There Is No Separation Between Church and State |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Like a lot of Americans, the ladies I debated on @whatever Debates believe that our country was founded on the separation of church and state. That is incorrect.
Watch the full debate here: www.youtube.co...
Only DailyWire+ members can watch the full episodes of my podcast. Join here: bit.ly/3kj7pOd
LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day. www.youtube.co...
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at ihateharrys.com
You've seen it played on The Michael Knowles Show, and now you can play YES-or-NO at home. Get it here: bit.ly/45pOROm
Already have the YES-or-NO game? Get your hands on the Conspiracy Expansion Pack before it sells out! bit.ly/3PaR0be
#MichaelKnowles #TheMichaelKnowlesShow #News #Politics #DailyWire #Whatever #WhateverPodcast #WhateverDebate #WhateverDebates #Debate #Constitution #FirstAmendment #SeparationOfChurchAndState #FoundingFathers #Religion
The poor lady is so stressed and oppressed by the patriarchy and things, that she forgot to wear a shirt. Thoughts and prayers
She couldn`t find one that was large enough, lol. 😂😂
@@paulcarfantan6688 Probably can't afford it because of misogyny in the law business.
@@LisaAnnie93Yeah it's hilarious because most of the outfits in the fashion industry was made by men LMFAO
She has low self esteem. 😂 That's WAY too much cleavage, sorry.
And she seems *PI$$ED* off. Damn.
Was great having you on Michael! Our viewers love ya! Happy to host ya anytime! :)
I agree. He’s made me more of a feminist.
I am NOT the first to reply
@@audreymaize You can be first to be deployed when WWIII starts, be my guest.
@@audreymaize care to elaborate on how he made you more of a feminist?
Mike wants to hit that
Michael: *Gives a bunch of quotes and evidence supporting his argument*
Shirtless Woman: "I could give a bunch of quotes supporting my argument too..... But I don't feel like it right now."
That's basically the ENTIRE 2 hour discussion too lol, watched the whole thing sadly. The number of times Pixie and Glasses just state some ad hoc fact like "I read a study that says x" that supports what I said... THEN proceed to NEVER bring up a single detail of said study, or give any citations; then if pressed, pivot to the next fallacy... rinse repeat.
@@Jaryismand this is who will take over when we’re gone
With boobs like that she doesnt need to she just gets everything for free.
@@Jaryism Where can one find the whole thing?
All that weight on her chest makes it hard to breathe
Let’s not forget the separation of church and state mostly protected the church from the state. Not the other way in which liberals often confuse like the rest of our history.
The Founding Fathers strongly disagree with you. Either you are ignorant, or being purposefully deceitful.
@@DisposableSupervillainHenchmanthe constitution only limits the authority of the federal government. It does not grant them any authority. How could the separation of church and state be limiting the church when it’s found in a document that only limits the state?
@@tharius9758 So the federal government cannot use one religion and impose a fundamentalist version of it all over USA and against its states? That's what Michael is in favor of implementing even though it's been struck down as unconstitutional and is widely unpopular.
Why should one be protected and not the other?
@@tharius9758 The First Amendment is quite clear as stated in the Establishment Clause. That road goes both ways. The state cannot establish a religion (or promote one), and it can also not interfere with the free exercise thereof. It isn’t there to *only* keep the state out of churches. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I don’t think most people understand what the separation of Church and State really is. Back during the days before the American Revolution, the King only wanted people to go to the Church of England. After the Revolution, the Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution of the United States, that people could attend whatever Church they wanted. In other words, Freedom of Religion. God bless.✝️👍🏻
AMEN Seperation of the state controlling church.
And it was understood that the underlying religion was Christianity. Europeans weren’t practicing Judaism or Hinduism. Their relatives were still driving out islam
If he would've explained that and the different protestant denominations at the time, they might have understood a little better
This is not quite true. Although the Church of England was still the official state church of Britain (as it technically still is even today) people were free to attend different churches in the Thirteen Colonies long before the Revolution. In fact, most of the colonies had different established churches from one another, and most were not Anglican. The history of Colonial New England does contain a fair amount of Christian-on-Christian persecution, but it was the numerically dominant Congregationalists (Puritans) who, in fact, did most of it.
@@drewwilson6639You’re giving them way too much credit.
Sweet Little Alyssa should be very impressed with Michael's eye line discipline
Sweet little Alyssa is a diamond among rhinestones
😂good one@@kallioperobling3359
She's a beauty herself.
What's attractive about toxic bags in her chest?
