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

Date: 2026-02-21

Duration: 8h 47m

Guests

Brian Atlas

NNotSoErudite >

AAndrew Wilson >

Identified Speakers

SPEAKER_00NotSoErudite (Kyla)(guest)

SPEAKER_01Brian Atlas(host)

SPEAKER_03Andrew Wilson(guest)

Key Moments

IntroBrian introduces debate: Andrew Wilson vs NotSoErudite (Kyla). Four prompts on Christian nationalism.

QuoteAndrew: 'I do hate leftists... God will punish my soul for it'

Key MomentKyla introduces Agrippa's Trilemma - becomes central philosophical battleground

Key MomentKyla spills energy drink on stream equipment

Key MomentRobot claw beer pass disaster - major spillage incident

Key MomentKyla reveals Brian offered her Whatever host position before Andrew

ControversyAndrew tells Kyla her main problem is being 'supremely unlikable'

OtherDebate ends after ~8 hours. After-show segment.

Topics Discussed

Christian Nationalism and American Identity

Whether Christian nationalism is unAmerican. Founding fathers, 1st/10th/14th Amendments.

Agrippa's Trilemma

Central philosophical battleground: all belief systems are foundationally unjustifiable.

Jesus and Political Power

Kyla argues Jesus rejected political power citing John 18, Matthew 4, John 6.

Abortion Ethics

Kyla's pro-choice legal/pro-life personal stance. When ensoulment occurs.

Content Creator Likability

Andrew critiques Kyla's streaming career, argues unlikability is main barrier.

Transcript

Page 1 of 9

Brian AtlasWelcome to a debate edition of the Whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California. I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas. A few quick announcements before the show begins. This podcast is viewer supported, so

Brian Atlasplease consider donating through Streamlabs. That's streamlabs.com/ whatever. TTS is going to be $199 and up. There will be no instant TTS. TTS will come in batches at various breaks

Brian Atlasthroughout the debate. You can see the description for all triggers and full details. Without further ado, I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of The

Brian AtlasCrucible. He is a blood sports debater and political commentator. Also joining us today is Kyla, or as she goes online, not so aerodite. She has an

Brian Atlasundergraduate in psychology and a graduate diploma in psychometrics. She's a content creator, streamer, and is a political and social commentator. You each have a about three minute

Brian Atlasopening statement each and then straight into open conversation. I believe you're going first, Kyla. >> Sure. Do we have any prompts we want to read first? Do you want me to just jump into it? >> Uh, oh yeah, sure. Well, I I'll read the prompts then. Uh, so that we're going to

Brian Atlascover four prompts, time permitting. There's Christian nationalism is unamerican. That's prompt one. Prompt two, Christians should attempt to maintain political power in US and rule

Brian Atlasthrough Christian ethics as it is the superior system. Prompt three, secular states are destined to likely revert back to religiously informed governments

Brian Atlasbecause atheists have no moral basis for which to govern, excuse me. Prompt four. Moderate liberal values are not compatible with Christianity. >> Modern.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Oh, excuse me. Modern liberal values. My mistake. Go ahead. >> America is not a church and that is not a weakness. It is one of the greatest strengths of America. The American

NotSoErudite (Kyla)experiment was built on a bold idea. Faith must be freely chosen. Conscience must be protected. Political power must be limited. Limited. The founders, men of inquiry, men of science, men who

NotSoErudite (Kyla)built universities and ran experiments, drafted a constitution that banned religious tests for office. That was not hostility to Christianity. That was confidence in its integrity. Because

NotSoErudite (Kyla)when church and state merge, bias corrupts the state. But more importantly to me, power corrupts the church. Separation does not weaken the church,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)it protects it. America's ethos is simple. We do what works. And how do we know what works? Science. We test. We measure. We build. We refine. If it

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fails, we discard it. If it succeeds, we scale it. That instinct, that relentless pursuit of truth through evidence is not anti-Christian. It is a reflection of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)intellectual humility. America is industry. America is laboratories and shipyards and production lines that outwork empires. America is a Manhattan project. Physicists racing equations

NotSoErudite (Kyla)against tyranny and winning. America is a P-51 Mustang. Not sacred tradition, but engineering superiority screaming across the sky. That spirit defeated fascism. It destroyed communism. [clears throat]

NotSoErudite (Kyla)It mapped the atom. It put satellites in orbit. It built the medical systems, infrastructure, and technology that shaped the modern world. My America fears no truth. It preserves through discovery. It does not shrink from

NotSoErudite (Kyla)paleontology, geology, or evolutionary biology. Truth is not an enemy of faith. If God is sovereign, then no discovery threatens him. Evolution and belief have coexisted for generations. Scientific

NotSoErudite (Kyla)advancement need not displace theological conviction. America did not fight a revolution to resurrect sacred hierarchy. It did not cast off empire to create another throne draped in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)religious conformity. It created a republic confident enough to protect the liberty of conscience for all people. Religious principles need to know safeguarding anyway. Christianity

NotSoErudite (Kyla)survived the Roman Empire. It persisted despite Nero trying to kill them. It grew to prominence and converted the known word, not by sword, but by the quill. I wish my Christian brothers and sisters today still had the same

NotSoErudite (Kyla)confidence in the gospel that they had then. My America's equal protection. My America is equal protection under the law. Freedom of speech, limits on state power. Those are not principles foreign

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to Christianity. They echo the belief that every person bears dignity, that coercion cannot produce genuine faith, and that moral transformation begins in the heart, not in legislation. Christianity has flourished for many of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the same reasons that America has. They have thrived without subjugation, and they spread they have spread without war. And when they did either of these two things, people came to hate it. The

NotSoErudite (Kyla)American dream and the holy word persuade because people believe their truth, not because it is enforced. America moves forward. America builds. America competes. America leads. Not by

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fusing church and state, but by unleashing human ingenuity without demanding theological uniformity first. America is doing what works. And that is why it leads the world.

Andrew Wilson>> Are you just taking the water break or do you >> All done. Okay, perfect. Andrew, go ahead with your opening statement. I'm way too hung over for this [ __ ] But I got a beer, so that'll that'll help me

Andrew Wilsonhear the dog a little bit. So, just to be blunt, some of the reasons that I don't particularly enjoy debating with Aerodite is because there's a specific style she has, which is called the pop

Andrew Wilsonquiz style. When Kyla gets in trouble around arguments and worldviews, she drops a pop quiz. Uh, do you know what X is? X usually being a random obscure fact which has little to nothing to do

Andrew Wilsonwith the conversation and your inability to answer it's met with smug delight and upspeak as she explains some random fact. The reason I bring this up is because I want the audience to be aware

Andrew Wilsonthat I'm really just I hate pop quiz the pop quiz debates. It's an old Twitch takes and it's just to me it's cringe. It's not the Socratic method. It's just I'm going to I'm going to introduce a

Andrew Wilsonpop quiz about some factoid that is completely irrelevant to the debate. But anyway, when leftists say anything is unamerican, I'm forced to laugh about it. Progressives and liberals like

Andrew WilsonErodite here uh only have one single value structure ultimately and it's loyalty to an amoral liberal system. To

Andrew Wilsonprogressive liberals, and I kid you not, let's give an example. The example of Bob. Bob can go buy a brand new deluxe PC for his 18-year-old daughter, put a

Andrew Wilsoncamera on top of it, and manage her career as a porn star and Only Fans while he's upstairs with her former teachers fapping to it on his Oculus porn helmet. And there isn't a [ __ ]

Andrew Wilsonthing anybody can do about it cuz Bob pays taxes. Bobby gets up every stinking day and he goes to work and he rolls up his sleeves and he gets the job done. And by God, if Bob wants to fap to

Andrew Wilsondaughter porn with her former teachers, who the [ __ ] are you to tell him he can't? If Bob wants to loan his wife out to his friends for an allnight blitzed up legal drug field gang bang and then finish it off by snorting prescription

Andrew Wilsonpainkillers so he doesn't come too early, then by God, that's his right as an American and a patriot. Who the [ __ ] are you sick fascist to judge Bob? He ain't breaking any laws. He pays his

Andrew Wilsontaxes and he's following the system, baby. And that's what matters. The liberal process of amoral systems rather than immoral. Everything's permitted.

