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 4 of 9

Andrew Wilson>> I don't think that's right. Most western liberal democracies are taxed. >> If you went back, if you went back to walk that one back, if you went back to our founders, >> can we see if there's anybody that taxes more on income than America? I just want to fact check you.

Andrew Wilson>> It's not just income. So one of the most taxed countries on planet earth more there's no other western liberal democracy. One of the most yes. So anyway the >> you said the most but yeah >> okay whatever there's my qualifier.

Andrew Wilson>> Well look we can actually give grace to >> whatever. So anyway back to this before you divert again cuz that's all you do is divert. >> When it is the case not diverted I'm answering all your question. When it is the case that you move back to I I don't

Andrew Wilsonknow let's say 1,800 do you think that they would have allowed an income tax? Uh, I'm not sure. I have no idea. Probably not. I have no idea. >> Do you think that the way that people are taxed right now that our founders

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fought for that? >> Uh, sort of. Yes. >> Yes. >> Sort of. Yes. Because I think the thing that the founders cared about was that the common man gets a say on the policy. >> They did not want an income tax >> at all.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. I don't think income tax by itself just breaks this entire American ethos. I don't think like it's just shattered. Right. So, I imagine >> why not? Because like I said before, >> it's a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Andrew Wilson>> How is it a threat to life and liberty? >> Because they're directly taking an unaportioned tax from people. >> How is that a Sorry. How is that a threat to life and liberty? I'll just ask you again. >> Because don't you think that you need to have money in order to have liberty?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Sure. But in in case of liberties, this is things you get access to. So one of the things that taxes do is they give you access to things like free education. >> Okay. Wait a second. The income you can have sales taxes, things like that. That's constitutional. Yeah. >> Initially there was no income tax in the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)constitution. >> Sure. >> Yeah. So why was that passed? You know >> um probably because we needed to have greater government receipts so that we could pay for the things that we wanted that we collectively had decided would be better for >> because of the monster of Jackal Island. It was written by a bunch of bankers

Andrew Wilsonessentially and Jackson was against it first and he killed >> he was against the centralized >> he killed the well because the bank wanted to create an income tax. >> That's not actually just >> it is actually true. >> So so I agree that that's true. The what

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you're presuming though, you're trying to make it seem like Jackson was most opposed because of income tax. Jackson was most opposed to the central bank >> to the central bank specifically because he was concerned about government statesmen having access and control over economy. He wanted that to be separate separation of power. He was concerned

NotSoErudite (Kyla)about debt. It's why one of the first things he did was pay ours off. >> Okay. All >> it was all it was about debt. >> So you'd agree that Jackson had multiple reasons for why he was opposed not just income tax. >> Yeah. But in income tax would have made

Andrew Wilsonhim lose his [ __ ] mind. So do you think that it is un it's the most it's so it's completely American to roll back the income tax. It's completely American to roll back all of these various again you're so

NotSoErudite (Kyla)what you're doing is you're saying liberalism and the and the process of democracy gives us the capacity to change rules and you're saying that's America >> that's the most American. >> No. So I'm arguing that the most

Andrew WilsonAmerican thing is the value of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, ingenuity, science, >> but you keep equivocating because you say that's not foundationalism or that's not a foundation for my philosophy is

Andrew Wilsonlife, liberty, pursuit of happiness. And then when I say the most American thing that we can do is the most is the sorry how is this >> is the American thing that we always do and then you move back and forth between

Andrew Wilsonthese two ideals as though they're interchangeable. My foundation's actually political ideology. No, my foundation is actually life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. >> I've never said both ways. Hold on, Andrew. So, you're >> Kyla, >> you're being bad faith again. >> No, you're being bad faith, Kyla, by

NotSoErudite (Kyla)saying I'm bad faith. >> Good job. So, I have never said that my my moral system is life, liberty, and pursuit. >> I didn't say moral system. >> You did. >> I'm I'm talking about no foundational system for liberalism.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh for American uh for the American ethos, not for liberalism, whatever that No, I said the foundation for liberalism is some thing of balance of state power, right? There is uh strong institutions,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)protections of human rights and uh liberties and in modern liberalism especially some form of like welfare state or caretaking. >> Now, so hold on. Can we just acknowledge right now that you are the one equivocating because you slipped [clears throat] >> going to make sure that we have it.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Hold on. Just let me finish my thoughts. >> Go ahead. >> You were saying that my moral system is this life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But I've never said that. >> The foundation of America. foundation of America. And I said, "Yeah, that's the American ethos." And they said, "Yeah,

Andrew Wilsonliberalism." I said, "No, liberalism's foundation is these other things." So, you're the one equivocating. You're trying to >> Let's make sure I'm not equivocating. When we reduce it down, the thing that makes Christian nationalism unamerican is that it's a threat to life, liberty,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)and the pursuit of happiness. >> That Christian nationalists, if they had their way, would impose Christian ethics and restrictions on people that they wouldn't accept. And I think realistically, Christian nationalists, if they had their full way, would usher in a theocracy. And theocracy is

Andrew Wilsonfundamentally unamerican. >> Got it? Now let's say Christian nationalists are able to take power, okay, through their, you know, minations, uh, running for political office. Guys like Fuentes, super popular, many people like this, they

Andrew Wilsonsway the electorate. The electorate puts them in office under the promise that they're going to change many of these things. >> Mhm. >> Right. >> I'd say those American people are not American. >> I get it. They're not. They're very unamerican. These Americans are very

Andrew Wilsonunamerican and bad Christians. I get it. These guys get in office and all they do is this. They just immediately legislate that you can't be prostitutes. No

Andrew Wilsonprostitution, no pimping, no gay marriage. Right. That's all they do. They keep everything else equal. Right. Can you tell me why it would be that you

NotSoErudite (Kyla)would oppose that? >> Um, typically in the criminalization of prostitution, we typically see that women are disproportionately abused as a result. >> Well, how would it be unamerican? I guess. Um, I didn't say it would be unamerican.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. But it's definitely in direct violation of this whole liberty thing, right? >> Not necessarily. Right. Like prostitutes specifically. Are you >> Yeah. But homosexuals, for instance. >> So, are you also wanting to impose a law that homosexuals can't get married? >> Yeah.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. Then I would oppose that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Because it's a threat to liberty. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, how come three people can't get married? >> Uh, mostly I think right now it's taxation. I >> Yeah. But I mean, if >> if we can make a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> if we can make it happen >> legally, sure. I don't have a problem with it. Legally, cuz legality is not my moral system. >> 17 people. >> Sure. Hold on. What What reasonable world exists where 17 people are getting

Andrew Wilsonlegally married? >> Well, right now, we just recently had three people who got married. I don't see why you couldn't add a fourth or a fifth. I >> I'm saying, do you think it's reasonable to presume that 17 people are going to get married? >> Yes. >> Really? >> Yes. >> Okay. I think you're absurd. >> I at least think it's reasonable to assume four or five would. So the thing

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is, >> okay, >> well, if if it's three, why can't it be four? >> I've spent time with people, but maybe you haven't. >> I don't know. If three people just got married, why couldn't it be four? >> Well, I would argue, for example, in the case of polyclesules, even a lot of these relationships tend to fall apart because I I don't >> Yeah, but they can still get married

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> legally. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So, anyway, >> so again, yes, if we could create a taxation system that could manage 17 people getting married legally, I don't have an issue with it necessarily. >> Got it. Now, >> but that's not more. >> Now, hang on. Let's say that that we

Andrew Wilsonallow for we pass an amendment. Liberals pass an amendment and it says three people can get married. Okay? And this is now part of a new constitutional amendment. Christian nationalists get

Andrew Wilsonpower. They remove that constitutional amendment. >> That is now violating the idea of liberty. >> Now you're violating the idea of the very ideal of liberty. So that would be unamerican for those Christian nationalists to get rid of three people getting married if there was an

NotSoErudite (Kyla)amendment. Right? >> So this is where plural pluralism comes in. You're making it seem as though like I'm a liberty extremist, right? I think that there are some liberties that can be like girded, right? I don't want people running around maximally doing anything they want at any given time and neither does liberalism typically

Andrew Wilsonbecause liberalism is also >> where do we draw the threshold then because your whole objection to Christian nationalists gay marriage probably three because I don't think taxation would ever be functional for seven years. >> Okay. So they pass an amendment three people can get married. That's what I

Andrew Wilsonsaid. True. >> And and then Christian nationalists take control and the only thing that they remove is that amendment. >> I probably personally wouldn't have an issue with it. >> But that that's a threat to liberty. that's hurting people's liberty. >> I don't I don't think necessarily. >> How is it not necessarily hurting their

NotSoErudite (Kyla)liberty? >> Because I'm not a liberty maximist, which is what you're trying to fix. >> So what >> what do you mean? >> It still it would still be hurting their liberty whether you're a maximalist or not. >> So for example, the reason why we might not allow three people to get married legally is because it may create

NotSoErudite (Kyla)situations where people like divorce situations can't be like easily solved. It makes divorces extremely messy particularly because state divorce. Yeah. >> So the issue is now your hypothetical is going imagine we exist in a world that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is fundamentally not in any way like the world that we exist and I'm like I don't know in this fundamental world where like human beings don't >> three people just got married. If three people can get married then those three

Andrew Wilsonpeople can already get divorced and if they have children those three people can already have some kind of custodial [ __ ] problem with >> they already have major custodial issues issues within divorce court. It is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)incredibly messy alimony. How would that not be a threat to liberty? >> Well, we might not allow this liberty because it actually the divorce courts and the way that the system works, it limits people in such a way that we can't actually function.