Men who govern themselves can be surrounded by women like this and not even glance. It's a rare quality.
It takes some impressive mental gymnastics to believe a reinterpretation of the Constitution from the 20th century is "foundational" to the country.
That's the obvious point he was trying to make over and over again but they couldn't quite get it.
Religion is bad is all they've ever known
At least they know their stuff. I don’t understand any of this at all. Obviously iam aware of the basics, but What is the purpose of federal legislature lol. Also I don’t understand the misunderstanding how the separation of church and state isn’t part of the 1st amendment, their point makes sense to me
@@meme-jl9fs Originally, the prohibition against establishment of religion, stated in the first amendment, applied only to Congress and not to the states. The idea was to protect the various churches around the country from being controlled by the federal government. Also, it protected the various state religions at the time. It therefore should not mean that an individual can't pray in school. The prohibition was not on the individual. Over time, that view has been challenged in the courts and various courts ruled, first, that states also had to abide by the amendments in the Constitution. And second, that individuals can't pray in school. That is how I understand it anyways.
@@meme-jl9fs
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
The first part says that you can't establish a religion on the federal level. Then the second says you can't make laws about how people "do their religion".
How do you understand "separation of church and state"?
@@meme-jl9fsWell, the separation of church and state simply does not appear in any part of the Constitution. Does that clear up your confusion at all?
Just as Michael said, States already had established Churches. When the 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." in other words, it's saying Congress can't make a law banning/outlawing any particular Church/religion, nor can it require a particular/specific Church/religion to be established and/or legislate that a particular Church/religion be the official, or only recognized Church/religion of the Nation. It's not a separation of Church & State, it bars the Federal Gov't from favoring one or more Church/religion over others.
Also, it says "Congress shall not make no law..." it doesn't say that the States can't - because some States already did. The Constitution establishes and enumerates the powers/authorities of the Federal Government and how it will be structured. The Bill of Rights annunciates what the Federal Government can't do to the People and reaffirms the People's Rights - including ones not mentions (9th Amendment). Later Amendments included what States were not allowed to do.
Dude, if I say there's a separation between two things. And you then say "nu uh, it's just that we can't favor that thing!" that's fucking what it means in this context my guy.
It's like saying an impartial judge doesn't have to be impartial, that they need not have a separation between them and the defendant, rather, you would say, they're just not allowed to be biased towards a particular defendant... THAT'S WHAT THE SEPARATION MEANS. Why are you so motivated in playing word games? Are you so fragile, so attached to christianity, that even the mere mention of anything ever being separated from it, offends you? Even when you fucking agree with the sentiment? Like what is going on here, what's your motivation? Are you just stupid? Tell me.
American Buffalo Gold Bullion Coin
Exodus 32: 1-9
To add to this "U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state"
I heard it explained this way.
I can criticize my church, your church, the church across town. The Government can't fine me or put me in jail.
Unless I am making fully false accusations. which then I could be sued for liable. But not by the government.
We are also not forced to worship any specific god, or do it any specific way.
These women have no idea what was happening with Protestant,Catholic,Orthidox,and Church of England previous and during the early stages of our country. Even in Eastern Countries and Middle Eastern Countries. Religious rules and laws were a part of how a person was expected live, act, and give to charity based on Their religions.
Why do the women always have body parts exposed, diminishes anything they have to say...have some self respect ladies
And if u start drooling by seeing that big cleavage, then all fault is yours.
Yep she looks so unprofessional
These are almost all OnlyFans girls....provocative dress is their MO.
They are whores, but they'll tell you, "It's complicated".
😂I'm sorry mam, your cleavage is screaming so loud, I cannot hear a word you're saying 😂
Its really sad that these girls don't seem to know basic US history and founding documents. And one's a lawyer....oh boy. Thank you Michael for educating
As a paralegal, I'm not surprised. Lawyers learn the law enough to pass the tests and pass the bar. After that its up to us to know the law
@@kallioperobling3359 is that so? I learned something new today
I'm not sure any learning occurred here.
As the saying goes, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
Keep in mind, there are 2 big philosophies of lawyer education - one that interprets our laws in light of what its writers intended and another which treats our laws as living documents that can take on new meanings over time. It's that "living document" philosophy that provides the most rife opportunity to teach law students a distorted US history.
Lawyers can actually be pretty stupid nowadays
I dont like the Whatever podcast. But im down to watch Michael anytime.
I don't like how he goes out of his way to invite the type of women who'll end up looking bad and that he can argue against. But he does bring on very reasonable girls too and it can be interesting to get their perspective of things. Don't have to agree on everything.
