1:09:06at a federal level.

1:09:08>> Then what are we arguing here?

1:09:09>> We're arguing about whether or not the

1:09:10founding fathers wanted a separation of

1:09:12church and state or not.

1:09:13>> At the federal we Okay, I don't know how

1:09:15else to make why would they want it not

1:09:16at the federal level.

1:09:17>> At the federal level, they did not want

1:09:20a federal religion because states make a

1:09:24religion.

1:09:24>> Why didn't they want a federal religion?

1:09:26>> Compromising with the states.

1:09:28>> Sure. But do you think that overall if

1:09:29they didn't have to compromise they

1:09:31would have preferred a a a federal

1:09:33religion?

1:09:34>> Well, there wouldn't even the whole

1:09:36framework of the nation would be so

1:09:37different. I don't even know how to

1:09:39speculate.

1:09:39>> You're right. It would be completely

1:09:40different America if we didn't have

1:09:42separation of church and state because

1:09:43the founding fathers despite mostly

1:09:45being Christian, despite being loyal

1:09:46Christians, they understood the

1:09:48necessity of separation of church and

1:09:50state.

1:09:51different America because there wouldn't

1:09:53then be states rights, the 10th

1:09:54amendment. There wouldn't be I the whole

1:09:57system would be totally different.

1:09:59>> We're 10 minutes over.

1:10:00>> So I don't I don't have any idea what

1:10:02you're even referencing.

1:10:03>> If you want to like rewrite absurdism

1:10:04into it, that's totally fine. But it's

1:10:06pretty obvious that if the founding

1:10:07fathers wanted to have no separation of

1:10:10church and state, they could have done

1:10:11something. They could have employed in

1:10:12some direction.

1:10:13>> I don't even know what she's arguing.

1:10:15How about this? We're

1:10:16>> stealing over time on this prompt. You

1:10:18seem to be saying that

1:10:19>> you guys want to do

1:10:21>> I don't

1:10:21>> was it the motivation if it was the case

1:10:24that there was no states would the

1:10:26founders have preferred no religion

1:10:28>> so I've made already an affirmative

1:10:29claim which I said well the founding

1:10:31[snorts] fathers despite being

1:10:32dominantly Christian despite valuing

1:10:34their Christianity despite most of the

1:10:36nation being either Protestant or

1:10:37Catholic went out of their way to write

1:10:40religion out of a federal nation

1:10:43grounding America at a nation level as a

1:10:46nonreligious nation. nation state. In

1:10:48fact, so non-religious.

1:10:51>> So non-religious. Hold on. I'm not done.

1:10:53>> Okay. Go ahead.

1:10:55>> Go ahead.

1:10:56>> Really quick before you go. Uh we are a

1:10:59bit over time on this prompt.

1:11:00>> It does give them some time to tantrum.

1:11:01So you can read your TTS if you want.

1:11:03>> Well, do you guys

1:11:04>> What tantrum? I'm just sitting here.

1:11:05>> You're eye rolling and like getting

1:11:06upset, which is totally fine. Like it's

1:11:08a it's an impassion.

1:11:09>> I actually don't understand what the

1:11:11[ __ ] you're even talking about.

1:11:12>> That's kind of the

1:11:13>> I really don't. Do you guys want to

1:11:15continue on this prompt or do you want

1:11:16to move on to something else?

1:11:17>> I just want to speak to that specific

1:11:19thing you said. That's kind of one of my

1:11:20issues with Andrewism is you're not

1:11:22attempting to understand what I'm saying

1:11:24in any way. And usually

1:11:25>> I just tried to steal man. You cut me

1:11:26off.

1:11:27>> When I was trying to steal man your

1:11:29position, you cut me off.

1:11:30>> I corrected you cuz you were steel

1:11:31maning me incorrectly.

1:11:32>> Okay, got it. So here's the thing.

