When evaluating whether an ideology promotes harmful behaviors, one must distinguish between the doctrine itself and the actions of its followers. The existence of individuals who identify with an ideology and engage in harmful behavior does not prove that the ideology itself promotes those behaviors. For example, the actions of racist Christians do not prove that Christianity promotes racism, just as corrupt politicians do not prove that democracy promotes corruption. This distinction is crucial for meaningful ideological analysis.
安装我们的扩展，即时搜索任意视频内容
Debate | Does Right-Wing Christian Ideology Promote Racial Bias本站添加:
warning.
>> The information shared in these conversations and videos are intended for general knowledge and entertainment purposes only. It should not be considered as legal advice or professional guidance. Additionally, any documentation or references to specific content are solely for the purpose of discussion and understanding. It does not imply endorsement, promotion, or support of said content. The views expressed in these videos and/or conversation are those of the individuals involved and do not represent any official stance or opinion. The content you are about to experience may contain strong language, including explicit words and phrases.
This language is used for artistic expression and may be integral to the story line or character development. It is important to note that the use of such language does not endorse or promote offensive behavior. Viewer discretion is advised and please enjoy the show responsibly. Disclaimer.
Copyright disclaimer. Under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowances made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. The Canadian Copyright Act section 29 allows an individual to use copyright protected materials when creating a new work such as a mashup and to post the new work online on a site like YouTube. Fair dealing provision for specific purposes like research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, and news reporting.
Don't a Don't me.
papa.
Hey Don't down.
Heat. Heat. N.
How do you Feel bad.
Down.
Hello and welcome today to speak easy debates. We have on one end the one and only speak easy, host of the best burbat jiujitsu show in the internet called burbal combat and moderator of sorts of reason. He's also a season debate on his own right and promotes conservative values. He'll be against he'll be today against the Kentucky atheist, an atheist activist and community advocate. He has his own podcast called political politicality with Joan Le and he is a debate in his own right and he advocates for the atheistic worldview. Today we're going to have a debate on does right-wing Christian ideology promote racial bias. We're going to start the debate with 10-minute opening statements. This is uninterrupted. We're going to have a five minute rebuttal.
After that, we have a 60-minute open dialogue that can be extended up to 60 minutes. And finally, we're going to have a fiveinut closing statements. So, today I'll be I'm EMTT. I'm going to be just here moderating and hope that both of you have an excellent and amazing debate for what I understand. The person who's going to be um starting will be none other than you, uh the Kentucky Atheist.
So whenever you're ready, I will press play.
>> I thought I was going first.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Easy. Then will be you the one who will be starting. So whenever you're ready, I will prepare press.
>> No worries. No worries. Uh first off, shout out to um Kentucky Atheist for coming through. I appreciate that. Um a lot of people tell me, "Email me, we'll debate." Uh it doesn't happen. Um, and then, uh, also shout out to EMTT for pulling through. Um, we needed a moderator last minute and he, uh, came and showed up. You can go ahead and start the timer. Um, but yeah, tonight's debate, all right, asks whether right-wing Christian ideology promotes racial bias. All right, the answer is simply no. Right. What's fascinating about this debate is that my atheist opponent has to accuse Christianity of promoting racial bias while standing on a worldview that can't even explain why racial bias would be objectively wrong.
Christianity begins with a radical claim. Every human being is made in the image of God. Every race, every ethnicity, every nation, every tribe, every tongue. Not because they're useful, not because they're productive, not because of some genetically superior genes. It's because they're human beings created by God. Christianity doesn't divide humanity into superior and inferior races. It unites humanity under a common creator. So if Christianity promotes racial bias, I have a simple challenge. You have to show me the doctrine. Show me the creed. Show me the church council, the teaching. Show me where Christianity says one race possesses greater human worth than another. You can't because it does not exist. What my opponent will do instead is to point to Christians who were racist. But that's like arguing that a traffic law promotes speeding because some drivers ignore them. Right? This the existence of hypocrites does not define the belief system. Now, here's where the things get interesting because my opponent is an atheist and atheism has a serious problem. Okay? Under atheism, human beings are ultimately the product of unguided natural processes, right? No no divine image, no objective dignity, no transcendent value, no universal human worth, just highly evolved organisms all fighting and competing for survival. And that's important because many of what the most influential racial theories in history emerge not from Christian theology but from secular attempts to explain humanity through biology, evolution, and materialism. Once human beings become nothing more than advanced animals, right? We're inevitably going to begin ranking these animals. Who's stronger?
Who's smarter? Who's more evolved? Who's more useful? Who's less useful?
Christianity says every person has equal value because they are made by God.
Materialism asks what value does this person provide. One worldview begins with dignity. The other must try to invent it. The Christian worldview says a homeless man and a billionaire possess equal human worth. The atheist worldview struggles to explain why either possesses worth at all. And history reflects this. The the abolitionist movement was overwhelmingly driven by Christians. Christian reformers fought slavery because they believed all men were made in God's image. Christian missionaries crossed oceans and preached to people that don't even speak the same language, every race, because they believe every soul matters equally. If Christianity inherently promoted racial bias, why did Christian principles produce some of the most powerful anti-slavery and anti-racist movements in history? That's like arguing the cure is responsible for the disease. All right. Now, let me say what I think my opponent's uh going to argue before we get there. Okay. I think he's going to mention slavery. He's going to mention segregation. He's going to mention racist Christians. He's going to mention colonialism. It's going to mention some church somewhere that did something terrible. And I want to point this out.