Andrew WilsonIf the global hegeimon of the world needs to put machine guns to the back of little Africans heads so they can dig out the special Sudin cell phone crystals, then so [ __ ] be it. Bob needs his perfect reception for his

Andrew Wilsonsatellit driven cell phone in order to get the perfect nude image of his wife being split down the middle like a piece of meat and an all-white bread sandwich. And who the [ __ ] are you to tell Bob

Andrew Wilson[ __ ] Nobody. That's who. just a judgmental little fascist trying to legislate morality and an amoral system

Andrew Wilsonuh which is oriented around a nonsense of a smorgish board of moral buffets which boils down to a choose your own degenerate adventure. Nothing short of

Andrew Wilsonthat is unamerican. Here's a bunch of unamerican stuff depending on when you were alive. Universal suffrage pretty [ __ ] unamerican. Abolishing slavery was pretty [ __ ] unamerican. Homosexuality was definitely unamerican. Age of

Andrew Wilsonconsent laws were unamerican. Incest laws were unamerican. Income taxes were unamerican. Sex outside of wedlock was unamerican. Refusal to duel when being called out was unamerican. Not being white was unamerican. Co-ed schools were

Andrew Wilsonunamerican. Black people in white schools so unamerican we needed the military involved. The list goes on and on. But according to Arerodite, Christian nationalism is unamerican because America basically begins in the

Andrew Wilsonearly 20th century based on Lincoln models of federalism. That's what's American. Part of that, of course, should be not listening to a person who grew up under a king in a constitutional monarchy like

Andrew Wilsonshe did. Gross. Bunch of fascist bootlickers over in Maple Land. That's pretty [ __ ] unamerican, too. Christian nationalism is as compatible

Andrew Wilsonwith Americanism as the liberal order of amoral systems allows, which means perfectly compatible, because there isn't any ought to tell it no. The entire proposition from the liberal angle itself is self-refuting. It just

Andrew Wilsongoes like this. If people vote for Christian nationalists, what are they doing which is unamerican? The answer [ __ ] nothing. If they vote in a KKK Nazi fascist Hugo boss SS uniform

Andrew Wilsonwearing lunatic who packs the court, prose persecutes all non-whites uh all within the whim and the confines of the aoral system, then what's unamerican

Andrew Wilsonabout that? And the answer [ __ ] nothing. Because the progressive liberal system is built on nothing, just vague appeals to my rights and my freedoms and

Andrew Wilsonmy own system, which allows you to get rid of the system. It's absurd and self-refuting. That's my opening. >> Cool. So, I guess um to clarify, maybe we should clarify Christian nationalism

Andrew Wilsonbecause I feel like that's going to be a bit of the crux of the conversation. [sighs] So um how do you want to define it >> to the definition of Christian nationalism would just be the proposition that Christians

Andrew Wilson>> uh utilize influence and authority to stay in the moral majority and that they adopt systems towards Christian ethics. >> When you say moral majority what what

Andrew Wilsondoes that mean to you? >> It means that um most most laws and social systems confined around Christian ethics. >> Okay. So you would like to basically see

Andrew Wilsona change of current state craft to include more Christian policies. >> All Christian policies >> to Can I ask to what extent? Like does this >> to as much of a conent an extent as

NotSoErudite (Kyla)liberalism allows which is all extents. >> Okay. So would you when you advocate for Christian nationalism though a lot I'm sure you and I would probably agree probably if say the more of the moral majority becomes Christian particularly in the way that maybe you're advocating

NotSoErudite (Kyla)for we would probably move in the direction of reducing constitutional policy uh and increasing Christian policy specifically probably all the way up to including theocracy. >> No they're not incompatible.

Andrew Wilson>> So you don't think that >> constitutional policies so under liberalism that this is the great thing about liberalism. So, do you remember like you had this conversation with a guy the other day? Um, I don't know how long ago it was,

Andrew Wilsonbut he was like a fan of mine. He called in. It was about Christian nationalism. I think you got the clip on your channel. There was a point there where I started laughing because he said basically what I did, he was like, "My

Andrew Wilsonproposal is that I want all the systems and this and that to kind of reflect the image of my preferences." And you were like, "Fuck that. you're not allowed to

Andrew Wilsonbastardize my religion by implementing policies uh against, you know, what my preferences are. And I thought that's like the most American thing I can think

Andrew Wilsonof. The most American thing I can think of is that an a Canadian immigrant is like, "You know what? This is my country now, and you're not going to [ __ ]

Andrew Wilsonbastardize it with whatever your [ __ ] is cuz I don't want you to." And the other guy's like, "I don't give a [ __ ] what you want. we're going to do it anyway. And then it goes vice vers and it's like that is liberalism ultimately. If we

Andrew Wilsonwant to uh get rid of alcohol via an amendment, we can. If we want to bring it back via amendment, we can and have. If we want to get rid of guns, we can and have. We want to bring them back. We can and have. It's like everything is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)permitted. >> So yeah. So by your logic then, Christian nationalists not only are trying to win the culture, they're trying to win the state >> to impose Christian policy on the state. Well, via well, not they're through Congress.

Andrew Wilson>> They're imposing liberalism on the state actually. >> Well, spec well, in this case, let's Well, I don't want to I'm not I'm not going to equivocate. If Christian nationalists amend every single constitutional amendment within the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)confines of liberalism to reflect only Christian policy by by your metric, that's liberalism. >> So, the issue is that I'm not like a a democratic ab absolutist, right? I don't believe in democracy in the state. I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)believe in like some level of uh limited democracy. In fact, even now we have what we have like electoral democracy. We don't have we have elected representatives. We don't have direct popular vote which I think is good. I think that that's a better dem

NotSoErudite (Kyla)democratic system than for example uh pure absolute democracy like popular vote. So there's always limits on democracy. Right. So when you say liberalism I think the issue is like liberalism to you just mean it seems like what it means to you is we can vote

Andrew Wilsonfor stuff. >> Is that what it means? What does it mean to you? >> It's an it's what you outlined in your opening. Liberalism is just a sequence of systems. It's science, man. And it's

Andrew Wilsonbuilding [ __ ] and it's industry and it's all of these isms which really are just confined to I want a system. So liberalism is an amoral system. >> Do you think science is liberalism? >> No, but I think that liberals adopt

Andrew Wilsonscience as part of their system. >> Well, yeah, they allow Do you think capitalism is liberalism? >> I think they adopt capitalism as part of their system. >> Could they adopt other things? >> Sure. >> Okay. So then what's liberalism? Liberalism is an adaptation of an amoral

Andrew Wilsonsystem. >> What what is this? Sorry. At a state craft level, what does this mean? >> That you have a system which is an amoral system. >> Why is the amoral piece essential to >> because that's what that's why you

Andrew Wilsonprefer secularism. You want a system which is amoral. So it's based on individualism. It's based on >> is individualism amoral? >> Yeah. Well, from from the liberal view it is. Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> How is li How is individualism amoral? Um because there's no ought there's no ought under a liberal system for you to do anything. >> Sure there is. There's often times right like a liberal system doesn't impose any certain moral. Well the most common

NotSoErudite (Kyla)consensual >> wait what did you say a liberal system doesn't impose any certain morals. >> That doesn't make it like so when you sayal means amoral. >> Oh so like they they're agnostic. >> No they're amoral. It's worse than agnostic. >> How is that?

