The US state religion is capital. It's a death cult where they sacrifice Arab children to their dark god: Lockheed Martin. It has shit all to do with the teachings of Christ.

Will this ever be free to see? I would love to see this but I have an assumption ( I could be wrong) that knowles did not want this to be seen for free?

To be fair, the US doesn't do its own sacrificing. That's currently outsourced to Israel. Also I'm pretty sure the US has multiple dark gods, which is why it needs to sacrifice so many.@@squirrel_slapper

@@macmac1022 You're wrong. Knowles has no say in when this gets seen or for how much. Alex is beginning Early Access privileges for his patreon members, meaning this will be released free eventually, but for now it's just a perk for his financial supporters.

@@damarcuscolfer1485 SWEET. I really want to see it. As I openly admitted, I could be wrong.

I'm gonna steal it

THE ONE PIECE!?!?!?!?!?

@@timmy3982im gonna eat it

Boromir will get it before anyone else

It's true, they even made a movie about it.

The Declaration of Independence is THE Founding document - the Constitution is the operating document which works from the principles laid out in the DOI. The DOI acknowledges our rights from GOD, not man. The Bill of Rights spells out freedom of religion;however, contextually, it was for the Judeo-Christian denominations, not others, especially Islam, which is a "religion" that dictates Sharia law.

@@sandypidgeon4343 no. The Declaration of Independence is nothing. It has no weight of law. The constitution is everything but of course being a Christian nationalist you hate the constitution.

This comment section is embarrassing. Knowles specifically said "lower case 'c' constitution," meaning not the document but the actual make up of the country.

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I think it's pretty important that the bill of rights is made up of amendments, as part of how to convince the colonies to accept the main portion.

​@@moronandmoronaccessoriesBut they didn't write the Constitution. And it was written just for them.

sights*

@@jorbdan6305 thanks for the correction

@@RayAtchley no don't thank me! i meant to be annoying and pedantic! lol

I wish him the best of luck. I'd say Ben Shapiro is like Iron Monger, Knowles would be kinda like Mysterio (edit: in terms of power and difficulty to defeat)

​@logans.butler285 are we power scaling guests now?

I commented something similar. Knowles claimed that Alex made his point for him but I think it's the opposite. Knowles highlighted the reason that the founders wrote the constitution, et al, the way they did. That America is majority Christian is a very good reason to explicitly protect the rights of the minority. Of course, we all know that, even if America was to become a theocracy, the persecution wouldn't end because all the different Christain sects would then be vying for supremacy. There always has to be an "other" and, if everyone's Christain, other Christians will do just fine. We've seen it elsewhere and that's exactly what the original settlers were trying to escape. Trust the religious right to openly fight for exactly what they claim to oppose.

Knowles quickly backed out of his weak argument and ran back to a stronger to defend argument that was a complete deflection from the initial discussion. He is a slippery one.

I thought the same

For sure! Let aside his views and moral conducts, his debating skills are astonishing.

Well put, I think most Christians who make the same argument are doing the same.

😂😂😂😂😂

Best reply

Another non-American telling an American what America is founded on. Only an atheist can be that arrogant and ignorant

This deconstruction you atheists keep pulling is exactly why your new atheist movement is fighting amongst it's woke self and guys like dillahunty are dating dudes. You have no foundation for anything.

They met before to talk about Latin Mass.

You should have the same amount of patience

I wish I did, I can't and will never claim I do. At this point in my life, I avoid any debates with delusional theists. It's useless.@@llamahguy7229

​@@llamahguy7229 how?

​@@llamahguy7229 Why would I ... have you seen this guy talk with Ben Shapiro and his little group of hate preachers? They do nothing but dehumanize and throw fear and hate on those they disagree with... I don't have patience for this

​@@MaleINTP I disagree. Michael and Ben are far from being far right extremists. They are just a bit right to the center, while Alex is a bit left to the center.