None of this will prove any of this claim. The debate isn't, "Have Christians ever done racist things?" The debate is, "Does right-wing Christian ideology promote racial bias?" Those are completely different questions. If a doctor smokes cigarettes, that doesn't prove that medicine promotes smoking. If a police officer commits a crime, that doesn't prove law promotes crime. So if a Christian behaves racistly, that's not going to prove Christianity promotes racism. So to prove his case, my opponent must demonstrate that racial bias is embedded within the Christian doctrine itself. Not in the behavior of imperfect people, not in political history, not in some cultural failures, in the ideology. He won't be able to do it. He'll likely pivot and say Christianity was used to justify slavery. Of course it was. Right? People have used nearly everything to justify nearly everything. The question is not what people justify. The question is what the ideology actually teaches. The same Christianity he blames for slavery will produce uh has produced Wilburforce abolitionism uh civil rights activism uh the argument that every human being possesses equal value and that's before God. So which is better measure of an ideology? Those who violate it or those who consistently apply it? And then finally, my opponent faces a challenge he cannot escape.
If God does not exist, if humans are cosmic accidents, if morality is merely a social construct, then tell me why racism is objectively wrong. Why is it not just unpopular or just not offensive or socially discouraged? What would be objectively wrong with calling every brown man a monkey? With calling every Asian man a [ __ ] With calling every Mexican a [ __ ] and every Jew a penny pitching con artist? What would be objectively wrong with this? Because unless he can answer that question, he's borrowing the very moral assumptions Christianity gave him while attacking the source. Christianity doesn't promote racial bias. It provides one of the strongest foundations ever conceived for rejecting it. and I can't wait to get into this back and forth.
>> Would that be the end of the opening statement just to be sure?
>> Oh, yes. Sorry. Sorry. And I I'll uh concede the rest of my time.
>> Okay. Then um we're going to move to uh the Atheist. Whenever you're ready, I will start the clock.
Okay. Um, hey everyone, Joe here from the Kentucky Atheist. Today I am taking the affirmative on the question, does right-wing Christian ideology promote racial bias? Uh, first I want to thank Speak Easy for jumping into this debate with me. Uh, this this is a heavy topic, so I want to lay my cards on the table right away about what we're actually talking about here. Um, and if speak easy holds to some different definition of these words, uh, when it's your turn, just let me know so we're not talking past each other. But I want to let you know what I mean when I say certain terms here. So, um, when people hear the term racial bias, they immediately think of explicit racism, like someone shouting racial slurs or being intentional hate, intentionally hateful. uh modern psychology and sociology show us that that bias usually uh works a lot more quietly than than that. It's it's not always this explicit racism. Um implicit race bias would be uh this it's a fancy term for unconscious stereotypes. It's the stuff baked in our brains that affects the way we react to people without us even realizing it. Um even people who genuinely believe in equality can harbor implicit biases. Um uh you will also hear me talk about systemic bias. Uh this is what happens when those biases get baked straight into the system uh into laws, housing, hiring practices, and the justice system. It's why minorities face massive disadvantages even if no one is explicitly saying uh racist things to their face.
Um right-wing Christian ideology. To be totally clear, I'm not talking about your grandma's private faith or people who just want to go to church on Sunday.
I'm talking about a specific, highly organized political movement that tries to fuse conservative politics with Christian nationalism.
Over the next few minutes, I'm going to show you that this uh specific movement doesn't just cross paths with racial bias. It actually drives it. and I'm going to prove it using three pillars. History, statistics, and organizations.
Uh so let's start with the history. Um there's a lot of revisionist history out there. Uh if you ask people today how the modern religious right got started, they'll usually tell you it was a moral crus crusade against abortion or school prayer. But that's flatout historically incorrect. The modern political movement of the Christian right was actually born as a direct defense against racial segregation. Uh back in the 1950s after Supreme Court passed Brown versus Board of Education, um outlaw it outlawed uh segregated schools, evangelical leaders all across the South didn't celebrate.
Instead, they scrambled uh to open thousands of private Christian schools that historians literally call segregationmies.
Does that sound familiar? The the whole point was to use a private Christian label to keep white kids away from black kids. The real spark that mobilized the whole movement into politics happened when the IRS threatened to pull the tax against status of Bob Jones University.
Why? Because the university banned interracial dating. Leaders like Jerry Fwell Senior and Paul Werrick looked at that fight and realized they could use the defense of these segregated Christian schools to rally white evangelicals into massive unified political voting block. Uh the very foundation of right-wing Christian politics was built to protect white institutional privilege. Back in the 1950s and60s, mainstream conservative pastors weren't just quietly disagreeing with Martin Luther King Jr. They were using conservative Christian theology to actively fight the civil rights movement. Prominent voices literally preached from the pulpit that God was the original segregationist because he separated the nations at the Tower of Babel. They argued that integration was ungodly sin and against the divine order. This created a multigenerational framework where protecting racial boundaries wasn't just a political stance. It was taught as holy duty. You simply cannot separate the modern right-wing Christian movement from the racial biases it was literally invented to protect.
Uh my second pillar is modern data.
So um you know you might say that those things were 70 years ago and and that's that's not the way it is now. Uh but data that we have now shows us that this history didn't just vanish. it evolved into what we now call Christian nationalism. A massive 2023 study uh done jointly by the Public Religion Research Institute or PRRI and the Brookings Institution looked right under the hood of this movement. They found that nearly twothirds of white evangelical Protestants qualify as either Christian nationalist nationalism adherence or sympathizers. Over half of all Republicans fit that description, too.