Andrew Wilson>> Because sorry. What's the difference between amoral and agnostic on? >> Yeah. So you can be agnostic about uh something which is moral or immoral, right? That's true. But that doesn't

Andrew Wilsonmean you're amoral. But what you're looking for is a system which is amoral. So you're saying like look, we're not going to make any moral prescriptions because that's not what the function of the state is.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So do you think what the founding fathers did was amoral? Like it's not something to respect. It's not something valuable. What do you think about the founding fathers? >> What does that have to do with anything? uh the founding fathers created the American world. You're saying it seems

Andrew Wilsonlike you're saying America is liberalism and this liberalism is weak. Or do you think America is something else became liberalism when you destroyed the republic with universal suffrage in the 14th amendment? >> That's I mean the republic was just the language utilized to [laughter] talk about a specific type of democracy,

Andrew Wilsonright? >> No, it had a foundationalism. You're talking about 39 out of 50 signers. Only three of them were deists. And foundationally the states under the 10th amendment were allowed to adopt their

Andrew Wilsonown religions and did. It was only until we got to the 14th amendment way later that this was no longer the case. And in your opening you got that wrong. >> The establishment and free exercise clause specifically said Congress shall

NotSoErudite (Kyla)make no law respecting an establishment of religion prohibiting the free exercise >> at the federal level. That's true. >> The federal level implied to the states. >> No, that happened later under the 14th amendment. In fact,

Andrew Wilson>> under the constitution. I'll show you. Brian, pull up. The 14th amendment stops states from adopting religion. I'll show you so that you understand how the process worked. >> So, do you think that the founding

Andrew Wilsonfathers establish a religion for the >> No, they established the 10th amendment which says that all all uh rights which are not given to the federal government are given to the prospective states because the first amendment covered that

Andrew Wilsonfederally. This was part of a compromise. That compromise happened because of the articles of confederation. So the Articles of Confederation initially were the libertarian wet dream, but they didn't work because states couldn't have

Andrew Wilsonuniform commerce or uniform dollars or a uniform military. So they adopted a form of federalism and compromised. The compromise was the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment stated that actually

Andrew Wilsonstates could have their own religions and they did. Almost all the states had their own religion post constitutional ratification. >> Most people don't know that. >> By own religion, what do you mean? Do you just mean the test clause?

Andrew Wilson>> No, no, no, no, no, no. They had state religions. >> The test clause you had to be >> No, not a test clause. They had actual state religions inside each independent state. They had their own religions minus, I think, two or three.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So, why did the federal United States not have a religion? Why did it allow the states to make those choices? >> Because of the 10th amendment, >> what what was the principle? What were the founding fathers trying to do? What do you think the founding fathers? >> They were trying to separate the power

Andrew Wilsonof federalists between anti-federalist and federalists. So they compromised on two major amendments. The second amendment which initially was way looser in language uh and then they compromised on the 10th amendment as well because

Andrew Wilsonstates wanted to have their own militias. They wanted to have their own militaries. They wanted to have their own currencies. Congress is like look we need to have the power to raise armies. We need to have the power to coin money. If you allow us to have those two powers

NotSoErudite (Kyla)then all the other perspective powers we'll give to the states which they did. That included religion. So if the founding fathers intended what for it to be a Christian nation to have some level of >> they intended for each state to be able

Andrew Wilsonto govern as they saw fit in order to implement religions that they chose to >> to the exclusion at a federal level specifically of any religion. Right? >> But that's not in what's in contest here. >> That is that isn't what's contest.

Andrew WilsonRight? If we're talking about America, we're talking about the nation. We're talking about the founding fathers, the minds behind the founding of >> the founding fathers put in amendment processes for us to amend things,

Andrew Wilson>> including the first amendment, right? >> Sure. Yeah. But why if they wanted to blend church and state, why wouldn't they write that? >> They did blend church and state because under the 10th amendment, they allowed

Andrew Wilsonstates to adopt state religions. It was only when the Supreme Court looked at the 14th amendment way later in our history that they decided, and by the way, that amendment had nothing to even do with this. That was about citizenship.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> State religions isn't the same thing as America having a federal religion. We realize this, right? >> Who's who who ever postulated that we needed to have a federalized religion? >> Well, I'm talking about separation of church and state. Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> For America, >> if states can have their own religion inside the state and it becomes the state religion, does that in your opinion violate that separation of church? >> If there's a test clause, yeah, it probably potentially would violate that.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)So, if the state imposes a test clause for federal power, that would be an issue. And do you know when the last >> it was super common at the time that most states had clauses. In fact, the founding fathers were so intense about ensuring separation of power that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)despite most colonies at the time having a test clause for holding power of being religious, they explicitly barred it in what was it? Article uh article six. >> Oh yeah. Then how come in Maryland you

Andrew Wilsonhad to declare until 1960s something I believe that you believed in God in order to hold office? >> Because in Maryland they made that decision. But at a federal level, well we're talking about we're not talking about Maryland. We're talking about America. >> Yeah. America

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> is Maryland. America. >> America is a coalition of states which have federalized. That's what's going on. >> But don't you think that the Constitution of America maybe matters when we're talking about the ethos of America? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, one you mean that completely

NotSoErudite (Kyla)amendable thing. >> Well, completely amendable is very makes it sound way looser than it is. Amending and adding amendments. >> It is way look what's unamerican about amending the first amendment? >> Nothing.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. So then inside of your worldview, it's completely constitutional to amend the First Amendment to get rid to get rid of the establishment clause. That would be totally appropriate under your >> I think that would be a violation of the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)American ethos. I think it's bad. And well, here how >> because America believes America's built on these things. I think that the founding fathers, >> you don't believe America Okay. Does America have >> Do I get to finish my thoughts or you going to go ahead go ahead? Okay. Right.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)I think what's really important here is that like the founding fathers I think are essential to understanding the ethos of America. I don't think they're the only piece. But if we want to look at like a litany of America over time, what we have, for example, is the founding

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fathers, despite the nation being dominantly Christian, despite the states having test religious clauses, the founding fathers looking at that going, >> "No, we need a separation of church and state." >> That's not what happened. >> That is that is absolutely what

Andrew Wilsonhappened. >> Not only is it not what happened, but within the framework that you're talking about, you just said it's not unamerican to amend. >> How did it not happen? >> Hang on. You just said it's not it's not in any way unamerican to amend the first amendment. The first amendment is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I should I should have clarified that because when we say American I'm meaning the ethos. What I should have said is it's not anti-constitutional. The constitution would allow. >> So okay then let's follow that line of logic and see if that's true. Does American have any sort of like ethnic ethos?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. >> What is it? >> Dominantly white culture hedgemonically. >> So that's part of the American ethos. >> Yeah. To some degree. Yeah. Significantly. Right. like >> should it stay that way? >> Uh I I like it. Yeah. >> So it should America should stay a white

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Protestant nation. >> Uh but that's not the central piece of the ethos. You said does it have a cultural e ethos? And I said >> I'm asking [clears throat] if Okay. Should it stay white? >> Um no. I don't care about the whiteness >> and that's not part of American ethos.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> How is that the case? Absolutely. Something that can be a part of the ethos and also change because the ethos here that's central isn't the whiteness that I was pointing to. It's some of the cultural values that come in. For example, Protestant work ethic, right? taking value in the product produce that you in the product that you make as

NotSoErudite (Kyla)well. >> And if America no longer had any of that and became completely atheistic but still followed these constitutional amendments, that's still plenty American, right? >> As long as they hold to central ethos of what I think the American dream and vision is outlined, for example, with the founding fathers at the Declaration

Andrew Wilsonof Independence. >> Well, then if it's not whiteness and it's not cult anything and it's not anything cultural $69. >> Oh my god. >> It means that according to >> No idea what happened there. I apologize. >> If it's not So here's what I'm asking.