... or a company that makes basketballs should sponsor Alex so that if he drops the mic, he doesn't even have to bend over to pick it up as it will bounce right back.

Whereas Knowles is the exact opposite..mic companies will never sponsor him lol

AMEN!!

The 1st amendment is a direct foil to the 1st commandment.

Which they don't respect

Very true. Not to mention, the fundamentalist, evangelical Christian nationalist claptrap that Knowles espouses is dramatically different from the predominant Christian beliefs during the early republic.

there is no such thing as "secular" AND "making all religions safe" these are contradictions. a truly secular nations does not welcome any religion.

@@Senumunu google "secular nation" and read what it says. I did and found this: "In a secular republic, people are free to practice religion or non-religion in peace; church and state are separated; people of differing faiths are treated equally before the law; and religious tests and oaths are not required to vote or hold office."

@@Senumunu First off, yes, secular is not an imaginary term, lol. As a Catholic-educated atheist I agree that a secular nation does not need religion: but a secular humanist nation would not outlaw it either.

@@Senumunu - well, I agree. In a secular, fascist state no form of religion would be welcome. Much as in the early 20th Century Communist states also were hostile to religion. However, I would like to think a secular, liberal, democratic state does not interfere with the rights of its citizens to form their own religious or non-religious beliefs and to conform their personal behavior to those religious beliefs, so long as they do not pose an active threat to the society of the state in general.

I disagree

Zero arguments provided from the op and the reply. Incredible scenes

what do you mean, artificial?

@@Lareuel You have that right.

@@joeysmith3475 Phony. As if he is acting. Sociopath putting on a fake personality. Like he doesn't know exactly how to act like a human, but can do a vague imitation.

"In short, one may say anything about the history of the world--anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can't say is that it's rational. The very word sticks in one's throat." -Dostoevsky The soviet union banned all religion and starved millions...because of "logic and rationality" Tell me, would you kill one innocent to save the world? Either you kill the innocent or you destroy the world. Your "rationalism" will tell you to kill an innocent "for the greater good". It's people like you that make the world shittier through your hubris

Right back at you atheist!

​@@parchment543 That doesn't make sense. 🤷🏼‍♂️

​@@parchment543that is moronic. The absence of belief required no protection Luke the beliefe in mythology does.

@@parchment543 most definitely a Theist.

Excellent commentary! We Americans are granted freedom of religion, and at the same time freedom from religion.

@@darlenegriffith6186 Thank you! Well said! Amen! 😉🏆🏆🏆🇺🇸🙏🏻

How can one be non-religious and believe in a god? Isn't that a contradiction?

​@@DavidAguileraMoncusi The non-religious people referenced are also known as "nones" (who are on a meteoric ride in the US). They are known for not participating in traditional religious institutions, often embracing more "spirituality" than an Abrahamic God concept. With this understanding, it is not mutually exclusive.

@@DavidAguileraMoncusi In surveys of beliefs, there are lots of people worldwide who say they don't ascribe to the specific beliefs of any religion but nevertheless believe in the existence of a supernatural creator being. I have friends who describe themselves this way. This is the group I refer to.

Knowles don't like that lol

Creator is a title given to God, since he created the universe... hence the name. When people say "Meet our Maker" do they mean any maker? No, they have a specific entity in mind and is used in a specific context.

@tylere.8436 different religions have different creator gods. To say "God" would mean establishing the beliefs and teachings of the Abrahamic God, which would go against the establishment of a single religion

Muslim Conquests? After 1492? The only muslim conquest was in the balkans. I don't think many Serbs would travel to the Americas. The ottomans were pretty chilled when it comes to religious liberties compared to the European Nations.

@@CafeteriaCatholic A lot of the Enlightenment was getting science and math that had been developing in the Muslim world and advancing it in a European context. So even if there wasn't active war between empires there is still a common rational framework between the European continent, North Africa, and the Middle East that would mean the lessons of religious conflict from the Middle Ages are just as relevant to the Enlightenment thought as was Catholic/Protestant/Atheist or even Pagan conflicts that were destabilizing Europe.