To put that in perspective, you're four times more likely to find a Christian nationalist on the political right than anywhere else.
But there is an absolute smoking gun in that data. The study asks people to agree or disagree with this exact quote.
God intended America to be a new promised land where European Christians could create a society. Now, twothirds of general Americans uh two-thirds of the general American public reject this idea completely, but a staggering 83% of core Christian nationalists adherence agree with it. Let's be clear here.
European is not a theological term. It's a racial category. It means white. Over 80% of a massive political religious movement explicitly believes that God wants America to belong to white Christians. That ideology is de is by definition promoting and validating racial bias.
My third pillar I will argue we have to look at what happens when you take this ideology to its logical unchecked conclusion. There is a direct pipeline where radical violent white supremacist groups find their main justification in right-wing Christian theology. The Aryan Nations founded by Richard Butler was a group literally a political arm of the church. They use Christian identity theology to teach that white Europeans are God's actual chosen people while non-white people are subhuman mud peoples. They use this exact religious framework to bridge the gap into broader right-wing militia movements of the 80s and 90s.
The Knots party or KKK as you know it now led by a licensed Christian identity m minister named Thomas Rob. This branch of the clan did something highly strategic. They traded their robes for business suits and deliberately started copying the mainstream religious right.
They took explicit white supremacy and repackaged it using standard right-wing talking points like anti-immigration, anti-LGBTQ plus and protecting traditional family values to call it heritage protection. Elohim City, this is a heavily armed Christian community in Oklahoma. Their spiritual leader taught that physical racial segregation was mandatory Christian duty. Because of that shared right-wing religious ideology, Elohim City became a physical sanctuary for some of the most violent domestic terrorists in the US history, including Timothy McBay before the Oklahoma City bombing. These aren't just isolated secular cults. These are organizations that exposely use right-wing Christian ideology to justify their hatred. pulling from the exact same pool of European Christian supremacy and mainstream polling exposes this. Um, look, when you tie it all together, from its origins as a legal shield for segregation to modern polling where 83% of followers say America belongs to white Europeans down to the radical extremist groups weaponizing its theology. Right-wing Christian ideology doesn't just accidentally stumble into racial bias. It actively bursts it, sustains it, and promotes it. Um, thank thanks thanks for listening and and I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Yield the rest of my time.
>> Thank you so much for both of you. With the opening statements, I will remind everybody that at the end of the debate, we have a Q&A session. It's going to be 30 minutes. All super chats will be prioritized. So, be taking your wallet out and be using your husband's credit card, so you can use uh so you can ask any questions that you want. We're going to start with the with the rebuttals.
Uh, whenever you are ready. Uh, easy.
>> All right. Um, all right. So, my opponent spent this entire opening proving something I uh never disputed. He proved that some Christians have held racist views. All right. Congratulations, though. That's a It's exactly what I said was going to happen. This debate is whether right-wing Christian ideology promotes racial bias. Right. You still haven't shown a single Christian doctrine that teaches racial superiority, right? Not one. Instead, we get uh uh Jerry Far Fwell, uh uh KKK, Are Nations, Elohim City. Uh these are examples of people, not the doctrine, not theology, not not Christian teaching. Right? Do you drink water?
Well, guess what? Hitler drank water, too. I guess anybody who drinks water is horrible. I just this I don't see this thing. This is equivalent of me arguing that you you promote mass murder cuz Stalin was an atheist. So I mean that must be what you promote, right? Or secularism promotes eugenics because eugenicists are all secular, right? That democracy promotes corruption because corrupt politicians exist, right? This is a ridiculous standard to hold, right?
the the actions of followers do not automatically define the ideology.
Right? So you try to move the goalpost by saying racial bias doesn't have to be explicit. That's fine. Right? Even if we accept that he still you still have to show that Christian doctrine itself uh creates this implicit racial bias, right? So where is that? I like we got to know where's that doctrine teaching whites are superior or superior or or that blacks are inferior where's the doctrine teaching unequal human worth right the the reason you can't produce this is because it doesn't exist right we what we want to do what we're doing here is we're we're uh redefining Christianity a as as Christian nationalism then redefine Christian nationalism as white nationalism, then redefine white nationalism as Christianity. That's what you're doing with this, right? Like that's that's this is not an argument. It's a it's a it's a game of telephone. You know what I mean? Like it Christian nationalism is a political theory concerning relationship between Christianity and and the national identity that whether someone agrees with it or not it's not uh equivalent or or synonymous with uh racial supremacies, right? America's not a race, Canada's not a race. England's not a race. um you know like nations aren't races.
They're going to get into that after too. I don't think you can tell me what a race is, right? He also um the polling data that some what was it? Some white Christians or is it uh believe God wants Europe or America to remain predominantly European which is white.
Like even if that was to exist, that wouldn't be evidence that Christianity promotes racial bias, right? Like that's like that would be at best that some Christians hold certain political opinions, right? I I I I can tell you right now I'm for Christian nationalism.
That wouldn't mean that Christianity teaches that, right? So again, you're proving things about Christians, not Christianity. And this is where the entire thing falls apart, right? If if we're allowed to judge ideologies by their worst adherence, you have huge problems. Right? Again, should we judge atheism by Stalin or or uh uh secularism u by uh take your pick, right? Should I judge materialism by 20 uh the 20th the the 20th century eugenics movements we got going on right now? Should I judge evolutionary theories by the racial hierarchies they they were used to justify? Right? Remember the the crack in the skull of of the black people? Christianity didn't teach that.