Andrew WilsonIf it's not ethnic, >> what do you think American ethos is? Do you have any American >> ethos? And it's not cultural. >> I said, it is cultural. >> It's cultural. Yeah. Okay. So, what are the cultural things? What is American culture?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, doing things that work, ingenuity, discovery. >> Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. >> Wait, what do you think? American >> and what? Hang on. What was the other thing you said? >> I think ingenuity. >> Ingenuity.

Andrew Wilson>> Those are some of them. >> So, as long as >> Do you reject these as part of the American ethos? I do. So as long as none of these life, liberty or pursuit of happiness or ingenuity is violated then

NotSoErudite (Kyla)it's in the spirit of America >> potentially. We would have to look at it in a relativistic right like the e these ethos like things we have to understand like what we're talking about. You'd have to give me an example. >> That's what I'm asking you about is what we're talking about. So if any of these things

Andrew Wilson>> what do you think is American? I well so I I think that what's core at the the central kind of product of Americanism is this idea of systemic liberalism. The system itself is what mean

Andrew Wilson>> what's that? >> What is systemic liberalism? >> Yeah. So that it's just the idea that like ah there's a secular separation. There's uh systems in in place within the constitutional confines. There's

Andrew Wilsonthings which we're appealing to in law. Uh I don't think that liberals I don't think that liberalism and modernity is doing anything other than looking at those systems. I think that originally founders our founders wanted to have

Andrew Wilsonsomething which was much more akin to ethnationalism for sure. I think that they wanted to have something that was much more akin to nobody voting in universal suffrage at all because it didn't give anybody the right to vote. So I don't think that those things were foundational to the American experience

Andrew Wilsonbecause the founders didn't allow it. >> Why didn't they? because they they didn't want people to come over here who weren't uh western English basically. >> That's not why. >> Yeah, it is why. >> No, you can read it in Federalist number

Andrew Wilsontwo. Like the the uh argument for suffrage is very clear from Hamilton. >> Okay. Wait on when have you read the anti-federalist papers? >> No. >> Do you realize there's there's federalist papers? There's the anti-federalist papers. >> Yes.

Andrew Wilson>> These were compromises which were made from the original articles of confederation. >> What did suffrage mean to >> originally? the 39 the the 39 I believe it's 39 out of 50 delegates who signed the constitution only three were deists

Andrew Wilsonmost of them were Protestants loyalist Protestants by the way and on top of all of that most of them wanted only white states and made it very clear they only wanted white states they put that into

Andrew Wilsonthe very ethos of what they considered Americana do I think that modern liberalism is looking at any sort of people group is uh modern liberalism

Andrew Wilsonlooking at any sort of like um uh cultural uh environmentalism in order to like say, "Hey, this is what America is." No. All you can appeal to is systems. That's it. That's all you have

Andrew Wilsonis a system. Liberalism is a system of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and ingenuity. Whatever the [ __ ] that means. Doesn't even mean anything. >> Of course. >> What? >> What? What do you mean?

Andrew Wilson>> What is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? I could completely amend the first amendment and still do all of those things. I think the issue is that most of the country would oppose you amending the first amendment because the first amendment is is foundational to what makes America great.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So what so what if most of the country opposes it that it's built into liberalism if all it is is >> the whole country opposes it is because like America is this consensual emergence of a bunch of people that believe in something >> and what if we decide that we don't

Andrew Wilsonbelieve in the first amendment anymore and amend it? What's unamerican about? >> Do you not believe in the first amendment anymore? >> That has nothing to do with the argument. What is unamerican about amending the first amendment? Well, again, the American is this ethos. It would be technically constitutional, but

NotSoErudite (Kyla)I would argue that it would be a bad constitutional move, and I think it would violate the founding fathers. And I think the founding fathers were on to something when they made that first separation of free speech and separation of church and state. >> Is vi do we should we adhere to everything the founders said or no? >> No, not necessarily.

Andrew Wilson>> Well, then how who cares if we violate it? >> There's there's What do you mean who cares? >> Yeah. If if you're like, look, if you violate the things that the founders wanted, that's not unamerican. But this is unamerican because it might violate what the founders wanted. You're in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)contradictions. P >> not contradictions. Like pluralism allows for competing values, right? Obviously, right? And so what you're kind of doing right now is you're sitting here and you're being like, well, there's two children. They're your children one side and your husband's on

Andrew Wilsonthe other side. Who are you picking? And let's say I pick the two children. You're going, why do you hate your husband? And I was saying, that's not what's happening here. >> I don't even know that that first of all, that's not the analogy. The analogy would actually be this. You have your

Andrew Wilsonhusband and your children on both sides. You pick both. This other guy has his husband and children and he doesn't pick both. >> That's not how pluralism and monism work. >> Wait, wait a second. As long as you're saying that both of these sets are both

NotSoErudite (Kyla)moral behaviors because you have an amoral system, meaning you wouldn't restrict either of these things. >> That's not nec we absolutely restrict people's behaviors and we al we often restrict people's behaviors for the benefit of the state. Right. Laws exist.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> And who makes them? >> Uh the people that we vote elect. I see. So if we elect people who vote in different laws, how's that unamerican? >> So it would be against the American ethos if a whole bunch of Christian

NotSoErudite (Kyla)nationalists for example convince people that we should actually reduce things like liberty. I think that we would be moving away from >> you wouldn't be reducing liberty. Absolutely. >> It would just be a different kind of liberty. >> If you start imposing church into state for example and the only religion that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you can practice is Christianity that would be violating liberty. How if we amend the process? How >> even if you amend the process? So you can amend the process to make us a less free nation. But what I would say is that would be wrong. That would be

NotSoErudite (Kyla)unamerican. Yes. How? >> Because America is built on life and liberty. >> America is built on the fact that you can amend America. >> No. America is built on why >> why do we have an amendment process? >> Why wouldn't TJ when he's writing the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Declaration of Independence, why wouldn't he, for example, say America is just what we vote for? It's just like consensus stuff, man. It's just like loosey goosey. He says specifically an ethos that drives the dream. Right? And you're saying, well, this ethos, this

NotSoErudite (Kyla)dream, it's just silly. It's nothing. I mean, it's it's just not nothing, right? It makes me go foundational America on liberalism, on the liberal view, right? >> So, you think America's nothing. >> Let each other finish.