Andrew Wilson>> So then Christian nationalists going in and limiting liberty is not really a problem >> to some extent. Yeah. >> To some extent. So them outlying gay marriage, that's a problem, but not three people getting married. Why? >> Because I would say consensually as a society, we've agreed that gay people

NotSoErudite (Kyla)can get legally. >> So if cons No, we never did. There was no vote on that. >> We voted for the electorate that did this. Okay. And you're voting for the electorate who goes in and undoes it. So what? >> Uh I would say that that opposite that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)in this case the only reason that you're doing that is because you think being gay is evil. So >> I think that that's wrong to police. >> That's nice you think that. But they were elected. They got in they got into office. >> It's not nice that I think that I would

NotSoErudite (Kyla)say that Thank you. I would say that it's fundamentally uncchristian for them to do because now at this point they are not imposing something. >> Yeah. Your liberalism can't your liberalism can't actually stop at one

NotSoErudite (Kyla)matter to any argument. It it is not unamerican for them to go in and change amendments. That's the most American. >> We're just back here again. So what I would say is that there are some things that are central to the American ethos, right? But these things are not uh maximalist. So what you're trying to do

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is you're trying to say, well, you're for liberty, you're for maximal liberty. And I'm like, no, I'm for some limitations on you are because you're going, but what about 17 people? And I'm like, I don't know. I don't live in a world where that's even like kind of functionally reasonable. I don't know what I think about 17 people getting

NotSoErudite (Kyla)married at a legal level. >> Just three. >> Sure. Even just three. I'm not even sure what I think about three people getting married legally because I think that there's going to be a lot of complications as far as like how we manage these things necessarily because I'm not a liberty absolutist. But I do

Andrew Wilsonthink that the value of liberty giving common man access to these choices is central to the American equal. >> So what would be wrong with Christian nationalists going in right pack they pack the court and then they go ahead and re or don't even pack the court.

Andrew WilsonThey just put they just put they just put two Supreme Court justices new ones on. They reinterpret that uh well, you know what? Gays actually can't get married. They over they overturn a burgerfell. >> Uh one of my issues would be them

Andrew Wilsonintentionally packing the court. I think >> No, I just took that off the table. They just put in two new Supreme Court justices. That's it. >> How do they do that? >> Because two of them die. >> Okay. So, two of them die. They they elect two of them with the intention of packing the court. So, they're

NotSoErudite (Kyla)specifically selecting >> forget packing the court. Do they select them on the basis that these judges will be Christian as well and and and and make selecting them because the party in charge wants them there?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah, I think that that's the bad point already. Why? Because I do not think that we should be putting >> That's how parties do it now. They put in justices that they want that they think are going to represent their views. >> Do you think that I like the fact that we try to make the uh judicial system uh partisan?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> That's very unamerican. I >> I think it is unamerican. >> No, it's very unamerican for you to go against that. Why? >> Because it's the most American thing. That's how we've always done it. >> I would say I would say that if it's not gerting the the common man, the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, packing

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the courts, for example, I think is bad. I think that this is not a good thing to do. I don't want partisan courts. The point, hold on. The American the American idea, the zeitgeist of the separation of powers actually really, really, really matters because one of the things that's fundamental to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Americanism is the opposition of tyranny. And how you oppose tyranny is you separate power. So, if you're packing the court to be biased towards a single side, you're already engaging in some of >> What about them getting rid of abortion? >> What about it? >> Yeah. Does that is that hurting life or

NotSoErudite (Kyla)helping life? >> Uh, depends on what you think life is. >> Well, I'm asking you. >> Uh, so I'm for the decriminalization of abortion entirely because I think when you look at the actual Yeah. When you look at the ramifications of abortion policy, it leads to more infant deaths,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)more mother deaths, more children in foster care, more children in poverty, and more children. >> Is it more or less American that abortion's banned? I I don't think that this is necessarily an American concept. Not everything is is like tied to this.

Andrew Wilson>> So if Christian nationalists get in and they completely outlaw abortion, right, via constitutional amendment, >> I think that they would then be imposing onto non-Christians their view of human life. >> That's nice. But that doesn't violate

Andrew Wilsonany of the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness that you consider Americanism to be. It reinforces life. >> It would be because probably 50 I think it's like 50% of the population definitely disagrees with the contention of when life is.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Who cares? You're not an extremist. The the main thing is that if it's the case, >> what do you mean who cares? >> Well, first of all, >> probably the the voting electoral. >> Yeah, sure. The ones who elected the Christian nationalists. >> Uh well, more so in this case, the ones

Andrew Wilsonwho didn't. >> So now the Christian there's it's the most American thing possible when Christian nationalists get in. How's that tyranny? >> By by trying to impose only Christian ethics on other people, knowing for a fact that 50% of the population would

NotSoErudite (Kyla)not want to adhere to >> 50% of the population doesn't want to adhere to abortion. They think that abortions, >> they don't have to get abortions. Isn't that crazy? >> They think you're murdering people. >> Sure, but they don't have to get an abortion. It doesn't matter. You're not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)allowed to murder people. >> Wait, does the state compel anyone to get an abortion? >> Why would that matter? >> Because it kind of matters if you're talking about the Christian. >> Is there a case that if the state said that you could like murder random people that you could object to that in a democracy?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh, yes. >> So, you can object to [ __ ] people murdering people in your democracy. >> You can, of course. And you can get an amendment together to say stop murdering people. >> This is fine as long as the reason that Christians aren't doing it is

Andrew Wilsonintentionally to impose Christian ethics on non-Christians. >> And yet you have not made an argument for why that's even bad. You've just said within the framework I don't like it. No, no, no. I said no. I said

Andrew WilsonChristians imposing Christian ethics on non-Christians is unbiblical. It's heretical to do. >> Yeah. We're talking about whether or not it's unamerican. >> No. I've said from the beginning. >> Now you're going to [ __ ] equivocate. We're talking about what's unamerican. 5 seconds ago.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> You trying to slant me into specific types of arguments that I'm not making is equivocating. >> No. >> You said that this is this is the most American thing we could do. >> What?

Andrew Wilson>> To [clears throat] outlaw abortion >> for for the purpose of life. Aerodite. The purpose of life. >> I said this. >> No, no, no. We're talking about what's unamerican or American. I'm postulating that it's the most American thing we can

Andrew Wilsondo if the idea is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for Christian nationalists to outlaw abortion. Do you think it would be also super American to get rid of uh evolution in in class? >> I don't know if that would be American or not American.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, Christian nationalists would probably want to do it. Is that American or not? >> I don't think that they would, >> but they What do you mean? They've lit they've multiple times advocated for removal of evolution from Louisiana Act of two 2008. >> I think that that should be left up to the states like the 10th Amendment says.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. So, >> that's what Christian nationalists would say. >> Okay. So, you think, oh, that's not true. And you know that you don't believe that. You think >> at least people advocate for my version of it. >> So Christian nationalists would violate all parts of the Constitution.