That was that was biology, evolution, right? So like you have a huge problem here. Um there's a whole bunch here and I have here still to respond but we'll get into that in the opening. Um but yeah, I think you've run into a huge problem here and I'll see the rest of my time there.
>> Thank you very much. Uh for that we're going to go ahead and just reset the timer. Whenever you are ready to atheist just to start whenever you start.
So, so basically, excuse me, what?
>> Oh, my my apologies. I was just going to say that whenever you start talking, I will uh start the timer. I will reset it and whenever you start talking, I will start it. Okay.
>> Oh, I go, man. All right. So, essentially what what you did is make a whole big no true Scotsman fallacy about Christianity. I I'm not here to to debate about what's in people's hearts or whether the Bible's a good book um or or or whether it it explicitly teaches racism because that's not the question here. The the question literally ties together right-wing and Christianity into a single ideology. And uh I showed you uh I gave statistics from a study that shows that 80% of the people that agree with those two things together are Christian nationalists. So I didn't redefine anything that that's that's the definitions. Uh the um this is about a a real world political movement that that is affecting uh everybody and it it's called the Christian right. I'm not saying that uh Christianity inherently call it causes racism and I'm not arguing uh about Christianity here. This is about the religious right or right-wing Christian nationalism is what the question asks. So that's that's what I brought to it. Um, and whether it explicitly says, uh, you know, racial slurs and all of those things, that the ideology itself functions this way in society. Um, your idealized version of of what that is isn't actually the the way that it functions or what people who were asked in multiple huge surveys uh, agreed with. the the things about um uh European uh white Europeans uh they were asked the question and they agreed with it. The the 80% of the 80% of Republicans that are Christian nationalists.
So, it's very much the point of of this debate. And you you seem to continue to to put forward this idea that if the Bible and its teachings don't just give racial slurs that it it can't be used to promote racial bias. And that's just not the case. The history is there. The statistics are there. You have to you have to deal with those statistics in some way in order to say that that that's not the case.
Um, what else? Uh, um, you know, in your opening you tried to make this about atheism versus Christianity, and I don't care to have that conversation, but it's not really like what we're talking about today. Um, I don't care to get into that in the back and forth if you want. Um, but, um, you also said that Christians promoted the biggest anti-slavery movement. they also promoted the slavery that that that that movement had to get rid of. So you you have this changing um ideology there based on on a static text. Uh um and and you know, Christians and and everyone else have done racist things, I'm sure, but uh to say that ideology doesn't allow for it is is just it's just not what we see. Um uh the ideology teaches that it's not the question whether the ideology promotes racial. I already answered that. Uh um you you brought up objective morals and stuff in in your opening. Um I don't I don't know what to do with that. That's not that's not what we're here to talk about. But again, if you want to discuss my position on morality and stuff during the back and forth, I don't care to. um uh some some Christians held racist val values uh is is just it it's a fallacy to escape all of the information I gave in my opening and uh I'll concede the rest of my time.
Okay, thank you very much for the rebuttals rebuttals for both of you. I'm going to go ahead and start with the 60 minutes. I'm gonna put it up in the screen. Um, once I press play, you're both of you are um I apolog I'm trying to get this done.
Uh, when I press play, both of you are open to start talking when you're ready.
Uh, once again, thank you to both of you for the debate and, you know, keep it above the belt. You are killing it.
>> All right. Well, let me let me let me ask something. Okay. Let me just point out something here, right? So, seems to me you're completely I know you're saying you're you're talking about right-wing Christianity, right? So, you're not just are you conceding to the point that Christianity doesn't like you're not arguing Christianity promotes racial bias?
>> Uh, no, I can make that argument too. Uh but that's I am I am I am saying that the right-wing Christian ideology does promote racial bias. Christianity on its own we I mean I think Christianity and right-wing ideology both individually promote racial bias and we can talk about how they do that.
Um but uh I wouldn't I wouldn't say I'm not saying that every Christian goes around yelling slurs though in order to do that.
Right. But are you saying Christianity itself like because it seemed like you just said I'm not going to get into you pulled a no true Scotsman and I'm not going to get into you about Christian ideology. It's about right-wing Christian ideology. Right. So like it seems like you're arguing some people who identify as right-wing Christians promote racial bias.
Well, so so there's a difference between Christianity as a religious belief system and right-wing Christian ideology. They aren't the same thing.
>> Okay. So, just just to be clear then, are you are you are you okay then to say that Christianity doesn't promote racial bias and we can move on? You know, I can just >> It doesn't It doesn't explicitly do it.
>> Yeah.
Christianity has implicit racial bias uh within within some of it. I don't think it's a goal of it to promote it. Um it's it's one of these things that uh takes place throughout the entire Bible though with chosen peoples and and promoting xenophobia and and all that stuff. So, um, we can talk about the ways that Christianity does that. But that's separate from the right-wing ideology, the right-wing Christian ideology that we have in America. That's that's not the same thing. It's not Christianity.
It's right-wing Christianity.
Okay, fine. That you know what? I don't I get it. And you know what? I don't want to do the debate thing uh the def definition debate thing either with you.
I'm going to grant that the KKK was Christian, Aryan Nations was Christian, uh, all the segregationists, they all called themselves Christians. Fine.
Prove white right-wing Christian ideology promotes racial bias, right?
All you're doing is pointing to extremists, >> right? If I if can I say like I brought this up earlier. If I argue secularism promotes eugenics because eugenicists were secular, you gota just or atheism promotes genocide because Stalin was atheist. Are are you okay with that?