Andrew Wilson>> It's not built on any sort of ethnicity. It's not built on any sort of cultural union. >> Well, I did say culture. >> Well, but you just said life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. >> Is that not cannot that be cultural values? >> Yeah. No.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Why not? What's what does it mean? >> What's an example of a cultural value? >> What the [ __ ] does it mean? Let's learn. >> What's an example of a cultural value if not something like life and liberty? >> A unison of cultural values are usually foundation to ethical systems. >> No, they're not. So, what what what's a cultural value that you would say that's

Andrew Wilsona cultural value? >> I just told you I would use I would utilize for culture some kind of glue. That would be a unison. Otherwise, it's not cultural. >> Okay. What's a Scottish cultural value? >> Um >> Irish. Sorry, you're Irish. That's an

Andrew WilsonIrish cultural value. >> Yeah. So I think that Irish cultural values would again revolve around foundationalism, religious ethical systems >> like what >> well for that for uh Ireland I think

NotSoErudite (Kyla)what the Protestant Catholic >> so the cultural value is of being Irish is being Catholic. >> I think that the there's a union between the people group and the ethical foundations. >> So how are Irish people different than

Andrew WilsonBritish people who are also al also on the back of Anglican or Catholic? >> Well because they're not right. So England has a completely different set of people groups which come from Britannians. The Britannians uh who came

Andrew Wilsonin settled all of England. >> Um when the church came in and then they separated into Anglican, they have now a completely different set of value structures than other places do including Western Europe. >> Anglican

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> what >> the British cultural value. >> So the only thing that makes British and Irish people different is one's Catholic. >> I said different people group. Let's Okay. Okay. Steel man. >> What's the cultural value? >> Steel man my position real quick.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I'm I'm asking you actually to steal man mine cuz you're insisting that when I list these ethos. >> How can I steal man your position when you're asking me questions? >> I'm asking you questions because you seem to be unsatisfied with the answers that I have supplied because you're not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)granting me ethical. >> You're going if you're going to get someone interrupting it has to be mutual. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So I I gave you an example of a couple of cultural ethos and you said what? This is nothing. It doesn't mean anything. Well then I said hold on. So

NotSoErudite (Kyla)then I said, "Can you give me an example of let's say Irish culture?" Hold on. And you said Catholic. And I said, "What makes them different then from just another group of people that are also Catholic?" >> They have different set values. >> Like what?

Andrew Wilson>> Like for instance, they have different religious foundationalism. They have different values in their society that they honor. >> Irish cultural value. Give me one. >> Not life, not liberty, not pursuit of happiness. How am I wrong?

Andrew Wilson>> I don't know. I'm not Irish. >> Well, I don't just value isms. If it's just isms of like a cultural value is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then it's like, okay, then cultural values are also just not life, not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)liberty, and not pursuit of happiness. Then >> does that make any sense to you? >> That's not what anyone's saying. I'm literally saying it is what you're saying. Let each other finish, please. >> I'm just asking you for a single example of an Irish culture. >> When you're talking, let each other

Andrew Wilsonfinish. >> And you're just saying Catholic. >> Uhhuh. >> So, what's an example of an Irish cultural value? So would do you agree that Catholic would be an example of an Irish cultural value? >> I wouldn't say it's unique to Ireland. No. >> So why would it need to be unique? >> We're talking about

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness unique to America? >> So are you just saying that cultures don't really exist? They're just the religions. Like there's no difference between Irish people and let each other and another group that's uh Catholic as well, like Spanish people.

Andrew Wilson>> So what a culture is is going to be the grouping of the people, >> the consideration of the value group of those people, and then the foundations of those people. >> So what's an example of an Irish cultural Catholicism. >> So how is that different than Spanish people who are also Catholic? >> Because they have a different people

Andrew Wilsongroup. >> So what emerges that's different between these two groups? >> Language, customs, orders. >> Yeah. Values. >> Not just values. No, >> of course not. Of course not. Just values. >> They can have actually they have a lot of shared values. >> Sure. Of course. Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> But again, you have to take the people group. Then you have to take the social orders. Then you have to take the foundationalism in order to create culture. For you, you're saying life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Now I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)gave you concrete examples of cultural values. Can you tell me what this means? What does that mean? >> So if we're talking about the culture of people, >> I think one of the re relevant things for the American culture might be not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)excluded to the founding fathers and what they thought you know the founding of the entire nation kind of matters. So in the declaration of independence for example, Thomas Jefferson outlines life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But that is a unique thing, a unique

Andrew Wilsonhallmark of being >> Jefferson didn't sign the Constitution. >> That doesn't mean that he didn't write the Declaration of Independence. We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. >> Declaration, the Declaration of Independence was a propaganda piece built on an axiom which said under God,

Andrew Wilsonright? >> So as an American, you just don't care about the Declaration of Ind. >> I'm saying that when we're talking about foundationalism, the reason I bring up that Jefferson didn't sign the con, we are >> we're talking about value structures.

Andrew WilsonYou're saying that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness You're saying life, liberty, pursuit of happiness is the foundation of Americanism. Nope. >> Then what is >> um the what is the foundation? It's the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the foundation of America is the founding fathers. It's the Constitution. It's the Declaration of Independence. It's the entire idea. >> It's systems. >> Well, it's systems and its ethos. >> What's Well, you see what I mean though? That's circular.

Andrew Wilson>> You say life, liberty, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. That is not the foundation of America, >> right? I I suppose they can be foundations in that like they're irreducible. Life,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)liberty are kind of irreducible. >> Why couldn't they be reduced? >> Because it's going to become circular eventually. Like most things will become circular. Say you have a culture that values work ethic. >> Yeah. >> How do you reduce that? What does that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)mean? >> But that people work really really hard. >> Yeah. Isn't that kind of just like you're just kind of saying? So it's it's circular. >> I'm not sure that it's circular, but it's a horistic. >> How is saying work ethic is people work

Andrew Wilsonhard, not circular. Well, you could give qualifiers for what hard work is. >> Well, you didn't. You just said hard work is you just asked me how and I explained it. >> So, this is one of the key talking about foundationalism. You said life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but then said

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that that's not a foundation and then only pointed to systems. >> I said it's no, no, no. I didn't say it's not foundation. I said it's not foundationalism. Cuz when I'm hearing that, and I could be wrong. When I hear foundationalism, I'm assuming that you mean the like the philosophical framework.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So when I'm saying foundational, I just >> what's the philosophical framework of the United States other than a system? >> I'm not I'm not So when I'm saying the cultural ethos, I'm not talking about

Andrew Wilsonthe philosophical framework necessar. >> I'm asking you what is the philosophical framework of the United States other than a system? What? >> Well, it is a system. >> Yeah, exactly. So all you're appealing

Andrew Wilsonto in your liberal ethical system is a [ __ ] is just systems. It's an amoral system. That's it. So state crafter systems. Yes. >> Yeah. So me. So here we can make this super easy. We can make this super easy.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Then >> is changing the first amendment immoral? >> No. But I think it would make the country worse. >> So it's an amoral system. >> I would argue like it's probably immoral because probably the people doing it, right? Like which which people want to

Andrew Wilsonchange free speech? >> Who cares what would make it what would make it immoral? >> Well, the context and the individual who's doing it might make it immoral or not. >> Yeah. Yeah, but in and of itself it's not >> uh it might be right. Things are relative.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. So in and of itself is not relative anymore because it's just in and of itself. >> So I am a moral objectivist and a relativist, right? >> What >> you're a P and not P.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, I believe in that morals are objective. >> Uhhuh. >> But also that they are relative. >> This is standard. This is like Aristotle stuff. >> What the [ __ ] What? >> Okay, so uh stealing is wrong. Uh-huh.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> However, the guy whose family is going to die if he doesn't steal relatively contextually might be okay for him to steal in that situation. Right. >> You're just talking about pluralism. >> I'm not just I'm not what's the competing values here? >> Because under pluralism, what you're

NotSoErudite (Kyla)saying is that there's many pathways to get to what the spirit of the thing is. >> That's not what pluralism is. >> It is. >> Nope. >> Okay. What is it? >> Okay. I wrote it down cuz I It's when Google. >> It's multiple irreducible competing

NotSoErudite (Kyla)goods in moral pluralism. >> Multiple what? irreducible competing goods. >> Meaning that there's multiple pathways to get to somewhere. >> Nope. That means, for example, that you have two moral systems that are both

NotSoErudite (Kyla)good. So, justice and mercy, >> and there's multiple ways to use them to get to the thing we're trying to get to. >> Nope. >> In this case, they're competing against one another. So, in the case, for example, of somebody who's cheated on his wife, there's morals of justice that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)we would want to uphold, but there's also maybe morals of mercy or union of family. And so to make a decision, there isn't an obvious correct answer between justice or mercy. Usually we have to do some type of balance between the two.