Me likey 😊

1. Franklin didn't say that. 2. Adams taken out of context. 3. Jefferson gonna Jefferson.

@@moronandmoronaccessories 1) True, it is a misquote of "“Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house." which is a much more lyrically pleasing way to say the same.

@@moronandmoronaccessories "It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man." "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Paine

All taken out of context… I’m sure

Could you expand a bit on what you mean when you say "The problem for Knowles is that his concepts of the deity and what was Christianity is dramatically different from the Christianity of the 1700s or early 1800s. Hence the concerns of the Baptists who wrote to Jefferson during his presidency."? Sorry, but I'm rather unfamiliar with the surrounding historical context.

@@Wuke04 ​ The Christianity of the later 18th Century and early 19th Century was different in view and style from the view and style of modern American Christianity. First, most colonialists in the 1700s were not members of an established church of any stripe. Depending on the colony it ranged from 4% in North Carolina while South Carolina and New Hamshire had the highest rates of membership of around 16%. Many, if not the majority, of the Founders were Deists and very much adherents of the Enlightenment. In their view, some deity might have created the world but once it did so, it wandered off and left its creation to its own devices. The Episcopal Church, Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Quakers were the big players at the start of the Revolution. Around 1790 or so, the Great Awakening started and the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians started growing in number. In the early 1800s, there was a massive upheaval in religion in the US. Preachers, often with little formal education, wandered around preaching. When John Nelson Darby hit the scene with his Dispensationalism and Futurism in the 1830s things were even wilder. Darby is the one who gave Protestants the idea of the "rapture" based on his complete lack of education in common Greco-Roman culture and Paul's use of tropes from that culture in his writings. Then Roger Miller came along and took Darby By 1840, a significant minority of the Christians in the US firmly believed that Jesus was going to return sometime between March 1843 and March 1844. I mention all of that because it had and still has a profound impact on Christianity as it is practiced today by many of the more conservative, evangelical churches. Additionally, there has been a movement that has grown out of the belief in exceptionalism, the idea that the US is some sort of New Jerusalem, or a similar concept regarding it as being under the control of some deity and having a special role in human events. This has also given rise to a group of religious beliefs that have grown quite strong over the past seventy years or so. They are often referred to as Christian nationalism or Christian dominionism. There are various different branches of this though but in common they believe that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation and the Constitution and secular laws of the United States must be conformed and interpreted in light of the biblical laws as interpreted, of course, by whatever particular group you are referring to. Knowles is a Roman Catholic but he is a follower of an extremely conservative branch of that church that does not agree with the current pope and frankly has not agreed with much of anything that has happened since Vatican II back in the 1960s. Knowles has his KZfaq show, his speaking engagements, and has published at least two books. The essential theme of Knowles's worldview is simple. There is an overarching paradigm of morality and ethics based upon a particular and highly conservative set of Christian dogmas. That paradigm is not subject to criticism and anyone not on board with it must be silenced and sanctioned, if need be. Any book, philosophy, movie, song, or other media that challenges the paradigm must be censored. All behavior, public and private by anyone, anywhere, must conform to the paradigm. Knowles's view of religion is based on concepts not developed until after the period of the Founders and in nature very close to those of the established churches, such as the Church Of England in effect, i.e., any idea or person not in conformity with the established church is to repressed, violently if need be.

Thank you so much for such a thoughtful, in-depth response. I understand better now.@@johnpetry5321

Jesus came divide not tolerate heathens

@@billwalton4571 couldn’t care less about why Jesus came. Magic believers are so arrogant at times.

@@billwalton4571 isn’t it the most peaceful religion that never harms anyone. And you even try to claim moral superiority. But sure go ahead prove it to everyone.