@@anacc3257 I don't see any problem with mk's approach here. These are some people that seriously need help
@@anacc3257in this case I hoonesly think he got some pretty smart women
🐑🐑🐑
@@cla1858 Yes, the Lord is our shepherd. Come again
the Constitution says "In the year of our LORD" ... so God IS indeed in the Constitution
Fact.
:/
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
- John Adams
@@DisposableSupervillainHenchman This can be countermanded too. For example the Treaty of Tripoli was superseded omitting any derision of Christianity.
@@DisposableSupervillainHenchman “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams
Michael Knowles talking to these women is like Einstein trying to explain his"Theory Of Relativity" to a kindergarten class.
I actually disagree. Usually when I see shorts from this podcast, it's easy to dismiss the guests as complete imbeciles. But the women in this video actually seem at least somewhat coherent. They're wrong, obviously, but they seem to at least be able to participate in a civil conversation and actually learn, rather than the ones we often see not just ramble nonsensically and it's obvious that the information is just going in one ear and out the other
@@TheRealJokeFaceI agree with you. All parties involved seemed quite knowledgeable. The misunderstanding is between _the founding_ of the country and _the practice_ of day-to-day government.
God bless you in the name of Jesus Christ, who is the name above all names & the only way to Heaven❤
That's offensive to the kindergarteners.
To be fair, I think Jazmin held her ground pretty well putting forth the most common view of the first amendment today. Our primary problem with regards to how we interpret the constitution these days is our prevailing view of the relationship between the federal government and the states.
We were always a federation of sovereign states until the 20th century.
She has no counter argument. She simply tries to assert that her interpretation of the constitution is correct with nothing to back it up. And when Michael gives her definitive proof to back up his viewpoint, she doesn't get it.
no counter arguments? There were clearly two that were well above any counter I ever saw
@@ironymatt 🤣🤣🤣
@@ironymattyes that’s correct. No counterargument that makes sense. These women were clearly upset that their usual liberal bullshit isn’t working like it normally does. They were unprepared and not up to the job of arguing with someone who knows his stuff.
She doesn't know, and he isn't properly articulating that state sovereignty was a thing before the civil war. It's end is definitively what applied those aspects of the constitution to the states full stop. So no, the country wasn't founded on it, but yes it is the case now.
All feminists do that. Most women do that.
I like Michaels style because he tries not to be condescending and It’s like watching a black belt do verbal jujitsu
Why can't she understand the simple and clear statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the free exercise there of." It is clear that the Founding Fathers are putting a resection on just the federal government.
Exactly. It's in the Bill of Rights. which were added to limit the Federal government. The limitation is that the Federal government can't establish a national religion (like the church of England) nor prohibit the free exercise (of other sects as in their own states). It was protecting the states and individuals from a tyrannical government like the one they just defeated.
@@alecepting1371 Better wording might be "separation of church and federal government". I think calling it church and state is the idea of keeping big government out of the way of practicing religion, but has been abused and/or deliberately misconstrued for the purpose of dumbing down the populace. Thoughts?
Because the world she was born in didn't see state sovereignty. To put it colloquially, at the federations conception, the states were more like nations, and now they are more like provinces, post civil war.
@@aenubis666 Exactly.
my man knowles.... I'm from India and that doesn't stop me from loving this guy
Why would it?
@@Turb0Man14💀💀
@@Turb0Man14was away to comment that
I am from Brazil, and i also love his interviews, this man is a genius.
I wish my professors had been this articulate and patient.
Its like trying to explain the entire us government structure to people who just want to keep repeating “separation of church and state” without knowing what it means.
The very same idiots that think "Free Speech" gives them the right to barge into my house and start screaming at me.
It's not "like trying" to explain that. I am watching this clip in a vacuum compared to the larger podcast, but what I've seen of it, Michael is quite literally explaining our entire government structure (both at inception and in contemporary understanding) to people who would rather use the First Amendment combined with the phrase "Separation of church and state" to apply a contemporary realignment that occurred in the mid 20th century to the country's founding back in the mid to late 18th.
Why does the girl behind Michael look like she is being held against her will every episode?
She has the expression of a child that's listening to their parents while they're threatening to divorce.
You may have just answered your own question. . .
Her father disowned her after finding out her body count
She works for the podcast.
Even though she works there it always seems like she's bored as heck. Often times she's playing with her hair or staring at the camera/monitor for long periods of time and then laughing as if she's doing a staring contest with the viewers.