Andrew Wilson>> They really like that one. >> Most Christian nationalists, at least ones who are in the mainstream that I'm aware of, they do advocate that most of this stuff gets push pushed back to the state. Like what used to happen with gay marriage, which is why it was, you know,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)every time it was voted on, they said no and he had to use the constitutional route. >> And do you think Christian nationalists would prefer it's at the state or do you think they would actually prefer a federal rule on abortion? Do you think Christian nationalists want a federal >> If they had a federal rule on abortion, they would have to pass an amendment

NotSoErudite (Kyla)which would be the will of the people. >> Do Christians that? >> Yeah, of course. >> What's wrong with that? >> So, I am outlining right now that you trying to pretend as though Christian nationalists just want state rights is dishonest. >> I didn't say that. That would be because I said, "Well, do you think that

Andrew WilsonChristian nationalists would try to push through Christian ethics on people?" And he said, "Well, I think they just want it at the state." Of course. >> No, no. I see that issue they would refer it to the state. But within the the >> think that they would prefer a federal

Andrew Wilsonban on this. >> I don't even think that that would be possible unless you amended it. But even if they did that, >> wouldn't they want that? >> Yeah. If they amended it, that's within the confines. >> So I don't know why the [ __ ] you're bringing up states at all >> running away because that's what they

NotSoErudite (Kyla)would say. They would they would say defer it to the state unless if you could pass an amendment. >> Why? Because they don't think that they can do it through federal powers. But if Christian nationalists could do it through federal powers, they would, right? >> But that would be totally constitutional and very American.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> It does. I don't think it would be the most American. >> It would be it would be within their uh constitutional capacity. >> Not only their constitutional capacity, they would be following Americana, baby. >> No. I would say, for example, >> 100% Americana. >> Absolutely not. >> Absolutely. Yes.

Andrew Wilson>> So, America is just a Christian theocracy secretly waiting to be discovered. >> America is just a [ __ ] secular [ __ ] uh nonsense machine. Do you think America just what is America to you? >> To me, America, at least how you define

Andrew Wilsonit, is just >> how I define it. How you define it. >> Yeah. So, for me, I've told you this multiple times. If there was some kind of cultural glue, I would give America a lot more credence on this, but right now it just looks like a system. >> It's not an answer to what America is.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I just answered it at the end if you would have listened. I think right now America is just a system. Yes. >> So, you don't believe in America. You don't have any pride in America. Don't think there's a central American ethos like America is a state. >> I think there used to be. and mass migration and other things destroyed

Andrew Wilsonthat. >> So American doesn't exist anymore. >> Not how it used to. No. >> What did it used to be? What was the some of the central ethos? What made something American? >> Yeah. So I would largely agree that if you have a population center or a

Andrew Wilsonpopulation group, it would be the people plus the values. So I would say that what was fundamentally American once upon a time was what would be called panrotestantism which and that would be combined with the ethnog group and then the cultural

Andrew Wilsonglue. >> Okay. So what was American was being >> Christian white. What else? >> Well, I'm I'm just saying if you wanted to have something which was foundational, that's what we had at the time of our founders. Yes.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, I'm asking what American ethos is to you because you think it's dead now. So what what was it? Cuz you see >> what it was. >> So Christianity, white >> pan Well, pan Protestantism. >> Sure. >> Not just Christianity. >> Sure. But we can probably

Andrew Wilson>> pan Protestantism was what it was. >> Okay. Pan Protestantism. So you think that it is a religious endeavor and it's an ethnic >> I think that without the religion that whole idea of a moral people doesn't exist. >> So you believe America is white?

Andrew Wilson>> I I think foundationally it was. Yes. >> No, but is that central to the American identity? >> I think it was. Yes. >> Okay. And you think that we've lost that? Of course. And that's a bad thing. >> Well, I don't think it's an American thing.

Andrew Wilson>> So it's unamerican to have people of color. I think by this by this standard, the idea of what America is, when I say it's now just a system, then I'm saying what it used to be were these things. Do you agree? It used to be these things.

Andrew Wilson>> An idea? >> Yeah. An experiment. Great. Yeah. >> And within the confines of this experiment, it's perfectly acceptable for us to change the parameters, right? >> So would you So to bring America back to what America was, is that something you

NotSoErudite (Kyla)would care about doing? Do you love America? Like at least your when you said when I say America, I mean your version of America. Would you like to bring America back there? >> No. >> Why not? >> Because I think that there's a better way, which is Christian nationalism. >> Okay. And what's the conclusion of Christian nationalism?

Andrew Wilson>> The conclusion of Christian nationalism is to move Christian ethics into the mainstream utilizing legislation within the liberal confines of the machine that you've built. >> Why didn't the founding fathers do that? Then >> we didn't we just go over this? They

Andrew Wilsonleft it up to the states. >> And why didn't they write it into some federal capacity for the states to >> We've already been over that twice. So the thing is is like what what am I on >> any pan Christian? Let's see if we can find let's see if we can find some agreement. Yeah, sure. Let's see if we

Andrew Wilsoncan find some agreement. Do you agree with me that foundationally this was a white nation? >> Uh no. I don't think whiteness is central to American ethos. >> Okay. Western European >> I I don't think the color of your skin

Andrew Wilsonis central to an idea at all. >> You don't you don't think that foundationally though that was a part of the cultural glue that kept things together? >> No, >> not at all. Uh, well, what do you mean by foundationally? >> Like they really just wanted white

NotSoErudite (Kyla)people here. >> Did that exist at the time? Yeah. But I don't think that that's what makes the American ethos is a preoccupation with whiteness. >> Okay. No, I'm not I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that foundationally definitely was a white nation. >> When you say foundationally, it just mean there was lots of white people in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)America. >> They know that they only wanted white people in America. >> Uh, well, the issue is they didn't even have a good conception of white at the time that you're talking about, right? >> Western European. >> Well, they they didn't like Irish that much. a whole bunch of issues. >> They definitely wanted Western

Andrew WilsonEuropeans. >> I I don't I don't know if that's true. They >> like they wanted the English. They wanted the French. >> They only wanted the English. They didn't really want the French. >> True. I'm even willing to concede that. >> Right. So, um >> but they wanted something that wasn't that was not what we have now, which is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)South America. >> Uh immigration preference is a central thing to the American ethos because I think that if it was the founding fathers probably would have written it into like at least the Declaration of Independence. They would have done somewhere to say the white man. >> Yeah. Early laws, they did say that

Andrew Wilsonactually. I don't know if you knew that or not. >> The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with white men. >> No, the Declaration doesn't. >> Yeah. >> But early laws is what I said. Early laws did regard uh people good people of good character who are white. Yes.

Andrew Wilson>> Sure. But I don't think that that's central to being American. >> Okay. >> Because I don't think the founding fathers are the only thing that makes American. Okay. I agree. I'm just saying that when we're talking about a culture, the culture of the time, right, it was white and pan Protestant.

Andrew Wilson>> Sure. And I just if say if I found out the founding fathers sat me down they're like and that's really central to being America. I'd be like I think >> then if all that is central to being America is this experiment and the experiment is just the idea of we have

Andrew Wilsonchecks and balances in a system. >> No it's more than that. >> What is it? >> Uh ingenuity. Um yes I >> Christian nationalists hang on I'm almost done. Christian nationalists have ingenuity. >> No they don't. >> What's Yeah.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> They're opposed to science fundamentally. They don't want kids to go to university. They think evolution's not true. They think the earth is 10,000 years old. They deny vaccines. This is fundamentally opposed to the American ethos of science. America, >> what are you talking about? >> What do you think makes America so

Andrew Wilsongreat? >> What What Christian nationalists are opposed to science? >> Most >> what science? >> Evolution. >> That's it. >> Not just >> Are they opposed to like rocket ships? Are they opposed to [ __ ] machinery? Are they opposed to firearms? Are they opposed to strong militaries? Are they

NotSoErudite (Kyla)opposed to any of that? >> Not all of that is science. A lot of that is engineering, right? But what they're opposed to >> engineering is a science. They're opposed to multiple brackets. >> The science. >> Yes. The science is engineering.