@@Letmedoubt God works miracles, Satan does magic. And yes of course Christianity is morally superior because morals are objective, theyre from God. You dont make them up. God is a just judge.

@@billwalton4571 your god does magic if one is to read bible literally. Like he breathes life into clay. That’s magic. As well as he makes the world out of nothing. Just read your holy book for gods sake.

It was a political tool. Low resolution thinking to reduce the argument to such absurdity.

@@FitziCal If the intent of using such a tool was to cause the Barbary States to believe something that isn't true, then the tool is a lie.

Yes ? I mean a country signing a treaty in bad faith to get what it wants is not a unique occurrence

Yup

They’d run circles around you. I’m atheist as fuck but they make good points too. You’re too emotional to listen to anything other than what you agree with. Winning a logic battle against anything religion is one of the easiest positions to take in any conversation.

@@plet774 I listen to daily wire often and they are just another cult

@@Dan16673 it’s all cults now.

@@plet774 😂😂

Hate is a strong word. Do you really hate him?

@@AxeMain favourite quote from Michael Knowles "we must eradicate transgenderism from public life completely"

Why do you hate Alex?

@@animalchang Michael Knowles isn't a good man

@AxeMain a strong dislike , Michael Knowles is a person who brings a lot of nonsensical hatred into the world

diet? Idk about that

Definitely not the first

@@codenamepyro2350 then who ?

​@@codenamepyro2350Not that I disbelieve you, but, yeah, who?

References to God is throughout our constitution, declaration of independence, on our money. In God We Trust, there is no question our nation was created based on Christianity. A treaty does not represent our internal values at the time, it represents our position negotiated on with another nation. This does not mean we are ruled by a theocracy but it does mean our rights our bestowed on the people by God not by the government, that is all it means.

@@UnknownMoses the Constitution makes no reference to God other than there is to be no religious test for office, the declaration only references a creator for rights that those men didn't even believe all people had. In God we trust was only added to our money in 1954 as anti-communism propaganda as well as "under God" to the pledge. The US government was established as secular.

​​@@UnknownMoses dude god we trust was not the original motto E Pluribus Unum was god we trust wasn't till the 1950's and endowed by our creator is totally ambiguous it encompasses all gods therefore freedom of religion in a truly free nation requires a separation of church and state.

So the copy translated to the Muslims had no mention of Christianity?

​@@UnknownMoses but all abrahamic religions worship the God of Abraham, so jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God. Whether you like it or not. If we were to be based on Christian values why not mention the name Jesus christ once?

References to God is throughout our constitution, declaration of independence, on our money. In God We Trust, there is no question our nation was created based on Christianity. A treaty does not represent our internal values at the time, it represents our position negotiated on with another nation. This does not mean we are ruled by a theocracy but it does mean our rights our bestowed on the people by God not by the government, that is all it means.

​@@UnknownMoses On the money is a 1950s invention that was only approved under the establishment clause by the logic that it is "Ceremonial deism" and not a endorsement of any religion

@@UnknownMoses "The U.S. Constitution never explicitly mentions God or the divine." "In the Declaration there are three references to God, and each one is different. In one reference, Jefferson uses the term "Nature's God." Later, he uses "Creator" and lastly "Divine Providence."" No reference to Christianity or a Christian god. Sadly In God We Trust is on our money but that was done long after the founders. Around the same time "under god" was added to the Preamble.

​@@dorothydotson7154spot on

​@@UnknownMosesI want to hear what I want to hear

Or ‘savages’ as it said in line 31 or 33

You may be misinformed. I looked up Jefferson’s original draft and found this: www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.001_0545_0548/?sp=1 “Nature’s god” is not capitalized, you’re right about that, but here at least it is still in the singular. “Creator” too appears in lowercase and in the singular. It was intentional of Jefferson to originally keep this lowercase, and I think his intent was never to invoke the “Judeo-Christian God,” whatever that means.