Andrew Wilson>> Or we could do no type of balance and utilize one in order to get to the same objective as the other. >> What would what's the objective? >> So for instance, if we wanted to like prosecute a guy for a crime, we could say we're only going to prosecute him on

Andrew Wilsonthis crime based on justice. That could be one value set which we adhere to, right? >> Yeah. Sure. >> Uh we could also appeal to something else like dignity. I don't know. Let's just say we put that up and say that's

Andrew Wilsonwhat we're going to use instead. Well, the justice people and the dignity people, right? Neither one of them are wrong and they're both going towards the same goal, which is execution of guy just or execution of guy good or execution of guy fine.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, I guess if the goal if you want to make this like pluralist, I guess if you're >> because it is virtue ethicist. >> Yes, of course. >> You're a virtue ethicist. Okay. So, you want to basically utilize and >> Well, I'm a Christian ethicist, but

NotSoErudite (Kyla)virtue ethics is involved. Yes. >> Okay. Gotcha. So in the case of um why are we here? Yes. We were talking >> because we're talking about systems. How is the United States something other than just a system?

Andrew Wilson>> You said in and of itself if we changed the first amendment that would not be immoral. Finish, please. >> So you don't think America is anything but its system. There's nothing else that makes America unique that you can

Andrew Wilsonpoint to and say that's America >> under the liberal view. No, >> under your view. I'm asking your view. >> Yeah. Well, under my view, I think that there was once upon a time a powerful idealism which was founded around

Andrew WilsonChristian ethics that was foundational to America, which is now basically destroyed by >> foundational founding fathers or foundational in what way? >> It was foundational to the moral the moral character of the people who lived here. >> So then why did they write it out in the

Andrew Wilsonfederal papers? >> Write what out? >> Uh the church from statecraft. >> They didn't. >> Yeah, they didn't. >> No, they didn't. They separated they separated in the first amendment only that the federal government couldn't

Andrew Wilsonpass a religion on the people but under the 10th amendment states could still maintain their religions >> and then most states came to agree that actually the federal uh precept was better right. >> No yeah >> no what happened actually was a lot of

Andrew Wilsonstates were looking at moving back towards that which is why the this whole idea of the 14th amendment being reinterpreted the way that it was to say that states couldn't do that happened.

Andrew WilsonUm I I feel like we have a very different understanding of suffrage. >> I'm not That's not suffrage. That's the 19th amendment. >> 14th Amendment. >> Yeah. 14th Amendment, I think, is citizenship. It's about birthright citizenship. >> You're right. It's about birthright citizenship. Yeah.

Brian Atlas>> The 14th amendment. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It said the 14th amendment prohibits states from infringing on religious freedom by applying the first amendment to them through the due process. >> Read the 14th.

Andrew WilsonUh >> read it. I just did. But uh hold on. Wait. There's >> He wants you to read it in a way that goes to his argument. >> I just wanted him to read the amendment, but I think that that's the case.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Besides, even if it wasn't, it's not dunk for you. You didn't remember. >> Wait, it is. So the idea of remembering isn't what matters in a conversation of like which idea is more true, right? >> Yeah. Hang on. >> So it's not about me. >> Read the amendment.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I don't know why you said that. [laughter] >> Aren't we trying to talk about ideas here? Yeah. So whether I remembered or not like poo poo for me I should have remembered 14th amendment but if the 14th amendment says what I'm suggesting

Brian Atlasthat's point to my ideas not me >> different clauses should I read all all the clauses okay one citizenship clause >> yes there we go >> it declares that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a US

Brian Atlascitizen including formerly enslaved people overturn the DreadScott versus Sanford decision number two due process clause it says states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty or property

Brian Atlaswithout due process of law. This protects individuals from unfair state government actions. Clause three, equal protection clause. It requires states to provide equal protection of the laws to all people. This clause became the

Brian Atlasfoundation for many civil rights decisions, including Roie Wade, Brown versus Board of Education, Oberfell versus Hodgeges. >> So these were all interpretations of the amendment. There's nothing in there about religion. >> You're right. But you said that that was

Andrew Wilsonthe 14th amendment was saying that states could have their own unique religion. But in fact, >> no, that's the 10th amendment. >> Wait, why were you citing the 14th amendment? >> Because I was telling you that most of the reason states wanted to move back to

Andrew Wilsonthe idea of religiosity. It was through the interpretation of the 14th amendment, which had nothing at all to do with religion, had to do with birthright citizenship >> and due process. >> They were they focused on that. And

Andrew Wilsonhere's how they did it. What they were saying was uh basically states aren't going to be able to tell uh anybody who is or isn't a citizen. Okay? They're not going to be able to do that anymore and

Andrew Wilsonit [snorts] needs to be uniform. So what happened is the Supreme Court began to rule that oh well since it has to be uniform we'll apply the first amendment there too. This is way way way late in

Andrew Wilsonthe game though. Okay. Early Constitution remember at this time your founders are all dead, right? all these people are dead. >> They didn't want anything to do with that. They wanted the states to be able

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to make those prospective decisions themselves, which they were doing. >> Sure. So, there was a compromise, particularly the compromise was because they needed to unite the colonies, but a lot of the colonies had a lot of different predelections about how to run

NotSoErudite (Kyla)state craft, right? And so, one of the reasons why they wrote out separation of church and state at a federal level, but allowed states to maintain it, is because they wanted states to still join. It was very important to them particularly since the revolution was about to happen that they had the states

NotSoErudite (Kyla)none of that one another. >> Well again so the 14th amendment didn't s none of that proved that you were right about >> yes it did 100% did >> it has nothing to do with religion. >> That was my point not yours.

Andrew Wilson>> That was my point. >> I never said the 14th amendment had anything to do with religion. >> You did you said I said the first I haven't written I've only said no it was citizenship and you were like nope nope. Oh, wait. It is citizenship. And then

Andrew WilsonBrian, he did a quick Google search. And what he was reading was an interpretation of it. When he read the actual amendment, no, I was correct. >> I've never denied that it was about citizenship. I said, "What does the 14th amendment have to do with religion?"

Andrew Wilson>> Read it so that it favors Andrew. But it did favor me cuz I was right. >> Well, he started reading it and had nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with like equal liberty. >> No, it was the opposite. He was saying

Andrew Wilsonfirst that, hey, this was about religion when it wasn't. No, he was. What? No, he was not. >> Yes. What was the first thing you read, Brian? >> Okay. >> It was the the citizenship clause. >> Mhm. >> Uh there's the due process clause.

Brian Atlas>> No, no, before that. The first thing that you read. >> Oh, the first one. Uh before I looked it up again. Oh. That the 14th Amendment prohibits states from infringing on religious freedom by applying >> Thank you. infringing on religious

Andrew Wilsonfreedom. >> Thank you. He was saying that the 14th Amendment was about religion. I said, "No, it's not. That was about That was literally about citizenship. I can look stuff up for you, too. >> I appreciate that. >> [ __ ] crazy. >> Wait, nothing crazy's happened here.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yes, it has. >> So, would you agree that in this conversation I brought up the first amendment around religion? >> You have brought up the 10th and 14th to justify why actually the states were given power to decide their own religion.