1:11:35>> Well, if you're going to steel man me,

1:11:36you should probably be correct faith

1:11:38conversation. I want to understand you

1:11:40and you want to understand me. So let me

1:11:42summarize your position.

1:11:43>> Okay, go ahead. My understanding of your

1:11:44position is that you don't know, you're

1:11:46agnostic as to whether or not the

1:11:48founding fathers wanted uh uh you know,

1:11:50church and state to be blended, but you

1:11:52believe that essentially they allowed

1:11:54the states to do it so that the states

1:11:56could stay religious and they wrote it

1:11:57at a federal level because they

1:11:58recognized that they would have to

1:11:59compromise and they couldn't find a

1:12:01compro uh a good compromisation amongst

1:12:04the states because they were of

1:12:04different religions. Correct?

1:12:06>> No.

1:12:06>> How is that incorrect?

1:12:07>> Well, the first part is what you're

1:12:08messing up.

1:12:09>> Okay. It's irrelevant whether or not the

1:12:12signers of the uh constitution

1:12:14themselves would have ascribed for a

1:12:16state religion or not.

1:12:18>> I think the founding election

1:12:19>> is important. What's relevant is what

1:12:21they actually did with the states. The

1:12:24state itself, the perspective states are

1:12:26as much of import as the federal

1:12:28government. That's what anti-federalist

1:12:31thought. You have a federalist mindset

1:12:33for some reason. You keep on the I

1:12:35understand the disconnect. disconnect is

1:12:37you keep thinking that federal systems

1:12:39are as just are more important than

1:12:41state systems.

1:12:42>> No, no, no. They're definitely not

1:12:44finish

1:12:44>> there. Hang on. Not only are they

1:12:46definitely not, but that's where the

1:12:47disconnect is. Here's what's actually

1:12:49happening. There was a compromise that

1:12:51was done. The compromise was that there

1:12:54was no possible way that Catholics over

1:12:56here were going to recognize the oaths

1:12:58of Protestants over there. Not if the

1:13:01federal government was making the demand

1:13:02that you had to be ex thing in order to

1:13:04swear an oath or do a thing. So what

1:13:06they did instead was they said, "What

1:13:08we're going to do is we're not going to

1:13:10implement a nationalized religion. The

1:13:12perspective states instead are going to

1:13:14be able to implement whatever religious

1:13:16institutions that they want." They were

1:13:18perfectly fine with them blending church

1:13:19and state. Yes. Perfectly fine with it.

1:13:22>> Do you think they preferred it?

1:13:23>> Many of them. Yes.

1:13:24>> So why didn't they write it into the

1:13:25federal constitution?

1:13:26>> I liter I don't know how else to explain

1:13:28it. Like I I

1:13:29>> So you're just saying the

1:13:31>> I don't know. I don't even know how to

1:13:32explain it.

1:13:32>> Maybe a prompt switch. Maybe a prompt

1:13:34switch. I think we should probably do

1:13:37it. I want to clarify. Maybe a prompt

1:13:39switch could be good. Maybe

1:13:40>> Sure. The issue is I don't know if you

1:13:43want to have a good faith conversation

1:13:44or not. It seems like the answer is no.

1:13:46Because in a good faith conversation,

1:13:47we're both trying to understand the most

1:13:49like coherent version of one another's

1:13:51opinions. We're trying to actually

1:13:52understand.

1:13:52>> Why did you just ask me explain it to me

1:13:54when I just explained it to you?

1:13:56>> What

1:13:57>> you said? Then explain to me why they

1:13:59did that. And I'm like, I just explained

1:14:01to you why they did that. So again, then

1:14:03I was going to say my next argument

1:14:05against that,

1:14:06>> right? Which is that you're telling me

1:14:08that the founding fathers and all of

1:14:10their intelligence and all of their

1:14:11battling and their ability to do so much

1:14:13like found America, they couldn't figure

1:14:16out a way to compromise amongst the

1:14:18religions if they actually all

1:14:20dominantly preferred a blending, a

1:14:22church uh and state blending. They they

1:14:25just did find a way to do that.