See, see you you you're missing the point here. I'm not saying that it promotes racial bias because there were racists in Christianity. That's never the point I made. That's that's never anything I said.
>> But that's your proof. You're you're you're saying right-wing ideology, right-wing Christian ideology promotes racial bias. Here's some racially biased people that say they're right-wing Christians.
>> That doesn't show the What about the ideology says that? Where where is that?
>> So, I explained to you how they use that ideology to then to then promote those things. It's not >> association. It's it's not an accident that all of these right-wing white supremacist groups found found homes in both Christianity and right-wing ideology. It's not it's not by accident that every one of them falls in there.
>> Every one of them that that that's So if I can point to one that doesn't you you you lose.
>> That would falsify every one of them. I mean nearly all.
>> Okay. So nearly all. You'll have a job finding one leftwing uh uh white supremacist group, though.
>> Okay. Well, let's let's go to this here.
Let me let me give you this for a minute because you say like Christian nationalism you brought up. All right. I I'm for Christian nationalism.
Why where is Christian nationalism equal racial nationalism? Why are you using them like they're interchangeable?
So, Christian nationalism, this this huge study I pointed to, a joint study by two huge institutions found that Christian nationalists uh once once we identified who the Christian nationalists are, which are 80% of of right-wing Republicans, 80% of those people agreed with with racial biases towards uh America. that that that it's a a European Christian country uh for for European Christians. They agreed with that statement. So So >> how many people >> you can't just say it's some fringe group of people.
>> I mean it's weird because it's like a poll like anybody can just lie and >> say anything on this poll, right?
>> But how many people was it >> show?
Uh, I think it was 6,000 people, uh, 6,000 Republicans from PRI. And I would have to I would have to get the numbers for you from, uh, >> how do I know that's not just a bunch of left-wing uh, Democrats just trying to infiltrate and screw up the the culture on the right?
>> Because they give their methodology at at the end of the uh, the paper. You can you can go pull it up and read it yourself. just search PRI and it'll probably be the first thing that comes up.
>> Okay, so this this poll says 6,000 people said that they want um the nation to be a European nation and that means white.
>> Uh yeah. Yeah. I mean what what what doesn't what what do you think that means other than white?
>> Europe Europe is a nation, right?
nations and what is a race?
>> Are you asking for a scientific explanation of a race or are you asking for the >> is there a scientific explanation for a race?
>> Yeah, races don't exist scientifically because we're we're all homo sapiens, >> right?
>> We're all people uh the same race. Um racial bias when we talk about that uh within society though is based on people's skin color and locality sometimes even religion it can be fall under racial bias.
>> So like you telling people that Christian right-wing ideology promotes racial bias could be considered racially biased.
>> No. Um, what I mean when I say is if you see >> if you see a uh Iranian person uh walking through the airport and you assume that person is is Muslim just because of their skin tone. Uh you are you are using implicit racial bias to do that. Uh that that's that's what I mean.
Racial bias exists both implicitly and explicitly. It's not just yelling slurs at people.
Okay. So, how is it like how does so if someone advocates for a Christian nation, how does that automatically imply racial bias without pointing to this poll? Because like I just don't accept this poll. Like this is just because this poll said this doesn't mean that like that's 6,000 people. You know how many people are in the planet? That's not a big poll. You know how many people are just in America? That's a pretty big >> 6,000 is a tiny >> pretty big poll for American Republicans. Yeah. Um it's two different institutions talking to different people. Again, their methodology is there. And this is this poll is one of the most cited polls in in talking about this subject. You don't have to accept anything, but but that's that's where you're at. You're sitting here refusing to accept statistics in order to to make your point.
>> No, you no. Even if I accept it, I've told you this already. Even if I accept this, I'll accept this this poll. I'll say this poll is 100% true. That is just saying people who identify as right-wing Christians also say they want to be they're they're also racially biased.
That's not saying the ideology itself is racially biased or promotes any type of racial racial bias implies it. Where is the ideology itself? Say that if I want a rightwing Christian nation.
Listen, if I want a right-wing Christian nation, that's my ideology right now. I want a right-wing Christian nation, where in that ideology does it say I want white people only?
Whenever what are they talking about when they say European Christian nation?
What what does that mean?
people that came from Europe, >> right? And what what are people that came from?
>> It's a it's a location.
>> So, so the um >> let me >> There's a lot of black people, brown people. There's a lot of >> Europeans that are brown and black. You know that, right?
Um, just real quick, if you want any clarification on the methodology, I can read it. I got I got a a summary from Grock, but if you want it, I can I can read it.
>> Sure. What's the methodology?
>> Uh, for what I can see, it says that knowledge panel.
Um, so the sample was a 2022 2023 Christian nationalist survey. It was uh there's an AVA report that is a larger sample with 22,000 people, but the one that's mostly used is the 6,000 to 5,400 to 6,000 adults. It was an online interviews. It was pray and post a certification to match the current population and it was five question the US government should declare Americans a Christian nation. US law should be based on Christian values. If the US moves away from our Christian foundations, we won't have a country anymore. Being Christian is an important part of being truly American and God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.
And those are the questions. They change it by adherence, sympathizers, skeptics, and rejectors. Those were the categories.
So if you want anything more, I can uh I can put it post it in the in the back chat for your >> Yeah, like like I said, even if I just accept this this study, a bunch of them said they want a European European is a uh cultural, historical, uh civilizational, locationational term, right? This isn't a white is a racial term that is made up. It's a descriptor for somebody's skin. There's white There's white Australians. Are they Are they Europeans?