Andrew Wilson>> Just the 10th. The 14th was how it was reinterpreted to get away from the idea that states could have their own religion. >> Okay. Gotcha. I see. So, can we read the 10th? >> Yeah.

Brian Atlas>> Yeah, sure. >> Uh, one m one moment.

Brian Atlas>> All right. The 10th amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to the people. >> Which is why post foundation >> just state power. So none of that is states establishing a religion. >> Yeah. No. You know, >> this is saying the federal government respects the the state's right to make certain decisions. Like in suffrage, the

Andrew Wilsonstate reserved the right to decide who is people, right? >> How many states maintained a state religion post constitutional ratification? >> I believe all of them did initially. >> Then what is your argument?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> My argument is that the states are not America. The founding fathers what is America? >> Well, the founding fathers are probably a lot closer than what Maryland thought. >> That's not Maryland. The states >> Yeah. Well, >> the states are would be all

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Is Maryland a state? >> Uhhuh. But all states is different than one state. >> Sure. And yet all states felt that religion and church should be unified, that they should have a state religion, that there should be a test for religion. And the founding fathers knew

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that and despite that wrote it in explicitly that Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion and prohibit the free exercise thereof. >> That way the states could do it. Yes. >> That they were not saying what the states were going to do. They were

Andrew Wilsonsaying America >> Uhhuh. which is federal. >> Yeah. No, it's also state which is why we have the 10th amendment. >> America is federal government >> and state government. >> So Maryland is the is America. >> America is a state or Maryland has a

Andrew Wilsonstate government. >> I didn't say that it didn't. >> Great. And is that state government allowed to do all the things that the federal government can't do that it's not in the powers of the federal government via the 10th amendment? >> What matters more to what >> now what matters is answering my

Andrew Wilsonquestion. Is Maryland allowed to do whatever Maryland wants to do under the 10th amendment? As long as that's not in the hands of the federal government as long as those aren't things which are allocated to the federal government, can Maryland do what it wants?

Andrew Wilson>> Uh by and large as long as it's not violating any of the constit great. So if that's the case, then uh there was actually no reason at all why states could not have their own state religions and they did.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So if the So what do you think is more important for America? what a state did like Pennsylvania or what the founding fathers wrote into the founding documentation. >> The founding fathers wrote the 10th amendment into the founding documents. >> Yes. To respect the state's ability to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)make decisions >> like have a state religion. >> Sure. But also multiple things like commerce >> and also state religion. >> Sure. But then they also explicitly prohibited at a federal level any dispute.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Any involvement of a state religion. There's no federal state. No, there's no federal religion. >> Uhhuh. And um >> that's never been in dispute. >> Yep. That has been in dispute because the question here is what's more

NotSoErudite (Kyla)America, what's more American. What Pennsylvania did in like the 1700s. >> The question is nationalism. That's my question to you. What matters more for America, the American ethos,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)understanding America as a country, what Pennsylvania did at the founding of America or what the American founding fathers wrote? >> Both. Both are important. >> Which matters more. >> Neither one of them matter more than the other. >> Equally valid. equally mattered. >> The system wouldn't work without the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)validity of both state and federal government. >> That's not what we're saying. You're saying that the Pennsylvania policies are equally as valid as the federal >> under the 10th amendment. Yes. >> No. To No, no, no. Hold on. You're you're you're equivocating again. How

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> you're being naughty? Because you're pretending like what we're talking about is now statecraft. That Pennsylvania policy was valid under the Constitution. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I'm asking about the American idea. The idea of America. What matters

Andrew Wilsonmore to the history and understanding of America as a nation? >> Both. >> Which matters more? >> That's you're saying they're equal. When you say Pennsylvania matters just as much as the founding fathers more or less, which is fine. It's just absurd.

Andrew Wilson>> Absent. How is it absurd? The system doesn't work unless you have the state governments. It doesn't work. >> That's not what anyone's saying. Nobody here is denying that. >> So, how could it be more important what the founders did when it was intricate that the states had the rights

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> to America as an idea? I think what the founding fathers write kind of matters like the most. Yeah. >> Why? >> Because they're founding the federal government. They're founding >> based on a compromise with the states. >> Yeah. But they're founding a nation

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> based on the states. >> But that the nation is not Pennsylvania. The nation is not >> the nation is a collection of states. >> So why is it the case that if all the states had all these religious practice and all these religious law, why didn't the federal government, if they wanted

Andrew Wilsonto unify them, why didn't they just write in uh you know that America is a Christian nation? Why didn't they do that? because you had what was called panrotestantism. Each one of these states had different religious organizations in them. And

Andrew Wilsonsome of them wanted to be this type of Protestant. Some wanted to be Catholic. Some wanted to be Quakers. So they gave them the 10th amendment. And the 10th amendment said that they could do that [ __ ] They could be a Protestant state. >> Why not just say they have to be

Andrew WilsonChristian? Why not just say at a federal level that they can just be the Christian? >> Because the states demanded that the federal government not step in to tell them what their state religion had to be. That's not true. Actually, the >> that was the compromise. >> So, one thing.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yes, it was. >> So, no, no, no, hold on, hold on. The compromise here is that states are allowed to make certain rules of law within state that don't that are not within the federal purview. That is the compromise, right? >> Yes.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> That's one compromise. >> Okay. I don't know why you're interjecting there at all. Um, thank you for the clarification. >> This is like being like there's there's three ways of feminism and I like there's four and you're like three's

Andrew Wilsonwithin four. It's like, okay. >> No, it's nothing like that. It's like saying this. It's like saying the states, the reason that this compromise happened in the first amendment is because a Catholic state didn't want the federal government tell them they had to be a Protestant state. >> So why did they just have

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> they did want the federal government to say that they could have a Catholic state and they did under the 10th amendment. >> So why is it the case that within like the first uh federal address all of the states were extremely upset because they mentioned nothing about God. There was

NotSoErudite (Kyla)no establishment of America as a nation of God. There are ways, for example, that they probably could have compromised between all of the religions so that it wasn't saying a Catholic leader, but just saying a Christian leader, right? They could have done

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that, but they didn't do that explicitly to to the upset actually to the upset of the religious leaders, to the upset of some of the founding fathers. >> It's because >> So why did they do that? >> Because Protestants didn't consider

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Catholics to be Christians. That's why >> that that's not why. >> It is why. >> No, the TJ writes about this. The reason why, right, and you have this in the federalist papers, the reason why is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)because they were breaching away from a king who was also a spiritual leader, right, in the UK. And they had a huge issue with it. They viewed this blend of church and state, especially at a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)federal level as a problem. In fact, I suspect if you go into it, a lot of the founding fathers thought that all the states shouldn't have a state level religion. They just weren't going to comment on that because they needed to unify the countries. Correct. Over time,

Andrew Wilsonthe colonies adopted the exact same framework. A couple of them let each other. >> So, first of all, there was a couple a couple of them who didn't want to.

Andrew WilsonThat's true. But the thing is is like the entirety the entirety of the federal Well, I'm talking about there was a couple of founders who didn't want states to have a religion. That's what I'm specifically. You're >> talking about the deists, >> not just the deists. There was others

Andrew Wilsonwho weren't deists, but by and large, most of them were fine with the compromise. So a majority of the founding fathers are >> Is it my turn now? So here's what actually happened because since you have revisionist history that I don't know where you came up with.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. >> You couldn't say in the first amendment u that this is to be a Christian nation specifically unless you gave a specific denomination cuz denominations did not recognize other ones as being Christian.