Andrew Wilson>> How is that the science? >> Because all what what you're talking about when you're talking about anthropology or you're talking about you're talking about even evolution, right? >> Biology, chemistry, physics. When we're

Andrew Wilsontalking about uh American ingenuity and industrialization, things like this, we're talking about automobiles, trains, rocket ships, machine guns, bazookas, [ __ ] >> development of vaccines, development of modern modern monetary >> Christians aren't against medical

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Christian nationalists especially are not against medical. >> They're pretty opposed to vaccines. >> Well, wait a second. Uh RFK is pretty opposed to vaccines. >> A lot of Christian you So you think that if I pulled Christian nationalists that most of them would be for vaccines? They

NotSoErudite (Kyla)love vaccines, actually. Do they think that their kids should go to university and study science? >> Yeah. I mean, some of them. Sure. >> How many? >> I don't know. Neither do you. >> My assumption because I'm actually familiar with Christian nationalists and I'm not lying about them.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Which ones? >> Uh like the broad movement prominent of Christian nationalists. >> Um you're a prominent one. >> I think that uh Kirk before he passed away was a prominent one. >> Yeah, >> there's two. >> What? And Kirk Kirk didn't say that he

NotSoErudite (Kyla)wanted to the government to go in and outlaw [ __ ] vaccines. He was pretty antivaccines and anti >> he was antac people should send their kids to it. Do you think that he believe I guess even do you believe in the dinosaurs? >> You know what? I'll just grant this.

Andrew Wilson>> He won't get engaged with that one. >> I'm just going to grant it. Yeah. Christian nationalists. They want to get rid of evolution. They want to get rid of vaccines. They want to get rid of all this stuff. Let's just say. >> Yep. >> Well, that's not anti-science. >> It is fundamentally anti-science to get rid of uh like uh major scientific

Andrew Wilsontheories. Yes. >> Oh, really? >> Yes. And it would be harmful to America to do so. >> So, what happened to race science? uh it was proven in science to be invalid. >> Well, wait a second. I'm I'm I'm super confused. Who proved that?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh for example, in the case of IQ, right, we've done like multiple studies on IQ to show that like the moment that you uh normalize things like education access. >> You're saying there was no politics involved in that? >> I I didn't say that, but I said that what solved what solved it dominantly

Andrew Wilsonmade it a weaker argument. >> Is eugenics a valid form of science? >> Uh it's a But what do you mean a valid form of science? >> What's wrong with eugen? It's don't be anti-science. What's wrong with eugenics? >> Uh what's wrong with eugenics is that it typically violates certain major ethical

Andrew Wilsonprinciples. >> Got it. So you're diverting to ethics over science. >> Um not exclusively. >> Yeah. But if you're going to divert to ethics from science, then Christian nationalists have every grounds to do the same thing.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Not. So the difference between eugenics, the reason why we would be opposed to it is that it did things like force sterilizations and reduced people to like breeding. what the Christian national what the Christian nationalists but the issue is the eugenic the reason we're

NotSoErudite (Kyla)rejecting eugenics isn't because we're saying you can't it's not scientific to even possibly do that we're saying that's too far what the Christian nationalists are saying is evolution's not real don't go to university vaccines are actually bad the earth might be flat

Andrew Wilsonthe earth is 10,000 years >> they are inside of a democracy let's just I'm just going to grant it all they're inside of a democracy and they can amend all of these things and that's the will of the people right then Guess what? The people before were like, "No

Andrew Wilsonboo booze." They were like, "Nope, can't do this. Can't do that. Homosexuality is illegal." Right? Up until the 60s, all 50 states had anti-sodomy laws. Okay? So like the thing is is it seems like it's the most Christian thing to me or not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the most American thing to me to say >> to be anti-science >> to no to utilize the system in order to implement >> I don't know if you remember that but we were talking about the American predelection towards science and I said one of the issues I have with Christian

NotSoErudite (Kyla)nationalism for nationalism for example is its complete rejection of science which I think is integral to the ingenuity and development of America >> it's rejection of some sciences >> I would say most major sciences >> some sciences because you want some

NotSoErudite (Kyla)sciences rejected too you want racial science it's rejected. You want probably >> I don't want racial science rejected. I want it properly studied. >> But wait, you don't want it rejected. >> Uh racial science like looking into seeing if there's No, because I think for example, racial science is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)incredibly important in medicine, right? Understanding how like hemoglobin can be different. Yep. >> So, so just >> but what I don't want >> what I don't want is when we utilize science to abuse other people. But this isn't being anti-scientific

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> at all. So, >> because in this case, I'm not saying eugenics can't work. It's it's untrue. I'm saying it's wrong to do. Christian

NotSoErudite (Kyla)nationalists are saying evolution is false. It's not true. It's not proven. >> So, what they can >> It's anti-cience to say that >> it's not anti-science. >> It is anti-cience. Yes. If you believe that evolution isn't true, >> are you saying that Christian

Andrew Wilsonnationalists going to say you can no longer study evolution? >> I didn't say that. >> No, they just say you can't you can't teach it in school. That's not anti-science. That is anti-science. Why would >> you have a right to learn evolution in school? >> The right to learn evolution shall not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)be infringed. >> I would say that when we're publicly educating our children, we should teach them on the most empirically supported evidence. >> That's nice that you say that. >> Well, that's what public education's for. >> Public education is to teach you reading, writing, arithmetic, not >> science.

Andrew Wilson>> Well, wait. >> I'm sorry. They forgot about those two. I'm >> I'm confused. Reading, writing, and arithmetic. What does arithmetic mean? Math. >> Math. >> Why? Why did you say math? Science >> cuz you didn't include science in your list.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Oh my lord. >> Do you include science in the list? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, people should learn science. Sure. Do you think it's important to engineering that >> What's wrong with them learning science and learning about God? >> I don't have a problem with them learning about God necessarily. Is there in a private institution that wants to impose it?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Oh, they can do it in public. >> But when a state forces you to teach children about God in a public institution, I do have a problem with that. >> That's nice that you have a problem with that. But within the confines of your

NotSoErudite (Kyla)moral framework of liberalism. >> That's not my moral framework. Andrew, stop saying that my moral framework is liberalism. >> Foundationalism for liberalism. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> is not my moral framework. >> No, I'm sorry. Your foundationalism for liberalism >> is not life li Oh my god. It's not life. Liberty. That's the foundation of the American ethos >> of the Okay. The foundation of liberalism. >> I'll go over it again. You should write

NotSoErudite (Kyla)this one down. >> I'm going to write it down. Go ahead. Do you need a pen? >> I'll write it down. Just tell me. >> Strong institutions, separation of uh powers, um welfare and uh protection of rights and liberties of people. >> And you agree Christian nationalists can

NotSoErudite (Kyla)do all of that? >> Yeah, of course they can. But I don't think that they can do so if they are imposing Christian ethics. >> Okay. So then the only thing that you would say is this the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness thing. >> Uh I would say like forcing >> that's what makes it unamerican. I mean,

Andrew Wilson>> yeah. forcing people to, for example, learn um and like pray to Mary in public schools. >> Yeah. My counter is that it's the most American thing. The most American thing because well, we've amended the Constitution. I don't know how many times.

Andrew Wilson>> It's American because the the democratic system allows it. That's not what American >> It's American because even though foundationally we didn't have any of these [ __ ] laws. We've only had them since like, oh, I don't know, 40 years. And you violate any of them. Now it's the most American thing.

Andrew Wilson>> Well, you've already granted me that >> Americanism is just what's happening now. No, Americanism is like an ethos that emerges over time, right? So when you look at like America over, >> you've rejected American identity. All you say is like it's [ __ ] ingenuity or something. >> How have I rejected that? >> It's ingenuity and life, liberty, and

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the pursuit of happiness. >> It's the opposition of tyranny. It's giving people the capacity to speak. It's advocating and >> it's not oppositional to tyranny because you What do you define tyranny as? >> Tyranny is >> is Donald Trump a tyrant?