No.
Right. So, this >> No, but Europeans are white.
>> No. No. Not all Europeans are white.
That's crazy.
Wait. Black British Christian can't be European.
You with us, Joe?
>> No, I cut out there. Sorry.
>> Oh, okay. Uh uh is a black >> I missed the last thing you said there.
Is a black British Christian European or a black French Christian European?
Can they be European?
Do do Europeans of other other colors exist? Sure. But whenever people say European, historically that's been tied to to the white race. That's it. It's it's the same lines that the KKK uses a a European race like this. You're just you're just denying like factual things in order to make this point. Like this this has been known for a while.
>> I just asked you I just asked you a question and you even agreed with me.
>> A black British Christian can be culturally European. That's what European is. It's a it's a ethnic, cultural, historical term. Has nothing to do with race, >> right? So So just >> many So where do you think how do you think Europeans started? You don't think immigrants went there and became European? Just because Europeans exist but are not white does not mean that whenever people say European race they're not talking about the white race because they absolutely are. This this is a white supremacist groups like this promote. White supremacist groups promote this all day long. They say it out loud.
>> So you're a mind readader.
>> Look it up, man. like like look it up instead of just said you're making a fool of yourself. This >> I'm not making a fool of myself. I've um I've done this >> groups do this >> white supremacist groups. So what like I said we can go back to Stalin. He was an atheist or or Mao. He was like we can go back to horrible [ __ ] people that are atheists too. Does that mean atheism is uh promoting this?
>> No. It means there's something about right-wing Christian ideology that 80% of the people want want a white European country.
>> No, you just snuck in the word white.
You just snuck in the word white.
>> You just snuck in the word white. It doesn't say that on your study. It doesn't say white.
>> It says European on your study that you gave us. Says European, not white.
Right.
>> Again, I again, you know, like uh this this is this >> you've already conceded race doesn't exist >> racial bias for decades and decades and decades. You you can ignore it. It's fine. Like whatever.
>> You're you're you're even the KKK would disagree with you on this. Like the white supremacists disagree with you on what >> Listen, I already I gave this to you. I can get I've granted that some people when they say European, they can mean white. That still doesn't prove right-wing Christian ideology promotes racial bias. At most, it proves some right-wing Christians hold racially motivated views.
Can a black Christian nationalist exist?
>> No.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Christian nationalists can can exist on the left even. It's not it's not a thing completely unique to the right, but 80% of the right identifies as Christian nationalists like pointing and saying that there's racism in other places. I agree. I'll give you that. It it racist racial bias is not only promoted by right-wing Christian ideology.
>> So Christian nationalism isn't inherently white nationalism, right?
Um, I I mean I think you could I think it's arguable.
>> It's arguable. Can a black Let's go back. Can a black Christian nationalist exist?
>> Sure.
>> Then Christian nationalism isn't inherently white nationalism.
That is a fallacy, right?
>> Then you're claiming what? Race determines >> it doesn't.
>> So race determines whether someone can hold a political theology.
>> No, you you you tried to do that just now. And >> No, that's what you're saying. Black Christian nationalist.
>> I've never said that.
>> Christian nationalist never said that these people had to be white. That's the entailment. That's the entailment.
Right? Black Christian nationalism can exist. Therefore, Christian nationalism isn't inherently white nationalism. But you say, "Well, no." So, that would be saying that the race determines whether you can hold the political theology.
>> How can a black nationalist?
>> Go ahead.
So, one of the things uh in that so whenever I said European uh Christian society and you know you're making the point that like oh well if there's Europeans that that that aren't white or whatever that it it it changes that. But um if you go and actually look through that study, it gives you st tons of statistics uh uh majority of Christian national adherence uh disagree that white supremacy is a major problem. The denial of white supremacy uh seven and 10 Christian nationalism inherent uh embrace so-called replacement theory which is uh definitely racial bias. uh nearly a quarter of Christian nationalist adherence believe the stereotypes of Jewish people in uh national uh uh the stereotypes that Jewish people in America hold too many positions of power. Like there's there's all of these racist statistics contained in there and you want to argue that they're not using the meaning of a term that it is it is constantly used to mean like that that you you're trying to give one example of somebody who's a Christian nationalism who's a Christian nationalist who isn't uh who who doesn't practice racial bias. But but here's the problem. Most of most people who are not on the right reject Christian nationalism and all that other stuff completely. Uh like one in one in 10 is is the numbers you come up with that agree with those terms outside of the rightwing. The right-wing overwhelmingly agrees with those things.
Okay.
Okay. Listen again. So now you want to stay bogged down in this. So, let's grant it. All right. I'm going to say European means white.
Are you going to >> Okay.
>> Go on to prove your case now. Or >> that doesn't prove your case. You know that, right?
>> What would you like me to prove to you?
>> I want you to prove that right-wing Christian ideology itself promotes the racial bias. Not that some right-wing Christians want majority white countries.
>> 80%.
>> Sure. 80% of of them.
>> Sure. 80% of them. Yep.
>> I'm done.
>> And what?
>> That's it. That proves that proves the point, man.
>> Overwhelmingly, the majority >> No. To prove racial bias, you have to show that the ideology teaches unequal human worth, unequal moral value, a racial superior superiority. Where is that?
>> Where is that in the ideology? You're talking about the ideology, not the people, not the people that say they are these things. That's why I get the definition of complaints that racial bias.