You can't realistically run for office unless you are a Christian. 🤷🏼‍♂️

A secular nation would have no mention to a creator at all, since secular denotes to having no religious or spiritual basis, so even if you argue America isn’t an explicitly Christian nation, it’s definitely not a secular one. And how can a law be secular? Laws are created from a moral perspective and morals are based in the immaterial and spiritual. Laws have to have a belief system inherently.

@@penguinbro896 The mention of a creator is in the Declaration of Independence which is not a legal document, nor is it the framework of our laws. The basis for legislation is The Constitution which doesn't mention a creator at all and in fact the only time religion is mentioned is when it says that the government can't establish it

@@penguinbro896 Laws are created from a moral perspective but they aren't spiritual and the ones in the US are not based on religion. Actual morality is based on preventing people from harming others which is what our laws are based on; harmless things are not criminalized solely because a religion is against it in the way they are in theocratic countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia

@@penguinbro896 Morals aren't spiritual. What even is spiritual?

yeah these daily wire schmups always have funny studios lol

Lol wrong

Thomas Jefferson commented on this matter at length in a letter that he wrote to Dr. Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814.

@@miskatonic_alumni Thomas Jefferson wasn’t at the constitutional convention… you won’t find his signature on the parchment

​@@rortys.kierkegaard9980 Jefferson was on a diplomatic mission in Europe and that's the only reason he wasn't at the convention. Adam's as well.

@@someguy5438 Jefferson refused to go… thought the constitution gave too much power to the federal gov.

@@rortys.kierkegaard9980 Jefferson was in Europe as was Adam's trying to secure allies.

@@billwalton4571 good words, keep posting

Why?

It’s just him trying to say the GOP (red, Christian nationalist party) is what the founders wanted.

Read in past tense?

Read, not red. As in "The U.S. president (read Biden) fumbles his words." Michael's statement is "So why is it that the Continental Congress believed that they had to appeal to broadly religious (read Christian) principles...?" Are you guys retarded?

Red blooded probably

​@@gbeaver57gop wasn't around and it wasn't even red till 1970s.

Actually our capital is Washington DC 🤓

The whole thing will drop later, or it's on his patreon

BUILD A HOUSE ON TOP OF HIS HOUSE

Yeah but why my pee pee smell like poo poo?

@@leokruse38 i lived with ur mother for a few weeks

​​@@asian1599it's true I am the mother

@@jelly.212 IN AN ALTERNATE TIMELINE I FED YOU TO MY PET RAPTOR

the word "Creator" with a captial "c" is in the Declaration of Independence. are you seriously going to pretend like you dont know what that the document means when it says that? who are you fooling? yourself?

"Creator" though, is. We the people is great as long as we maintain that the rights are inalienable - not granted by the government.

@@m0RRisC2319Knowles ends up disregarding the Declaration of Independence at the end of the video as says he thinks we’re a Christian nation solely because of the constitution…

@@rauminen4167So one word in one document means Christians in the US get to do as they please and force their bullshit fairy tales on everyone else? Yeah, no. You keep your nonsense away from the rest of us and we'll all be happier.

​​@@m0RRisC2319 The Declaration is a breakup letter between the colonies and England. It isn't the foundation of our government and laws; that would be the Constitution. And the Constitution does not show favoritism to any flavor of religion.

Alex isn't debasing himself. He is a person of intellectual prowess, and has a willingness and ability to oppose wrong ideas. He is educating his audience, and sometimes that takes communicating with and debating people that might not be especially likeable.

I'm glad he spoke with him . The man isn't Hitler. He's a smarmy toad by my lights but that in no way means people "shouldn't talk to him.

​@@bertrandrussell894 he's not literally Hitler, sure, he doesn't have the mustache.

​@@darlenegriffith6186 this argument only works if he succeeds in making Michael look sufficiently moronic and evil but if he fails, then he's just lending legitimacy to the guy

​@@truthbetold8233You seem to have alot of malice towards Knowles. Are you a transgender?