She's either very childish or a bit dumb (as in actually dumb, not as an insult). Of course I don't know her so I can't say for sure.
The “separation of church and state is a separation of church FROM state, not separation of state from church. The state cannot infringe upon the church.
Of course it doesn't mean that.
Which church?
@@lempereur7503the state cannot infringe upon any church. You have a right to freedom of religion, but that does not mean that we aren’t a Christian country. Our founding populace was overwhelmingly Christian, and made our laws for a Christian people. Meaning we can use religion as a basis for our moral code, which dictates our laws, as they always have done. We just cannot force everyone to follow the religion.
If you go to most Muslim countries for example, you are allowed to be a Jew or a Christian or a Hindu or an atheist, you are not required to go to mosque, or to pray 5 times a day.
However they, as Muslim countries believe certain things to be immoral, due to their Muslim faith, and those things are banned. You can’t sell pork. There are no casinos, as gambling is banned, the whole lgbt stuff is banned, and that’s all because those laws are based off their Muslim values as a nation. Just like our laws are historically based off our nation’s Christian values
But that doesn’t mean that you can be compelled to be Christian or any denomination of Christianity
@@lempereur7503there are laws that ban you from doing certain things and other laws that compel you to do others. For example our tax code. That compels you to pay a certain amount of taxes. You are compelled to have a license to drive. You are compelled to pay tarrifs on imports.
No law of a religious basis can COMPEL you to do something. You cannot legally be compelled to go to church.
However laws of restriction can exist, as long as they do not bar you from exercising your religion, as well as certain other protections, such as the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, the right to vote, and so on.
You can be be restricted from murdering someone, you can be restricted from selling heroin, you can be restricted from stealing.
@@TheHaas123 That's a bit pointless though. Yes, majority of Americans are and were Christians. But if they are not enforcing any of their beliefs than the fact is it is a secular society.
No Muslim society is a secular society, the most secular was maybe the Ottoman Empire which if it never was destroyed there would never be all of these crises in the Middle East.
Does this apply to Jehovah's Witnesses as well?
God bless Michel for making and holding eye contact.
I would have trouble in this setting.
As a fellow Catholic and American patriot I love the work you do Micheal! Keep up the good fight. You have my prayers, God bless.
Mad respect for keeping your eyes up. 😂
Most likely his wife has had a hand in that.
Some of these girls (and the occasional like-minded male guest) have some intellectual potential, but they're so deeply uninformed in matters of history and civics, it's almost impossible for them to relate to someone like Knowles, who is steeped in these subjects.
Yet they surprisingly agreed on a lot, and at times it felt like he was a lecturer, with them asking him questions. I think they acknowledge he's more informed than they are
They're not only uninformed, they honestly believe they could find any counter-argument, if they ever bothered to put in the effort. So it doesn't matter that Knowles makes an argument based on facts and reason, there's always a counter-argument that's just as equally valid.
This is pure Marxist rhetoric at play, the relativism of truth itself. They never commit to actually presenting the counter-argument for evaluation and scrutiny, they just claim the counter-argument exists, and it's just as good as the one they just heard.
When she said "I could just show you quotes from the founding fathers saying the opposite," Knowles could have demanded her to show the quotes, and the discussion would have quickly devolved into insults.
@1:18 when Michael says "we must know something about what is conducive to human happiness" while the girl behind him looks like she just buried her puppy is a bit jarring .
I wish people like you Michael, would ask the following questions of people who start getting on their separation of church and state soapbox...
1. What do you think the term means?
2. How would this apply to someone who uses their religious views to vote?
3. How would you then stop someone from using what they believe in their head from voting?
I like these questions. Often ppl argue that they don't want to be ruled by religious ideas. Should we then be ruled by atheistsic ideas? Makes no sense. Of course ppl vote based on what they believe even if that isn't rooted in religion.
@@NaturalAegyo What are you two even talking about? People can vote based on their religious views, that is not the issue. The state cannot establish or promote one religion over another, that is what separation of church and state is about. It doesn't matter if everyone votes for a theocracy, the state following through on that would be unconstitutional.
You are also extremely confused about atheism. There is no such thing as "atheistic ideas". Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, nothing more. It isn't a collection of beliefs, it isn't a collection of ideas, it isn't a worldview.
Separation of church and state means the state should have nothing to do with religion. It should not hinder free practise in any way but it should also not promote it or enforce it in any way. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. If you disagree with that you have to also be okay with having islamists in government actively trying to enforce sharia law which I would imagine you are not.