Andrew Wilson>> Uh in some ways, sure. >> Yeah. So it's [laughter] like so for you. Wait, I think that that's unamerican of him to do. >> Yeah, it's unamerican. >> Yes, >> I think it's the most American thing to be a tyrant. >> Yeah. Was Jackson a tyrant?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh, I don't know all the details of Jackson. I'm not sure. >> Was the Trail of Tears tyranny? >> Uh, I think it was murder, I think, is the word we use. >> Tyranny. >> Tyranny doesn't equal murder. >> If presidents ignore the tyranny just equals murder

Andrew Wilson>> if Well, I mean, I think it leads to it often. But when we talking about when we're talking about is tyranny murder? >> No, of course they're different things. >> Of course. Yeah. >> Yeah. But one leads to the other usually, right? >> Uh it it often does. Yeah. But

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> wouldn't that be your like primary opposition is like it's going to lead to murder this tyranny thing? >> Uh no, I actually think it uh reduces the capacity. So like one of the most important things to me is humans agency. >> Mhm. >> I don't know why you're rolling your eyes, but >> I'm not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. >> I wasn't rolling my eyes. What do you mean? >> Okay. Um what I care most about is human agency. I think it's extremely important for people to have a capacity to choose so that the noble thing that they do isn't just impressed upon them but it's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)actually nobility itself because if all you do is you force the right choices on people through law and legislation then all that means is that goodness is a necessity of survival and I don't think that that's good. >> I that's not you keep saying I don't think that that's good.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> You keep saying that's >> I'm talking about what's American. We're talking about what's American right now. >> Yes. You like to slip back and forth between all these focus liberalism. Do you know what my foundations of liberalism are yet?

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, you said something about ingenuity and opposition to tyranny. >> Again, that's the American ethos. >> Oh, sorry. American ethos. >> Do you need a pen? >> No. No. Just tell me. Just tell me one more time with liber liberalism. What was it again? >> Um, I'm not going to tell you again unless you actually

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> don't remember, do you? >> Yes, I [laughter] do. I've said it like four times. The foundations of liberalism, strong institutions, balance of power, protection of rights and liberties, and a welfare state. >> And you admitted Christian nationalists

NotSoErudite (Kyla)can do all of those things. uh they can but not because they're ruling from fiat uh sorry a power of Christian ethics >> and what Christian nationalists are proposing that that no longer be the system >> but you've already granted to me that Christian nationalists would change uh

Andrew Wilsoncentral parts of the American constitution and the American ethos that I have a problem with like >> hang on it's fine for them to change the constitution that's part of the liberal system that you just outlined >> I don't think the liberal system is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)necessarily a moral system I think it's the best uh like philosophyg guiding um uh >> and they're just using that system. >> Okay. And I think it would be wrong for them to do so. >> Yeah. That's but it doesn't it doesn't

NotSoErudite (Kyla)violate anything. >> It Well, I would argue it violates their Christian moral ethos to do so. >> Christian nationalists because Christians aren't allowed to rule from their moral position. >> They should not be trying to blend church and state power and rule from a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)state of statesmanship. No, I don't think I think Jesus is obviously and fundamentally opposed. >> But they're not doing that. What they're doing is changing amendments. >> You've already granted me that that's the direction that they would go. They're changing amendments >> increasingly so that they can limit

NotSoErudite (Kyla)people's choice to be aligned with what Christians ought to do, not what secular people may want. >> They can do that. That's within the confines of what of of the American ethos. >> It's not within the confines. It's a violation of the American ethos, but it

Andrew Wilsonis within the confines of liberalism. You're really struggling with this. Did you write down? >> It's actually both. >> Did you write down my values of liberalism yet? >> Yeah, sure. You're saying separation of power, uh, strong institutions, right? They would impose strong institutions.

Andrew WilsonThere would still be a separation of power. institutions you've admitted that Christian Christian nationalists uh can take control and all of those institutions are there. So we're back to just this one position and the one position is that it's going to violate the ethos.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah, cuz you No, not >> but it doesn't violate the ethos. Of course it does. Yeah. If if Christian outlaw abortion that is good for your ethos of life. >> No, I would say that what it does is it imposes on non-Christians who don't even believe in insulment a law of Christian

NotSoErudite (Kyla)policy. >> So [ __ ] them. Why do why why is it that why are we supposed to make law towards the minority? We don't have to do that. >> It's not about the minority. It's about the fact that Christians should not be be imposing onto secular people

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Christian policy. I think not only does it just create worse states as evidenced by you know what states aren't awesome theocracies. >> Secularists though could impose that um oh we can have pornography and you don't

Andrew Wilsonhave to that's an imposition. >> It's not imposing means compelling, right? >> But super I'm sorry. Is it the case that right now the town squares X? >> Would you say that like X is a is a good representation of like how a lot of

Andrew Wilsonpeople communicate? >> Uh X probably not. But I'll grant you social media. >> Yeah. It's very difficult to avoid porn, isn't it? >> Uh sure. >> Yeah. So the thing is is like >> do you have to be on social media? >> The idea of the imposition here is like

NotSoErudite (Kyla)if they go in and they outlawed it, if they outlawed pornography, right? So what >> isn't it difficult to be an Only Fans model? you can't have a hard time signing up with banks, all these sort of things. So, you have the liberty to do these things. You have the liberty to get rid of all porn on your social media. There's there's means, right?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)It's harder >> and you can take those things away. That's part of the American that is part of Americanism. >> So, none of that has to do with states compelling, right? A secular state isn't forcing people to look at porn. >> Well, but a secular state is allowing

NotSoErudite (Kyla)for it. Doesn't need to. >> Yeah, they are allowing. >> Yeah. And we don't need to allow a secular state to do this. It's not necessary. >> True. you could try to collectivize and convince both Christians and

NotSoErudite (Kyla)non-Christians to make laws on porn or >> and that would be the proposition of Christian nationalism >> and then I would go to those people and say how effective is that at actually if the goal of the Christian nationalists

NotSoErudite (Kyla)and of the secular people is to have people consume porn less right overall because I think it's better than them and say >> how well has abolition laws worked for getting rid of a behavior

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> well I mean by that metric why do we abolish murder why why why do we have a law murder >> uh because I think it's way more uh possible to use deterrence on murder and I think the state >> possible to use deterrence on

NotSoErudite (Kyla)everything. >> Uh porn is going to be significantly more difficult to prove but also on top of that I don't think necessarily is going to decrease. >> Well again states craftment is about making what makes for like a better society to live in. >> That would be a better society. >> No, it would be a more moral society by

Andrew Wilsonyour standards. >> It would be empirically better too. >> People having to do black trade porn which is what would happen. >> Oh, I'm sorry. How are they being forced to do blackmail porn? >> I didn't say that they're being poor. I'm saying that would be the natural conclusion.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> They're not being forced. They're being forced to not do porn. That's it. >> Sure. But what I'm saying is that states craft isn't about like anything that you're talking about. It's about whether or not these policy would lead to like a better outcome for society, right? >> How would these policies not lead to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)better outcomes? >> Because having a proliferation of black market porn is probably going to increase human trafficking, which we have actually seen. is probably going to increase the type of like >> we see it the opposite way actually places where prostitution is legal you see more human trafficking do you know

Andrew Wilsonwhy >> why >> because they're prostitutes and so what they become far easier to exploit because they're in sex work you'll find this by the way across the board that's been one of the most comprehensive

Andrew Wilsonstudies you can find it on Rachel Substack in fact and the truth is is like science >> there's a ton well it's a metaanalysis it's not like she didn't just make it up she wasn't like Oh, she was like, "Oh, >> is it replicated?"

Andrew Wilson>> But anyway, it was replicated. But the thing is is like this is what's interesting >> is every time you see that there's prostitution, which is legalized, you see human trafficking go up, not down. >> Uh so my understanding of when you look

NotSoErudite (Kyla)at like longitudinal studies of abolition is that while there is like a decrease in consumption, right, in the case of like alcohol, there's decrease in human trafficking, but there's also an explosion over time particularly of like money into black market things. So like while human trafficking probably

NotSoErudite (Kyla)acutely goes down, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that all of these groups that are engaging in black market porn are getting more money and can engage in more drug black markets, can engage in more human trafficking. >> You could just make that case for anything you banned.