>> A lot of dudes are running around saying they're women. That doesn't make their f them women, right? So I I don't I don't care that these Christian nationalists are saying they want all whites. Don't care. I want the ideology. Where does it teach that?
>> It doesn't have to directly teach that people that they want all whites. It's called implicit racism. It's the definition of racial bias. It is in the definition, man. Like that's why I gave the definitionit what you would do. You would have to deny >> where is the racism implied? Where's the racial bias implied in the ideology?
In their history, in the statistics of what they believe, and in the organizations that they that they that they hold to that. That's literally the whole argument that I made in this. And I gave you plenty of examples of that. you you're you're like trying to to squirm out of this by by saying that racial bias has to be somebody calling someone a racial slur or that it has to teach directly that only white people are good. And that's just not true. We have all kinds of of racial laws in the United States uh baked in baked into the system. We had to make laws in order to stop some of those uh in the South, which is a recent thing in the news, too. But so if I let's just say if I would like my little nation of my home here right in my little nation of my home if I would like this right to remain majority my genetics right my family majority mine does that mean I'm saying my family and my genetics are superior to everyone or is this just me trying to keep a uh uh uh preservation on my nation.
If I say a Japanese nation should remain majority Japanese, am I saying Japanese people are superior to everyone else?
Is that equal?
Well, you would have to answer the question of why you want your genetics to to be to be the prominent case like um there were pe there were people here before white people and we're a nation of immigrants from all over the world including people of many different colors uh religious groups uh and different ethnic groups. So like why why is it that it should be your genetics?
>> I just want it. It's my preference.
I just want this. Say that. I just want it. I just want I just want >> No, we shouldn't do that.
>> I just want Greece I just want I just want Greece to remain majority Greek. Am I saying that Greeks are superior?
Kind of. Yeah. Yeah.
I mean I mean you have to have a reason for why kind of Yeah. How and your reason is you favor Greek. Yeah. So yeah.
>> So so that's that is literally implicit, right? So so you're baking it into your to your thing here whether you mean it to be a racial thing whenever you exclude other racial group.
>> So preferences preferences biases.
>> Preferences bias.
You literally created a bias. You said, "I'm biased to Greek people. I'm biased to my genetics." You literally did it.
Like, are you a virgin? That is the thing that that we >> I have a point to this question. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. Are you a virgin?
>> You don't you if you don't want to answer that.
>> I'm a virgin.
>> Are you okay? Okay. I can't ask you that question. Have you ever kissed a girl?
>> I mean, I I mean, look, man. Look, I mean I look, >> you know where it's going.
>> I'm not gonna take you where it's going, don't you? Who wants to who wants to just hurl personal insults rather than engage in the >> No, it's not about personal insults. I promise you. I promise you. I promise.
No, I promise you. I promise you it had nothing to do with it. This was going to be my point. This was going to be my point. I was going to ask you after if you ever slept with a black woman. And if you told me no, I was going to say, "So that means you're biased. I mean, do you think that white women are superior to black women because you prefer white women? That's what you're doing right now. That's that's that a preference doesn't prove a bias.
You understand? That's what I was trying to do. I wasn't trying to be personal with you at all. I promise.
>> I mean, look, look, man. I I'm not against the idea of it, first of all, but uh black women ain't tripping over themselves to come to Eastern Kentucky, right? and and and [ __ ] a fat guy. So like >> I don't know, you know. I don't mean >> you know it was white boy summer last year. All right. You better you better I >> I've been in a relationship with my baby's mom for for 13 years. So >> that's amazing. I'm glad to hear that.
>> I'm not having sex with any other women.
>> That's amazing. I'm I'm glad to hear that. Congrats. Congrats. But you understand why I was just trying to make a point of if if you were to tell some guy that because he's never slept with an Asian woman, an Asian woman, that he he must mean he must think that whoever he has slept with is superior, that that would be an unfair statement. And just because someone says, "I want Europe to repa to remain in a majority Europeans."
And even if they mean white, sure. Okay.
That doesn't mean they saying white is superior to everyone. They just want their country to remain a certain way.
So there could be an implicit racial bias there depending on the reason why they feel that way. Like if they say, "I think Asian women are gross." Like, yeah, of course. Um, but it it it depends on on the reasoning there. I mean, people people love who they love.
I mean, that's that's just how that is.
Like, it's not uh I I I don't even think people are choosing that. Uh so, >> yeah, but even if you were to say, I think that um uh white women are more aesthetically pleasing when it comes to the different colors of women, that wouldn't mean you're saying white women are superior. That you're just that's your preference of who's ple pleasing to your eye. And that's what we're doing here. you're you're you're saying that these people's preference equals a a racial bias, but that's just not the case.
>> Not all not all biases are harmful, though, right? Like like you can you can have you can prefer uh a certain like blondes or whatever. That doesn't mean that you're being biased to other people. You're just attracted to what you're attracted to and and you're being honest about that. It's not a a harmful racial bias in that case. The the the same when it comes to culture.
Would you not like do you equal race and culture the same thing?
>> Uh, no.
>> Right. Right. So, this is what I'm trying to argue here.
>> Depends on the person.
>> I think a lot of these times when it comes to nationalism, it's about it's about preserving the nation and the culture of that nation. It's nothing to do with the race.
>> People love Go ahead. Go ahead.
>> They don't they don't want to preserve the American nation. They want a European Christian nation, which again, you you've conceded before whether you whether you actually hold to that or not, but you've conceded before that that this is talking about white people, right? So, >> yeah, even if it was >> when they why did they not want that, you know, the American uh dream and all those things, they want a European nation. 80% of people in 2023 said that.