Michael managed to elevate the conversation with these women and create a space where they had to behave in a semi rational fashion. It goes to show how leadership by example uplifts the group when done properly.
I got to hand it to Michael. He has a lot more patience than I do.
If I were Michael, I wouldn't be able to stop laughing. Yep, I always associate skin tight dresses and large mammary organs almost falling out with philosophical discussions.
Apparently she's a lawyer. Lmao where did she study on tik tok?
@@davidspooner4582 I have heard of the school of hard knocks. Maybe there is a school of hard knockers too. .
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof!!!!’
That’s in the 1A!!!!!
Sep of church and state
There is no phrase “separation of church and state” and there never was. The founding fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate. They saw religion. Specifically religions based on the Bible as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating. That phrase comes from one brief letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. At the end of a very long sentence, in which Jefferson affirms his conviction, that religious belief should be a private matter. And that the government should not interfere with such matters. He uses a phrase “...building a wall of separation between church and state.” And that’s where the phrase lived, undisturbed, lost in Jefferson’s correspondence for almost 150 years.
The constitution actually says “constitution shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
It’s plain what those words mean. The federal government could not establish a national religion. The common practice in Europe. The US was going to be different. Americans would be free to follow the religion of their choice.
But James Madison first proposed what eventually became the first amendment. His original wording was that “no religion shall be established by Congress.” But that language was later modified after it was pointed out that this might be taken to mean that the government, including the state government, had no interest in religion at all. The founders did not want this.
George Washington said in his farewell address “religion and morality are indispensable supports of our political prosperity.” Washington’s view remained the nations view throughout the 19th century and into the 20th.
But that changed in 1947. In the case of Everson vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision, that under the first amendment, neither a state, nor the federal government, could pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. For the first time in American history, the first amendment was not only about the prohibition of establishing a national religion, it was also about not giving any encouragement to any religion. The modern “strict separation” view was born. And where did the the 5 Justices look for the support of their argument? Not the constitution, because there was nothing in the constitution to help them. But to that one phrase Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. How ironic that the author of the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the proposition that human beings have inalienable rights from their Creator, and not from government. And is now being used to separate religion from the public square. For Jefferson and the other founders, religion was central to the entire American Project. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are just 2 of countless examples where the government acknowledges its debt to God. As the famously Liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in the case of Zorach vs. Clauson, just 5 years after the Everson decision, “We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a supreme being.” The founders would certainly have agreed. Following Everson, the nations moral infrastructure began to crack. At first slowly and then more rapidly. In 1962, the Supreme Court struck another blow. It ruled in Engel vs. Vitale, that a generic school prayer violated the courts new definition of the first amendment. The words of that school prayer were “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.” The prayer was not specific to Christianity or to any religion. Since then the separation of church and state metaphor has been used to remove God and religion piece by piece from American public life. Are we a better society for it? It’s hard to argue that we are. Almost every cultural and ethical indicators like marriage rates, birth rates, number of Americans giving to charity, has declined since God and religion have faded from American life. Meanwhile children without fathers in their lives, behavior problems in school, and crime going up dramatically. And all because of one vote, in one court case, based on one sentence, in one letter. On such things do nations and history turn.
Excellent history lesson. Thank you
The problem with very smart people today is that they don’t take into account that during the past there were just general understanding. He says several times that the states had instituted churches different from others. That’s why the 1st amendment says freedom of religion because different states had been developed under different theological ideas. We see how that played out in England and Europe with Puritans, Anglicans, Catholics, and so forth. Many founding fathers were preachers too. It was understood that the USA was a Christian country but would not force like Europe did one single branch of Christianity. These women are using modern understanding and applying it to the past rather than learning how the people lived and applying the laws set to understand. That is true critical thinking and we’ve lost it
Well said and concise. Ypu should posture to their channel, as well. They seem to want to understand, but our education system caters to Marxist and socialist ideals. We have lost the generation after us and it's disheartening.
They openly admit the have a 20th century interpretation, an still insist that interpretation was "foundational" to the country.
@@dkosmari I've noticed that a lot recently. People are veey double minded, often contradicting themselves in the same breat as making a point. These things are more noticeable perhaps because I'm pretty isolated from it all these days, but still....it's a trend....imho tribulation......pray, fast, repeat....you won't even "see" unless you fast...
Ask her how Maryland got its name.
Or a hundred other towns and cities in America
I don't know the history of this. How did it get its name?
@@Banooner Catholics named it
@@Banoonerit was named after Mary, the mother of Jesus
@@Jason-cn5vo Good to know. Thanks!