Andrew WilsonSo what they did instead was they said look Congress is not going to make an establishment of a religion period. We're going to leave that to the states. Mhm. >> And then they put in the 10th amendment. That's exactly what the states did. They

NotSoErudite (Kyla)put in their own religions. >> Why could they have So why do they ban religious test clauses? You could easily make religious test clauses. >> They still have them in almost every state. >> No, no, no. At a federal level, it's article 6. It's explicitly banned. No

Andrew Wilsonreligious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Because there could be instances where you had people who were representatives of states who for some reason needed to

Andrew Wilsonoperate at the federal level, right? They didn't want to be like, "Hey, you're a Catholic, so your oath is no good here." Or, "You're a Protestant, so your oath is no good here." Or, "You're a this, your oath is no good here." That was part of the compromise.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Why didn't they just use the Apostles Creed? I all both Protestants and Catholics at the time acknowledged the Apostles Creed >> because they didn't recognize each other as Christians. So that doesn't matter. They both recognize the apostles creed isn't Catholic or Protestant. It's just

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Christian, right? Whether or not they would fight about who's a heretic or not. Why not if you want a religious test clause that compromises between these two religions? Why didn't they just write in the Apostles Creed? I'm sure they were familiar with it >> because they didn't recognize each other

Andrew Wilsonas Christians. Meaning at the federal level, if you sworn in as a Catholic, let's say, right, in order to [ __ ] I don't know, help with some piece of legislation or do something that you weren't, you know, you were supposed to

Andrew Wilsondo at the federal level, the Protestant nations or states might be like, we don't recognize that cuz that's an oath of a Catholic. So, at the federal level, they had to stay secular. >> Would have said that the Apostles Creed is Catholic. >> What does the Apostles Creed have to do

NotSoErudite (Kyla)with anything we're talking about? >> The Apostles Creed is like one of the central creeds to like what we say is Christian. So what? That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. >> Of course it does. Why would So you said if a Catholic takes the apostles

Andrew Wilsoncreatures, why don't the federal government, it was not within the federal purview to make the determination of getting the states to compromise on the [ __ ] apostles creed. It was under their purview to

Andrew Wilsonsay, "Hey, what we're going to do is make it so that you don't have to swear any oaths from the Catholic or Protestant perspective, but rather we'll leave that to the states. the states can make it so that you can swear uh that you're a Protestant or you can swear

Andrew Wilsonthat you're a Catholic or you can swear this or you can swear that. It was up to states perspectively under the 10th amendment. >> Right. But at a federal level, it was barred and you're saying nobody's disputing that. >> Hold on. >> I don't we we're just like going in a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)circle. >> We can keep going in the circle, but I'm not going to let this point go cuz I think that one of the issues is that what you're trying to do is say, well, because the states had this rule, that means that was the founding of America. And it's like no, the founding fathers knew that this existed. Knew for example

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the Apostles Creed existed and there and they and despite all of this, despite the standard of all of the states utilizing a religious test, they rejected they not only did they reject

NotSoErudite (Kyla)it, they explicitly wrote it in in article 6 that no test can be utilized. Despite the fact that the founding fathers were pretty smart, I imagine if they wanted a religious test in there that could satisfy both Protestants and

Andrew WilsonCatholics, they probably could have found it like the apostles did. So your whole position is why didn't the founders try to find some way that all of the different religious denominations could agree to some creed and enshrine it in the first amendment? That's your

NotSoErudite (Kyla)argument. >> My argument would be if they wanted a blending of church and state, they were pretty intentional to go out of their way to ensure there was no blending of church and state. >> Except they gave the states the 10th amendment so that they can blend the church and the state. >> Tell the states what to do. That was

Andrew Wilsonpart of the colony deal. >> No [ __ ] That's my point. But at a federal level, they went be above and beyond to explicitly bar this. >> They went above and beyond to make the compromise that each single state could

Andrew Wilsonhave their own religion if they wanted it. And the federal government wasn't going to tell them what that had to be. >> Would no religious clause would not. >> Yes. That way that was the compromise. Federal government can't tell us what

NotSoErudite (Kyla)our religion's going to be. >> Why are you spuring out? >> And the the feds were like, "Okay, we could do that." Do you think the founding fathers were like maybe a little bit thoughtful and intentional that they like worked pretty hard to figure out the compromises? >> Some of them were lazy [ __ ]

NotSoErudite (Kyla)womanizing pieces of [ __ ] But what's the point? >> They could be womanizing and also my point would be that if they wanted a religious test clause that could unify the religions, they probably could have found one that would have worked because they found a whole bunch of other

NotSoErudite (Kyla)compromises. The Apostles Creed is one good example. >> And Okay. Did Quakers follow the Apostles Creed? >> Yes, I believe the Quakers follow the Creed. I believe Mormons also follow the Apostles Creed. Yes. Really? Yes. >> Let's find out if Quakers follow the

Andrew WilsonApostles Creed. Can we Can you look it up? >> Look up if Quakers follow the Apostles Creed. >> Do you Do you know what the Apostles Creed is? >> Are we Oh, pop quiz. Kyla. >> Well, >> pop quiz Kyla.

Brian Atlas>> Are you saying you don't? >> Yeah. Uh, most Quakers do not formally use or recite the Apostles Creed. Really quick, >> really quick. We're coming up on the hour. Would you guys like to shift to a new prompt here in in a few minutes or? >> Yeah.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> But >> so you're telling me that they so they don't acknowledge the apostles creed? Are you saying that they don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin that he died and rose again? >> Who ky?

Brian Atlas>> That's the apostles creed. >> They don't recognize it. >> That's the apostles. >> They don't recognize I do have a bit of more information here. It says many

Brian Atlas[snorts] Quakers, especially in more evangelical branches, would agree with much of the theology in the apostles creed. However, they gener generally do not recite it in worship or require reciting doesn't matter.

Andrew Wilson>> Require members to affirm it. I don't know if that changes. >> So, as long so, so that wouldn't have been a unifier. >> How would that not have been a unifier? >> Because even if they theologically think it's sound, they're not going to recite the Apostles Creed. >> No, no, no. That's not what they said.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)They didn't say they won't say it. It said that they don't require people to say it, which is not the same thing. I'm not talking about a catechism. I'm talking about a >> entire argument is why couldn't the founders find some compromise that every

Andrew Wilsonsingle independent Protestant panrotestant religion could agree to for some kind of creed for oaths. >> My argument is that if >> that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Here's what they did instead. They went, "We're just not going to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)legislate any sort of formal religion on your states and you can do that instead." >> Classic Andrew, it's just absurd. >> That is that's an actual absurd position. answer. The founding fathers were pretty smart guys. I think that they could think about things. They

NotSoErudite (Kyla)wrote a lot. I think if they wanted to blend church and state intentionally, they would have done so. But instead, hold on. But instead, they explicitly wrote into the Constitution that they would not do so federally. And over time, all states agreed with that and

Brian Atlaswrote out religious clauses. >> What was the 10th Amendment for? >> I don't know. >> Okay, we just hit the hour mark. Shall we >> You want to tell me? >> Uh shall we switch prompts? >> The thing we've been talking about for the last I assumed that you were going

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to give me more information about it. >> What do I need to give you more information? You don't even know what it is. >> We do have a TTS coming in. So, maybe >> Can I just pause? I think something I don't I don't know what you're doing right now. Um because I feel like we need to talk about these. Okay. >> No, continue. Continue.

Andrew Wilson>> I'm going to wait for his tantrum to be over and then I'll go. >> Okay. Well, let me I'll I'll let you know when it's over.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. Are we done or are you still tantruming? >> Me just sitting here as a tantrum. >> You like were throwing in not willing to listen to me and throw your hands in the >> air like this. That's all. >> I'm doing cross eyes and like making fun of me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next