Andrew Wilson>> No, this would be a long Yes. Like yes, I I'm making that for >> Yeah, you just make the case for you ban murder. Well, I mean that just increases the chances that people are going to utilize the black market to hire hitman. Yeah, I'm sure it would. Wait, no, but

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the the issue is why we ban murder is that almost all murders isn't because people are hiring hitman. It's usually done in like an explosion of anger. What's a person like planning it out, right? And so if you get if you don't have murder be banned, then all of the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)people who just explode out and kill somebody uh sec second degree murder, what do you do with them? >> Yeah. >> What do you do with them? >> Well, I mean, obviously you would imprison them. >> Well, and but in your in the system that you just suggested where murder is not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)bad and that you know, if we legalize it, then more murders would happen. >> Yes, of course. More murders would happen if you legalize murder. >> Yeah, obviously. >> Obviously. >> Okay. >> Just like more porn will happen if you legalize porn. >> Yeah, but the issues I agree. I wait. I've granted that from the beginning.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. So, I mean, I don't understand the outcomes of banning porn. Why were the outcomes in like 1930 where porn was bad worse? >> Um, mostly because I think it made people engage in black market and I think that it led to >> there was not very much black market

NotSoErudite (Kyla)porn in 1930. >> There probably just was. Isn't there like this whole like pinup girl? >> There just wasn't. There just wasn't that much porn in 1930. >> I'm sure that that's not true. >> Well, it is true. >> Isn't porn like one of the oldest

Andrew Wilsoninstitutions of trade. >> So, it just we just got rid of it when we >> didn't say we got rid of it. >> I said there wasn't very much of it. >> Especially in comparison to now. Don't you think that right now with prostitution legalized? Only fans legalized, we have more porn we've ever had in this country. >> Yeah, I would grant that.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, of course. >> Yeah. But the issue is that like for example, >> the most ridiculous thing ever. And if Christian nationalists get rid of it, there's nothing unamerican about that. Most of our history porn was outlawed. Most of it. >> Sure. I don't think porn is inherently >> completely. It's a completely within the

Andrew Wilsonconfines of Americana to do that. It's completely within the confines of Americana to ban homosexuality. Again, another thing which was banned for most of American history. Ban transgenderism. Banned for most of American history. Why was it mostly due to religiosity?

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. And I think that that was bad. I think it was >> I that's fine, but it makes my point. You say, "Wait a second. religiosity. Uh the founders didn't want that and we can't allow the states to do any of this type of uh >> the founders wanted a separation of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)church and state. This is self-evident and it is uncristian >> at the federal level only. >> Okay. >> Federal level only. >> If you want to cling to that one, you totally can. >> I because it's true. >> It's absurd. But >> you know, I mean the position >> fathers definitely wanted Christian

NotSoErudite (Kyla)nationalism and a blending of church and state, but they wrote it out in the constitution because they knew states would do it instead. Yippi. Yippee. That was the literal compromise they made with them. >> Not because they wanted states to have state level religion. >> Then why didn't they ban it in the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)compromise? Why didn't the founders say states you can't have any religion? >> Because they knew that the states wouldn't join. And as you said, it was a very >> That's right. It was a compromise. >> You're right. But that doesn't mean that federal leaders actually wanted church and state to be blended. And if they

NotSoErudite (Kyla)did, if they did matter, if they did, they could have written it into the constitution. And in fact, probably the states that are joining would have liked that if they found some way to compromise and bring religiosity in state together. >> The Anabaptists were like drowning kids.

Andrew WilsonWhat are you talking? They What were they going to find that was going to unify them under that? What >> I'm sure they could find something. >> They're going to find some cuz Aerodite says so. They did. What they said was you could do what you want

Andrew Wilson>> with the with your states and we were not going to impose a federal religion on you. >> Correct. Because Yeah. Because they wanted a separation of church and state at the federal level. Yeah. Yeah, federal level. >> But I've never denied at the federal level. I've just been my position the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)whole time. >> Yeah. You've insisted that because it was happening at the state level. It actually suggests that maybe the federal leaders did want church and state to be blended. They just couldn't write it in because compromised stuff. Compromised stuffs. >> The states wanted it and the states are

Andrew Wilsonpart of the system. >> Correct. But the federal leaders didn't. >> The feds don't usurp the states. >> Sure, that's fine. But you think that if they wanted >> the foundation was not just about 39

NotSoErudite (Kyla)guys signing a [ __ ] document. The foundation was a contribution of tens of thousands of people. >> Yes, of course. >> And and by the way, >> all of these Christian governors inside of states >> couldn't find a way to impose church and state together at a federal level. They did. They find a way to do it. No, they

Andrew Wilsondidn't. >> They didn't want them to at the federal level because they didn't want the federal government to be like Maryland, you got to be a Catholic. You got to be a Catholic state. They didn't want that [ __ ] >> They could have imposed it in some other They could have written way more like godness into things. They could have

NotSoErudite (Kyla)written for example that the federal god. They wrote godness into the declaration of independence. >> First of all, they wrote creator. None of the TJ references in any way can be like uh cited to like godness in a Christian way at all. >> What's a creator?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> A rock. >> A creator. >> They think they think a rock was not God. >> How many religions have a creator deity? >> And is are those creators God? >> Um why did TJ say >> are those creators God?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I don't think so. But why did TJ Hold on. Why didn't TJ Why didn't TJ Why didn't TJ just say Christ? [laughter] >> No answer. [snorts] >> God. Christ. >> No, they said God because there were some

Andrew Wilson>> They didn't say God. They said creator. >> They because some of these states again >> some of the Christians wouldn't have agreed with Christ. >> Yeah. Well, they Yeah. They rejected the idea of the Trinity. Yes. >> Christ.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> The idea of the Trinity. >> I didn't say the Trinity. I said Christ. You think that if TJ had written in Christ that some Christians would have been like, "How dare he?" >> It's It's possible. >> No, come on. >> But not only that, >> that's absurd. >> Let's just point this out.

Andrew Wilson>> So TJ, you can grant me at least. You'll concede. TJ definitely explicitly did not write the Christian God into using non using the non-offensive position in order to make sure that they would compromise. Right. When they say

Andrew Wilsoncreator, they definitely mean a god. >> The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with compromise. >> No, no, no. But when they use the language in the Declaration of Independence for Creator, what are do

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you think they're referencing it? >> I think TJ is explicitly not referencing Christ because he didn't want >> What is he referencing? >> He is referencing a general conception of creator >> which is what

Andrew Wilson>> uh to Christians it would be Christ but he didn't say Christ. Now did he? >> Okay. But what would the creator be >> to Hindus? It would be like >> would the creator be God? >> Yeah. He didn't say God. I >> But what creator here meant God, right?

Andrew WilsonWhy would you assume that? >> Because what else is the creator? >> Why wouldn't they just say Christ if they meant the Christian God? >> Well, again, you're splitting hairs here. >> I'm not splitting hairs. It's kind of important. >> Yeah. The idea here is simple.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> He just couldn't think of it. He's like, "Oh, what's that word for the creator that Christians like, oh, I can't remember. I'll just throw creator in there." >> Pull up the Declaration of Independence and read it. >> Sure. >> We find these truths to be self-evident.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. >> That all men are endowed By who? >> Creator. >> Their creator. >> Yeah. >> Are you saying it doesn't say God anywhere? >> It didn't say anywhere. I said that says creator. I think it said it might say. I'd have to look through. I don't.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> It does. It does say God. >> I don't know. I'd have to look. >> Who's What do you think they're referencing by creator there? >> I think if they wanted to reference, >> how would humans be endowed by a creator who wasn't their God?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, if you can probably understand. >> Why didn't TJ say Christ? >> So, what? to answer my question then I'll answer your >> answer my question. >> Answer mine. I asked you first to answer. >> Creator could refer to any creative

NotSoErudite (Kyla)deity. >> How do you endow people as a creator if you're not creating the people? >> Uh this is what all most creation stories think that the the creator is

Andrew Wilsonendowing >> and the creator is usually referencing what >> in for Christians they would mean Christ. Now why >> they would also mean God, right? Why doesn't

Andrew Wilson>> Why doesn't TJ say >> probably the triune concept? Yeah, >> because Christians would have had an issue with actually think that there's a reference to God. >> And I do think that there's often references to Jesus Christ as well. Not

Andrew Wilsonin those documents, though. >> Now, the other thing that's interesting here is that you still haven't answered this why it is that at the federal level, >> you still haven't answered my question. >> What's the question? >> I said, why didn't TJ use the word Christ?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I just told you. I literally I fault. So he said because >> the triune nature. Yes. >> So the Christians any form of Christian pan pan Protestantism I think is what the wordism. Yeah. >> They would be opposed to the word

Andrew WilsonChrist. >> Yeah. Probably deist and others would. Yeah. >> Come on. >> Yeah. No, that's true. >> Deists are Christian. >> Deist reject the divinity of Christ. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. So he's using creator because he doesn't want to use the word Christ. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> Literally >> TJ But TJ meant Christ. The no say he meant Christ. >> You're basically

Andrew Wilsonsaying this is part of using non-offensive language which then led to compromise using non-offensive language. The compromise was that the states the states could have their own religion, couldn't they?