The look of misplaced smugness on the face of Big Bababooie as she listens to Lady reinforce her errant point is priceless.
Lol one man schooling all of them on country’s founding principles, Based patriarchy 🤴🏼
The Constitution does talk about the creator (God). Her point is moot.
So cute they are pretending to be smart and have individual views.
Big pair of distractions good on him for remembering how to speak.
She ain't even that fine.
@@TheNerdForAllSeasons Didn’t say she was I said she had big distractions. May distract from the topic or face or anything really.😂
@@shane1489 they definitely had me distracted.
Do they want to accuse someone of looking at them and objectifying them or something? Trying to use this as a trap maybe? Doesn’t make sense at all when they are putting it out there for everyone!
They talk faster to try and sound smarter when they really aren’t saying anything at all to add to the debate. 😂 I actually sat through the ENTIRE 2+ hour video and I felt dumber by listening to these ladies. Michael has the patience of a saint. God bless him. 🇺🇸
She got her "smart" look outfit on today. Cause if you believe and fantasize about it hard enough you will become smart all of the sudden. The crazy thing is they actually believe this.
yup- she looks really smart...
Good grief those must have cost a FORTUNE!!!
😂
They might be real, can't tell unless you post a link where we could see them.
Well actually, they might be real. It`s rare but it exists.
@@paulcarfantan6688i think they are
@kaidenhall2718 considering that some of her face clearly isn't, I doubt it...
Let's keep in mind the separation of church and state was about roles and functions. It was actually required back then to be a trinitarian while in office. The states job was to execute justice not the church. The church was to minister to the state. Protection of the church and different functions. The church guides the state because all laws are morale
I can only hope to one day communicate as eloquently as Michael! That was inspiring to watch.
Keep in mind Michael has plenty of practice speaking at universities, debating and answering questions posed by left leaning students.
I bow to Knowles' professionalism. No way I could concentrate with those giant knockers in my face!
Exhibit #X as to why women’s suffrage was a bad move.
As a woman myself, if giving up my vote means none of these types of women get to vote either, I will happily do so. There are so many women who have no business voting or being involved in politics
The grass is greener on the other side, basically
You think they represent ALL women? Or no men have these views?
Tell me you don’t know constitutional history without telling me you don’t know constitutional history.
Man that shirt of that girl is fighting for its life not to rip open
eeek on the low cut dress! Sorry- I find it disgusting. Love Michael- he’s so all-knowing and doesn’t just put out talking points! He follows through with facts!
If she was sitting in the middle of a nursery filled with babies, you can bet they would all be staring at her with their little arms extended towards her, for a good reason, lol.
Way to keep your eyes up bro. Respect
The state is dying , and globalism is going away.
"like countries like you're like uaaah!". I hate how a lot of them use the word "like" all the time. 🤦♂
It is a sign of a lack of confidence
I. Like... Totally agree
In defense of the ladies, Michael's argument is actually rather flawed. The ladies argument goes something like this: federal law is supreme and all states are subjugated to federal law. Additionally, the federal government is barred from establishing a religion in the first amendment. Therefore, all levels of American government - including state governments - may never make any law favoring any religion.
While Michael may be correct that the framers never intended to permanently divorce church and law, the ladies argue that that's the necessary (and in their view morally good) interpretation of the constitution. The truth is something that no one wants to admit: that civil war was a struggle to free the slaves... by conquering and subjugating the states with brutal force and bloodshed. Since then, the federal government has been the supreme power in the nation and the intention of the framers have been irrelevant.
The war of words is a difficult one when people don't agree on what they mean.
But the fluffing fathers all agreed tonehat they meant together with all the American people of the newly formed republic at the time, it is only when people degraded in mind and spirit like you started appearing that sections of the society in the Kate 20th and early 21 century started to get confused about the meaning. Go learn before coming to write laughable foolishness that only betrays your ignorance and stupidity.
or when they constantly interrupt you in mid sentence. That's about when I stop watching any debate video. Because it's not a debate when you can't finish your sentence or argument without ad hominem attacks.
No religion shall be infringed! This was made to protect the people from a State established religion like England had. It wasn't created to protect the people from religion.
You just contradicted yourself lol
@@cappster The law was made to protect the people from there being a government established religion where people don't have the freedom to their own religion. It wasn't made to protect the state from religion, it was made to protect religion from the state. I'm not sure how that is contradictory or how you don't understand.