1:14:26>> So you're saying they actually did do

1:14:28that sneakily through the 10th

1:14:29amendment.

1:14:30>> It wasn't sneakily. It was up frontally.

1:14:32>> Why wouldn't they just write that in the

1:14:33first amendment? Why would the first

1:14:34amendment bar the union of church and

1:14:37state?

1:14:37>> Because at the okay,

1:14:39>> if they wanted at a federal level,

1:14:40>> federal level, what they did

1:14:43>> was they said, "Okay, we're not going to

1:14:46implement any religiosity on independent

1:14:50states. We're not going to do that

1:14:52ever." Because each independent state

1:14:54gets to have their own religion as part

1:14:57of the compromise that they made with

1:14:59the federal government due to the

1:15:01Articles of Confederation

1:15:02>> or there's no or yes the well the or

1:15:06here is the more reasonable assumption.

1:15:09The founding fathers wrote in an

1:15:11explicit separation of church and state

1:15:13at a federal level because that's what

1:15:15they wanted. They understood that when

1:15:17you blend church and state, it corrupts

1:15:19not only the nation, which they had just

1:15:22separated from a corrupted nation that

1:15:24was utilizing state craft and religion.

1:15:26And they recognized that it also

1:15:27corrupted the religion, which there was

1:15:29many issues with the corrupted religion

1:15:31of the Anglican and then Catholic and

1:15:33then Anglican uh Britain British Church.

1:15:36>> No, that's not what happened. What

1:15:38happened first of all, they had not just

1:15:41done this, okay? They had the Articles

1:15:43of Confederation first.

1:15:45That happened first and what happened is

1:15:49they were just not able to govern as

1:15:52because each state was like a mini

1:15:53kingdom and they wanted their own

1:15:55currency and their own militaries. Okay.

1:15:57And so for like the common defense, they

1:15:59wanted to have some sort of federalism

1:16:01in order to do this.

1:16:02>> Did they unify under one currency?

1:16:05>> That was one of the primary reasons they

1:16:06wanted unification was because of a

1:16:08currency.

1:16:08>> So why couldn't they unify under one

1:16:10religion?

1:16:11because

1:16:13uh what you wanted was you wanted to

1:16:14have trade between each state,

1:16:16>> but when you're talking about their

1:16:17religions, they were this was uh pan

1:16:20Protestant. So there was no unification

1:16:22there.

1:16:23>> So they were willing to unify on a whole

1:16:25bunch of stuff, but they just couldn't

1:16:27for the life of them figure out a way to

1:16:28unify the religions because they

1:16:30actually did want the church and state

1:16:32to be blended. They wanted the church to

1:16:34have weight and say on state craft. They

1:16:37just couldn't write it in at the federal

1:16:38level. So they just let state

1:16:40>> Well, who's the church?

1:16:42>> The church would be the Christian

1:16:43church.

1:16:44>> Who?

1:16:44>> The Christian church.

1:16:45>> Who's that?

1:16:46>> The Christian church.

1:16:47>> Who?

1:16:48>> Uh there's multiple branches of it.

1:16:50>> Oh, there are.

1:16:51>> Yep.

1:16:51>> Okay. So because of that, were there

1:16:53multiple branches which had different

1:16:55states they were in?

1:16:56>> Uh probably to some degree, although I

1:16:58imagine a lot of states mostly had a lot

1:17:01of everything. I suspect that a lot of

1:17:02states had

1:17:03>> a lot of them had a lot of one thing.

1:17:05>> Really?

1:17:05>> Really?

1:17:06>> Okay. So there was just like the Quaker

1:17:07state.

1:17:08>> I mean it was mostly brought up like

1:17:10that

1:17:10>> the Mormon state but it didn't

1:17:11>> there was some there was some

1:17:13delineation but no. So the thing is no.

1:17:16So the thing is is like look