Andrew Wilson>> That's the point. The feds are just not allowed to tell the states what religion they can have. >> I feel like if any of the feds >> really wanted to write Christ into the Constitution, they did a really [ __ ]

Andrew Wilsonjob. >> What? They're not writing it into the Constitution. >> They probably should if they want it to be a Christian nation. >> Oh my lord. >> Probably should. >> Was it pan Protestant at the time? Can we agree on that? >> Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. So, when they're making this compromise with the states, did the states want their states to be Protestant? >> No. >> But they wanted to be Christian, pan Protestant Christian. >> They didn't they didn't want their various states to be some form of Protestantism. Usually,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> it would depend on like the people collecting in that state. If they're most of the states what were what? Protestant. >> They Yeah. were Protestant. >> It's funny because you argued with me on that one before. Yeah. I'd grant that most of them were Protestant. >> No, I didn't argue with you on that. >> You did. I said most of the states would

Andrew Wilsonhave been Protestant, right? And you said no. >> That never happened. >> It would have been all of them. >> No, that's not how that conversation went. >> It's fine. If you're granting Here's the thing. It's funny. I'll take it. I'll take it. Yes. It was pan Protestantism. >> But most of it was Protestantism, right?

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. Pan Protestantism. Correct. And they disagreed about all sorts of things. The divinity of Christ. They disagreed about their theology of baptism. They disagreed >> about their theology about all sorts of different things. >> They didn't agree that they didn't

Andrew Wilsondisagree that Christ existed. >> Yes. But the divinity matters. And so the thing is that's interesting here is like when we're talking about each of these individual uh states. Each one of

Andrew Wilsonthem was allowed to have a religion and that was part of the compromise. the entirety of the First Amendment is just saying that the federal government can't establish a religion because those

Andrew Wilsonstates didn't want them to impose that religion on them. Not that the states could not have religions. That was never the intention. >> You're right. They didn't want the federal government to impose religion on

NotSoErudite (Kyla)them. It's almost like a founding piece of the American ethos is not forcing religion and not forcing beliefs onto people. >> Yeah. Unless you're unless you're in unless you're in the States, which is part of the American ethos. Oh, so now we can impose.

Andrew Wilson>> They did >> like what? >> Oh my god. You had to make declarations that you believed in in God in order to vote in many of these states. >> Not federally. >> I didn't. What? States. States. >> I'm talking about America. You were

NotSoErudite (Kyla)talking about >> America is a collection of states. America. I don't know. >> I said the word state four times. >> Yep. You were talking about how the federal government did not impose on the states a religion.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yes. >> Mhm. And then I said, so I responded and I said, "You're right. It's almost as though the founding fathers did not want to impose a religion on the people." >> And then my response to you was, "Of course, that's been established." The

NotSoErudite (Kyla)states did. Yes. >> But the states did. The states did. >> Yeah. We're talking about America. The American ethos specifically. >> The states are part of the American ethos. >> Sure. But I don't think that like uh Maryland deciding that they want to be, let's say, Protestant. I don't know what

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the dominant or >> No, it's Maryland's ability to do that. That's part of the American ethos. >> Sure. And then they got rid of it. All of them. >> No, the American ethos. It's not they got rid >> the American ethos from the founding

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fathers was we don't impose religion on people. We let the states choose. We don't impose religion on people. True base. Thanks, Andrew. >> Oh, except we did. >> Where did we find >> at the state level? It was all federal. I'm talking about federal.

Andrew Wilson>> Why didn't the federal government go in there and stop those [ __ ] states from imposing their religious values? >> Because they uh >> because they couldn't. >> Well, they didn't want to. >> Yeah. Exactly. They Exactly. They couldn't. They couldn't. They were not allowed to. >> Sure.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's almost as though the American founding fathers agreed that we should not impose religion on people, which I would say Christian nationalism wants to violate. >> Except they didn't agree with that. They compromised for it. >> Oh, so they did want it. They just couldn't do it in the federal thing. So

NotSoErudite (Kyla)they >> was the compromise. Yes. >> Yeah. So this is what I'm saying. You're saying actually the founding fathers did want the imposition of religion on America. They just couldn't do it at the time. So they wrote it in in this

NotSoErudite (Kyla)backhanded way to let the states do it. But the actual intention of the founding fathers wasn't written in a backhanded way in religion. It was written into the 10th amendment. >> That's not a backhanded way. It's an upfront way. It's very upfront.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Almost like if they wanted religion to be imposed on the nation, they would have done so. >> They didn't want a national religion imposed on the nation. >> You're right. They didn't. They wanted separation of church and state at the national level, which is central to the American people.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Agreed with that 500 times. >> True. But then you keep on trying to fight me and being like, "Well, Maryland kept it for a while." So that's actually also the American ethos. It's like, "No, it's not." >> No, actually they updated to agree with In fact, every single state

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. Every single state no longer has a religious test >> because the 14th amendment >> does. >> That's not the states doing that. That was a federal thing. >> Most of the states updated and got rid of their religious tests long before the 14th amendment. >> Oh yeah. When do you think the last one ended?

Andrew Wilson>> I have no idea. [laughter] >> When do you think it comes out? >> The 60s. I think the last one was in the 60s where you you didn't have to say you know like uh declare that you uh worshiped God in order to uh you know

Andrew Wilsonswear an oath or something like that. I think it was the '60s. >> Sure. But the last one happening in the '60s doesn't mean that most of the states hadn't updated before then. >> Some of them did. >> Sure. >> Yeah, some of them. >> Yeah, that's the truth is trying to fight me on that, but that's what I'm claiming.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Most of that was because the 14th amendment. Uh do you think most of the states got rid of the religious clause when the 14th amendment came out or do you think most states had already adopt adopted the federal landscape and then some places had

Andrew Wilson>> no what was going on was that a lot of the states wanted to return actually to the idea of having state religion and this was challenged in court and so what happened is yeah actually yes this was a national conversation >> court and then

Andrew Wilson>> and then it was challenged in court they said well based on the 14th amendment which is about [ __ ] citizenship states can't do that anymore because of the [ __ ] and uniformity clause or whatever it is. It's like what the [ __ ] are you talking about? >> Cool. So, the federal government of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)America in line with the federal government initially doesn't want to impose religion and then when it became a big question of whether or not states could continue to do so, the same American government over time also agreed that it was unamerican to do so. Cool. >> Well, they didn't agree it's unamerican.

Andrew Wilson>> Well, they definitely felt that it was a violation of the Constitution >> based on the 14th amendment. That doesn't make it unamerican. Sure. What would be unamerican about repealing that? Nothing. >> Um, >> nothing. I I say with nothing would be

NotSoErudite (Kyla)unamerican about I think the federal the federal government initially and throughout all of America's history has moved in a direction of separation of church and state. They think it's very important to not >> at the federal level. That's true. >> Yeah. America. We are talking about America. >> America is not just the federal government.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I didn't say it just is, but when we're talking about the emergent principle of America, we should probably think about what the federal >> we are thinking about it. We're thinking about the federal and we're thinking about the state. >> I know the federal government said that we can't impose religion, but states

Andrew Wilsonsaid they could. So actually, so actually the American ethos is imposing relation. >> I know that the I know that the states could definitely impose all of their religious values that on everybody, but the feds all that matters is what the

Andrew Wilsonfeds want. >> I feel like when I do, >> all that matters, >> it's a little cuter. >> All that matters is what the feds want, man. Because the states don't even matter, bro. Even though that was who the compromise was with. It's like, what are you talking about?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Your wifey. >> Mhm. >> Um Yeah. It's almost like since it was founded by Christians and these same Christians separated church and state. So it's almost like the Christians even then agreed with me that it would be

NotSoErudite (Kyla)uncchristian to impose a religion at a federal level on the people is never in question. >> It it is you're just trying to be like but the states but Maryland kept it for a while man. >> Okay. Maryland's not America. Yeah.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)You're right. >> You're right. Maryland's not America. You got it. >> But 10 states aren't America. America is a collected unified group under the Constitution, particularly the federal constitution. >> A unified group of what? >> Uh people. >> States.