Pane was pretty brutal in regards to his hatred of the bible.

Matt Walsh is also up there.

It's kind of hard to rank them they are all pretty wacky but I feel like Ben is smart enough to know he's full of shit but has to pretend otherwise

@@axelnova123 At least Matt and Michael know what a woman is

@@axelnova123 To be fair modern Walsh has cut back on his references to God, when he ran his show out of his car he was really frustrating. He purposely left it out of his movie/documentary ‘what is a women’ which was great

@@readysoldier6799 gender and sex aren't the same

Jordan Peterson = word salad

Yawn. Peterson is a one trick pony. So boring and serious.

@@jamesbennett3521no

Lol he won't debate with someone who can defeat him easily. I remember he backed out of a debate with Richard Wolff

@@jamesbennett3521 You'll have to constitute what word salad means!

Fr

Well you are on youtube...

Micheal Knowles has 1.9 million subs. Conner has about 700,000. We need to be able to talk to and debate these people. Platforming might make sense if it some crazy weirdo with 200 subs, but with as big as the Daily Wire has become; Alex should directly confront their bad arguments.

​@@indigo714^^

You have probably said evil things too. Michael Knowles is a good man.

​@@indigo714 sure, if Alex is blatantly treating Knowles as opposition, then it might work but that's typically not the tone that he's taken with anyone he's spoken to. Even in his debate with Shapiro, and in his reflections afterwards, he's done little but legitimise Ben.

@@gulanhem9495 I don't think a "good man" would make his online personality centered around advocating for genocide of marginalized groups

Ah yes, always assume the worst about the other side. A typical strategy in debates. I'm glad Alex isn't like that, it allows debates to be more civil. But do tell me, what ulterior motive do you think Knowles has by simply debating Alex on this topic?

​@@AverageCommentorWell clearly to these new atheist types that can be found in Alex's comment section. Knowles poisoned our water supply, burnt our crops, and delivered a plague upon our houses.

I have realized over the years that "in bad faith" / "not arguing in good faith" are phrases designed SOLELY to ignore someone you disagree with. There could be a myriad of reasons that feel internally reasonable to someone that they've reached a conclusion you have not. Maybe they're genuinely mistaken, for example, and don't have a piece of information you do. Maybe they're working under a different interpretation. I'm not sating I agree with Knowles here but to disagree with someone you first need to hear them instead of😢work under the immediate assumption they're lying or trolling or grifting.

I really don't need to assume anything, i've been watching many videos of him, and he is clearly a bad faith actor ​@@AverageCommentor

@@gabri41200 what makes him a bad faith actor?

What matters is that there were a lot of Christians in 18th century Europe and the colonies. Therefore...

I feel like those that left for America just weren't ready to really question their beliefs when they got here, and resorted to what they knew. It's pretty common, and I guess I can't blame them, but the founders did seem to be trying to find a better way.

He had a massive subscriber base. I'm so glad Alex had him on, hopefully some of them will see it.

​@@bertrandrussell894 this is extremely optimistic.

I think you might be missing the point of Alex's channel . I'm glad he had him on.

​@@bertrandrussell894 if you're sympathetic to Knowles' views, just say so. Don't hide behind this respectability politics 'marketplace of ideas' nonsense.

​@@truthbetold8233Nice job, putting words and ideas into people's mouths.

@@israelp348 well if you reply to the criticism 'maybe don't platform bigoted grifters' by saying no actually that's not only harmless but potentially a good thing, then I'm obviously going to be suspicious. Especially, if like this guy, you reply it under like 5 different comments.

​@@truthbetold8233. That's because the description of a "bigoted grifter" is inherently subjective and therefore of no importance at all to the discussion. So the person who said "this is a good thing" is instead saying in essence that interviewing people with different views is good, rather than interviewing bigots is good.

creator could also just mean nature

That was Matt Walsh

​@@dominickcastillo2419 their beliefs are pretty indistinguishable though