The wall of separation was to keep government from weakening the church, but to allow church morals to strengthen the public and government. Thos Jefferson’s letter to Danbury Baptists
Wrong. Christians speak about Christianity as if they were a united front instead of splintered cells of philosophy that don't contradict each other. The separation of church and state was to protect individual belief systems without the burden of having to contribute to state sponsored religions.
If there were a separation of Church and State, it would be there to protect Religion FROM Government, NOT Government from Religion.
they have no concept of state
There’s nothing in the founding documents that suggests religion cannot influence government. Only that the federal government can’t decide a national religion. And by this they specifically were referring to Christian denominations
My gosh she's so frustrated that Michael is so very calmly eviscerating her.
We will spend the rest of our lives trying to convince other Americans that blue is in fact not red. It is blue.
That girl in the back always looks ao miserable for no reason
These girls don't know what federalism is nor historical context.
"in god we trust" was not added until 1956, a full 180 years after the country's founding.
She expressing opinion of “death to the patriarchy” with a little bit of separation of inorganic and organic aka “freedom of skin”.
Men go absolutely out of their wits by her prowess.
Kudos to Knowles for bringing intelligence and reason to the conversation
It is always interesting listening to Michael Knowles
Ms Cleavage seems fairly intelligent and well informed. It's hard to go up against somebody like Knowles, and she wasn't too bad.
WHY do you even waste your time talking to these “women”???? They disgust me.
The true target of these debates is the audience.
Good on you Michael Knowles for being respectful and making your point without sadistically humiliating the lowest hanging fruit of society. Good on your wife, she found herself a good one.
All I heard “was bla bla bla im Dirty Tramp” -Mr Deeds
You can't forget to include the Declaration of Independence into the corpus of the founding documents. The principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence are the corner stone(s) of the founding documents.
The reason our Founders declared independence from Great Britain was based on the concept of unalienable rights ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR that they argued Great Britain were infringing upon.
The Founders did not give birth to a democracy. The Founders were well aware of what democracy was and chose to avoid creating one. They believed that Democracy is a tyranny of the majority, in which it is.
The Founders created a Constitutional Republic where the corner stone is the unalienable rights of the individual endowed by the Creator. Some degree of majority rule is included within the framing of the Founders but not at the expense of the unalienable rights of the individual, hence the reason they formed a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.
The Founders never intended to create a theocracy, which is precisely why the First Amendment forbids Congress from making laws to establish a religion and also specifically allows for the free exercise of religion without government interference.
John Adams once stated "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
For people of faith, their principles are guided by their faith. To tell someone that they have to keep their religious views out of their politics is highly prejudicial. When you tell someone to keep their religion out of their politics you are telling them that they are not allowed to vote their principles if their principles are influenced by their religious convictions.
Any law that would require a "separation of church and state" under the context of how many on the left would use that phrase would essentially be discriminatory and a violation of their 1st Amendment rights.
"Separation of church and state" as it is often interpreted today would certainly make the Constitution "wholly inadequate " according to John Adams.
The concept of unalienable rights ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR would certainly be null and void without a Creator, wouldn't it? The ruling class would like nothing better than for us to dismiss the idea of a Creator and to acknowledge them as the supreme rulers of the universe. I, for one will never acknowledge the ruling class as the supreme rulers of the universe from whom all of my rights come from.
When government becomes the source from which all rights come from we no longer have rights, we have mere privilege. Our Founding Fathers declared independence for their unalienable rights ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR not privileges that can be granted and taken away by men.
The cluelessness on the right side of that table was painful to watch. Michael calmly and rationally explained why they were misinterpreting the 1st Amendment and without offering a counter argument, they just went right back to restating their incorrect statements.
I think that's called a "short refractory index" lol
This is the problem with a Catholic trying to argue against secularist feminists over Protestant Puritan thought. This argument is very simple. Separation of church and state was the founding fathers making sure the Church of England can't happen here. It was to keep the state from administering the sacraments and to keep the church from administering disciplinary actions to the civil magisterial laws. Almost every single founding father, even the deists like Jefferson believed that the Puritan protestant model and magna carta document and practice was the only way to truly have this independent nation. They've all written about it, they all came from presbyterian families and knew more about the Bible than most people today. Their idea was to separate church and state, but not God from the state, hence almost every state constitution still to this day recognizes the Christian God as the supreme creator and grantor of rights. The Christian God is on our money, on buildings, and in throughout the congressional library.
It was good debate I’m very impressed with your composure with three opponents Michael.
You mean 5 opponents as 1 of those 3 "brought a backup."
@@urbanasket4915 who were the other two?