Andrew Wilson>> People. >> States. >> Uh sure. As well. States. But like the people of the states. Yeah. >> Mhm. When we're talking about rights and separations of power, do you think that state separation and federal separation matter?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I do too. >> Cool. That doesn't mean that we were founded on a Christian nation, that Christian nationalism is what the American ethos is or that it should be. >> Well, what was in question is whether or not unamerican to change the

Andrew Wilsonconstitution. Uh because Christian nationalists want to make a compelling case for that at all. >> No, it was not about whether it was unamerican to change the constitution. >> That's literally the prompt. The prompt is if it's unamerican to have Christian nationalism. Your only argument was I

Andrew Wilsonthink that if they went in and restricted things that I don't like that that's unamerican because no reason. >> No. Their reasoning was like because life, liberty, and some nebulous pursuit of

Andrew Wilsonhappiness. And even if I grant that Christian nationalists can get in there and they can do things like go after liberty, that's fine because I'm not a liberty maximist. But they can preserve life. That's fine. I'm not a life maximist. It's like you just you just

Andrew Wilsonyou just equivocate on everything. >> I'm not a how am I how is any of that equation? >> Because you utilize when you when I say wait a second when you say uh liberty, if you go against liberty, that's going against some kind of American ethos. I

Andrew Wilsonsay, "Okay, that's fair." Then I give you an example of when we would go after liberty and it would be fine. You're like, "That's fine because I'm not a liberty maximalist." >> How is that equivocating? >> Because you're using the word liberty here in two different ways. You're

Andrew Wilsonsaying, "Well, liberty in this case, >> I'm using it the same in both places." >> Okay. So, where's the threshold for maximalism? For liberty? >> I'm not sure exactly where it is, but there is a threshold. >> I got to take a leak. There's a threshold somewhere. >> Of course. Yeah, I know where. Hey,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)there's a threshold for most things, but not knowing the precise point of Loki's wager where it falls isn't like incoherent or inconsistent. [snorts] >> Yeah, it just doesn't tell us anything. >> Uh well, if we work as a collective to

Brian Atlasfind where that line is, it would tell us something meaningful, right? [laughter] >> Yeah, we have uh we got some chats here. I think there's one actually specifically for you, Kyla, that I'm

Brian Atlasgoing to have come in here. Maybe I should wait until uh Andrew returns so he can maybe hear your response, but uh I'll go ahead. Can you look

SPEAKER_02>> donated $100? >> Kyler, are you a Christian? >> Yes. >> What denomination? Are you pro-choice or pro-life? Would you get an abortion

SPEAKER_02under any circumstance? If so, what? Are you fine with gay marriage? Can women be clergy? >> Uh so what denomination? And then if you want to >> Yeah. So I can answer these. What these

NotSoErudite (Kyla)are are basically like Christmas lip Christian litmus tests um to basically like see how pure I am because Christians love to be snowflakes and clutch their pearls as much as anyone else. Do you want to throw them back on screen so I make sure I respond to them all? >> Yeah, I will pull it back up right now. >> So am I Christian? Yes. Which

NotSoErudite (Kyla)denomination? I'm broadly Protestant, but I appeal to a form of theology called post uh it's called uh radical orthodoxy. Um so it's not really like a denomination, but Protestant generally

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is fine. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Me personally, I'm pro uh life as maximal as possible, but at a policy level, I think decriminalization leads to the most good outcomes. And I think

NotSoErudite (Kyla)God as a virtuess wants the most good outcomes maxally as much as possible. Would I get an abortion under any circumstances? I have no idea. I would have I probably not, but I'm not sure. I haven't had to confront that in in a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)serious way. Uh if so, what? I'm not sure. Um [clears throat] possibly, but probably not. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to like doing sin, so probably not. Are you fine with

NotSoErudite (Kyla)gay marriage legally? Yes. Can women be clergy? I [snorts] haven't actually theologically looked at that one. I just don't really care if I'm being honest. Um I'm not sure. >> Okay.

Brian Atlas>> All right. Uh those are some TTS's or we have a few more, but I'll wait until Andrew's back. If you guys do want to get a TTS in, that's uh streamlabs.com/

Brian Atlaswhatever. We've lowered the TTS. It was previously 200, now it's $199. That's if you guys want to get one in. Yeah, they're getting a good deal. Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video. Uh, what are we at on the likes?

Brian AtlasDoes anybody know in the chat what are we on? Or Nathan, can you check what we're on the likes? Maybe we can hit a threshold here before Andrew returns. >> How many likes do you want? >> Uh, 3,700, guys. There's 10. There's

Brian Atlas11,000 people watching. Andrew is going to return in just a moment. Let's get to 4,000. >> We can do it. We need 300 likes. 300 likes if uh you guys can get us to 4,000 likes. >> Regardless who you like here, right,

Brian AtlasBrian was kind enough to host this debate and bring you guys content. Give him the likes. >> And instead of properly moderating the debate, I spent most the bulk of it cleaning up >> cleaning after women. >> Cleaning up the table. Andrew spilled too, by the way. He But not as big of a

Brian Atlasspill as Mine was pretty bad. >> It was pretty bad. >> I'm very sorry about that. >> It was a bad spill. Is this okay? >> Yeah, it's all good. Okay, we rescued it. >> Yeah, it's all good. So guys, like the video. Like the video for the spill. Like the video. I'm over here carpet

Brian Atlascleaning. >> Feminist Brian Atlas cleaning up after women. >> Whoa. That >> it was good of you to not make me do it. >> Flipping and shipping. [laughter] >> Well, hey, you know, you guys are in the middle of the debate, so I figure I'm just uh I'll I'll do the cleaning, you

NotSoErudite (Kyla)know. >> Okay. He's trying to make himself not seem that nice, but he was reminding me of things. He was helping me out. You were being very gentlemanly. >> Well, I try to be fair to both participants in the debate. egalitarian feminist like

Brian Atlas>> um [laughter] Nathan, can you pull up Twitch for us? Guys, if you're watching over there on Twitch, we have I think about a thousand viewers over there on Twitch. If you can uh uh pull up, Nathan

Brian Atlasthe Twitch on Windows. Perfect. Guys, uh 1300 over there on Twitch. Uh if you have a Prime sub available, I am a starving broke college student artist.

Brian AtlasIf you guys can just, you know, if you have Amazon Prime, link it to your Prime uh Twitch. It's quick for easy way to support the show every single month. Uh if you So if you guys could support the show, very much appreciate it. Also, drop us a follow if you guys would like

Brian Atlasto see more debates. Appreciate it. Guys, like the video again, get us to over 4,000. Uh I'm going to read this super chat here. Uh Texas Red, thank you very much for the super chat. Very kind

Brian Atlasof you. This is getting annoying. Scotus gets to determine what the Constitution says based on the power grab of Marbory v. Madison power grab. No state agreed to the loss of their ability to

Brian Atlasdetermine a state religion. The 14th says that entirely from the bench of Scotas. >> Totally unamerican by the way. >> Texas Red, thank you for the super chat. Did Did you want to respond further or was that kind of >> Yeah, he's right. It's totally

Andrew Wilsonunamerican. The whole idea here we're asking about whether or not Christian nationalism is American or not. She's appealing to ideals which are not even like for instance, I don't even think the word secularism existed at that time.

Andrew Wilson>> True. >> Okay. Like you're appealing to ideals in the presentism form that are >> say secular like an ideal of America. >> Yeah. The ideal of America when you're talking about pursuit of happiness, how it's ingenuity, it's all about science.

Andrew WilsonIt's about these things. It's like it was also about states rights. States rights was was fundamentally an American core value. The idea that Christian nationalists would give it back to the states, give gay marriage back to the states, give abortion back to the

Andrew Wilsonstates, that is fundamental to that ideal. And it's very, very much an American ideal. >> Right. But there's obviously going to be times where federal policy like imposes over top of states. >> Not if Christian nationalists are in power,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)then they can change federal policy. Wait, so if Christian nationalists are in power and they want to seed power, would they accept California allowing the transing of kids and for gay marriage and for all of the liberal porn, the liberal degeneracy, Christian

Andrew Wilsonnationalists would go, >> if it's the case, if it's the case that inside of a democracy, Christian nationalists are elected to these high offices and can pass legislation which then stops California from doing that, you could not have a single objection to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that. Uh, sure I could. I would say probably those Californians don't want that and that would be a pretty major violation of state, >> but under the current framework, you're

Andrew Wilsoncalling it unamerican if we don't adhere to the 14th amendment and SCOTA's ruling of the 14th amend amendment. It's fundamentally unamerican because the founders didn't want states to have religions or some [ __ ] >> I said that what's unamerican is

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next