The founders had just rebelled from a government that had an official religion (The Church of England, and if you weren't a member you were likely persecuted for it, just ask the pilgrims). They did not want an official religion that was specifically endorsed and pushed at the federal level, while at that time many states had official religions, for example: Maryland's official religion was Catholicism. It was the founder's intent not to endorse a specific religion for the whole country, not that religion should not be a part of governing.
John Adams, observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He wasn’t the only Founding Father to hold this view. James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”
More importantly, many of our Founders were men of faith or were influenced strongly by the Judeo-Christian tradition. They accepted the premise of mankind’s imperfect nature. They had experienced first-hand the oppressive dictates of Parliament and the Crown that led to the American Revolution. And they were rightly suspicious of the accumulation of governmental power by one person or a small body - “the very definition of tyranny” according to Madison.
That girl behind Michael clearly would rather talk about ANYTHING else
She's just the show's mascot, she rarely ever talks. She usually wears a German war helmet for no reason.
Who is she? She's in every video and just sits there looking pissed saying nothing
“One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations.” - Joseph Story, congressman, “Father of American Jurisprudence”
Not even the greatest dystopian scifi writers could've predicted this woke matriarchy
The girls are not wrong....i dare say they are correct. Neither is Michael. The disconnect is the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. That's what they should discuss.
Shirts anyone?
These "ladies" are not serious but devious. Why are their bodies so exposed? Talk about trying to distract from the conversation! They are a joke! Thank you Michael Knowles for honest dialogue and great knowledge.
This is one of those rare instances where the gal who sits in the background isn't wearing her Kaiser helmet 😆
😂😂😂 yup! What is her role on the show anyways??
I would also like to know what her role in the show was. She's just there and it's never explained
@@0ut1aw I think she just 'bagsies' the sit-behind-the-host seat for every episode.
Please tell me why she wears that damn thing
@@rosario508The only reason I can think of why she would wear a Pickelhaube is her being a World Wars history buff. But then again most girls aren't into military history. Or if they are they're usually only interested in it to the extent that it has to do with atrocities studies.
It is amazing how ignorant some people are to the basic principles and history of our government.
That girls top must be as strong as the hover dam, it's holding back a lot of pressure!
Her shirt must be made of kevlar.
The shirt: "I'm tired boss."
Yes, this country was founded on the principles of the separation of church and state which is a protestant principle from the reformation, because until this countries founding, most countries had a state run church, ie, the Catholic church, the Orthodox Church, the church of England. It was the Pilgrims and later puritans who fled these countries in order to worship by the dictates of their own conscience which is foreign to Catholic dogma.
The argument about separation of church and state is easily settled by people with integrity and a modicum of reading comprehension. The statement about 'congress shall make no laws...' very clearly means that Congress cannot determine for citizens which religion they are to belong to or subscribe to, or to practice. It DOES NOT prohibit religious statements in any legislation, or references to 'God', to 'Zoroaster', to 'Mamon', or to Gertrude Stein.
I disagree with Michael here. Even though the term separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, the concept is still contained there. And although the people at the time did not obey it, it doesn't mean that it's non-existent. Slavery was common then but the consistution clearly states that "all men are created equal".
Separation of church and state is a vital part of America.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental.
arguing with a brick wall... just a hot brick wall
Michael Knowles know exactly what he needs to put in the thumbnails.
I still want to know why that Asian woman is always there in the background, but never says anything.🤔
Why is she even there?
Madysen works for the podcast.
The clause is to protect the church from the state (i.e., federal government), not the other way around. What they didn't want was something like they fought to leave behind, (i.e., the church of england).
What about freedom of religion? Not "freedom from religion".
Someone trying to show off her well-endowed vocabulary. Bless her heart.
"Different things are different" is very hard for liberals to understand
Yeah, look how they act as though legal immigrants and illegal aliens are exactly the same.
This is encouraging. We have liberals defending the first amendment, and conservatives defending the second amendment. I'll sleep well tonight!
You're heading down a slippery slope, Michael Knowles.
Thank you Michael for your patience and efforts 🙏🏻
Here's the deal, y'all keep arguing Constitution and legalities on "religion" but the bottom line is, if you can separate your "beliefs" from your votes for the direction of the country, you don't really "believe" anything.
This debate about "separation of church and state" is a red herring...
respect to Michael for maintaining an eye-to-eye conversation ... eyeballs could have easily rolled south
Ah, I love this....when 3 idiots try to outwit a smart man.
Mike's eye contact is next level