So 80% of Republicans.
>> Yeah. Again, it would it would it wouldn't it again it wouldn't be saying that white people are superior. It would just saying you would want your nation to remain predominantly white >> European, right? That is that is literally racial bias. That's what it means.
>> That's what racial bias means.
>> So it just means having a preference for something.
I mean, if if racial bias race others, yeah, that's racial bias.
>> Well, again, you're saying race, but like if race is just skin tone, sure. But then if there So again, a preference towards something means you're saying the others are inferior.
Um, I think that's implied by it. Yeah, I think I think you would I think that logically it leads to that, right? You would have to >> and there's no there's no like there's no like actual like Christian doctrine or the Christian right-wing uh doctrine that teaches any racial hierarchy that you can point to. Like polling data tells me what people believe, but like I want to know what like Christianity and the right-wing Christianity and Christian nationalism.
I want to know what that teaches >> cuz like that's a different category.
>> So we we recently seen the Supreme Court got the Voting Rights Act which was part of the Civil Rights Act. Correct. You know what I'm talking about?
>> Yeah.
But what's >> Okay. So immediately, Republicans in the South went and and they excluded predominantly black districts from having representation by carving those districts up. Now, you can make the argument that they did that because they want Republicans and they want to win races and and you can make that argument, but if you go to the only black district and split it up, is there is there an implicit racial bias there?
Right. So, so you prefer to to carve up this black black district into predominantly white districts. It it it is literally a racial bias included in it. Whether they're sitting and saying black people don't deserve to have representation or not, they they don't have to say that. It's their actions that show that that they agree with these things. They immediately went and did that the second that the that the Civil Rights Act was gutted or the Voting Rights Act within the Civil Rights Movement.
>> Yeah. But you keep what you're doing is trying to like smuggle the conclusions into all of this, right? You're you keep showing us what some Christian or right-wing Christians believe. That's a like and then you're asserting that Christianity or or right-wing Christianity has caused it.
>> But that's the thing you have to prove.
>> That's the majority, I think.
it's the majority of them and what you're doing it whenever you go and say, "Well, that's not that's not all Christians and that that's not what I believe Christianity is." There's there's a couple problems there, right?
Number one, that is a a no true Scotsman fallacy. That's actually a no true Scotsman fallacy. So then also what what you're doing with that is you're saying, "Well, it doesn't matter if most Republicans want this and for some reason this right-wing Christian ideology allows for these things to happen and is perfectly okay with it.
It, you know, like that that is promoting it indirectly by by sitting and and allowing these things and approving these things that that's indirectly promoting racial bias.
So, just understand, man. Go ahead.
Sorry.
>> I I just want to point out it's it's a no true Scotsman would be if I was saying like no Christian could ever be racist or or like anyone anyone who is racist isn't a real Christian, >> right? I I didn't I didn't say that. I I I fully concede that there's racist Christians. I already did that at the starting, right? I gave you that the the KKK had Christians, all of that. But none of it none of this uh again, some I I can fully concede there's a bunch of right-wing Christians that hold racially biased views. None of it proves the ideology itself is promoting the racial bias.
>> Right? So that's not a true Scotsman at all. Right? So, like if I say communism, if I was to say communism doesn't promote genocide because genocide isn't a part of communist doctrine, that's a no true Scotsman.
That's literally what you argued against my case. That's literally what you said.
You said Christianity isn't this thing because it doesn't have that in its doctrine. That's literally what you said.
>> Oh my gosh.
>> I mean I I mean, go back and watch the video. It's your opening statement. It's the first thing.
>> What you're trying to do is separate three things into one. That's what you're doing right now, right?
You're trying to you're trying to bring Christianity, right-wing Christianity, individual right-wing Christians. Those are not identical categories. You understand that, right?
>> What's the what's the question to this debate?
Does does rightwing Christian ideology?
Yeah. Not not does right-wing Christians >> does right-wing Christian ideology promote racial bias.
>> Yes.
>> Right.
>> And and that's the case I made. I combined those things because it was the question.
>> Right. So >> if if if you say right-wing Christian ideology and I show that either right-wing ideology on its own is is predominantly racially biased or that Christianity haven't shown that has racial bias.
>> You said people that identify as this are biased.
>> What do you think?
>> I want to know the ideology itself. Do you understand that? Right. Like an ideology has a a core teaching to it, >> right? So where's that teaching? So >> that tells people they adopt, right?
Because like >> So you want to start with Christianity or or or right-wing ideology?
>> Either one.
>> Okay. So >> you said you've been watching a little bit. I'm a rightwing I am a right-wing Christian.
>> Have you seen me promote any racial biases in my >> Okay. Where's that?
That's that's you are not the ideology, right?
>> Thank you. So that's been my point this whole time.
>> I've never said that.
>> That's right. The individuals are not the [ __ ] ideology. Thank you.
>> So tell me the ideology >> in my in my very So So do you remember me saying the line, I'm not talking about your grandma's Christian faith and and and believers of Christianity. I'm talking about a right-wing movement within the United States, right-wing Christianity as an ideology. Right? So, not every person who is on the right, not every person who is a Christian, not every person who is on the right and a Christian are are necessarily promoting racial bias. But >> I promote Christian. You go and support a party that the majority of the party promotes those things.
Are you are you implicitly promoting it?
>> Right.
>> Nope.
>> Okay.
>> What do you mean?
>> H how how are you going to say that you know these people are doing this? If if you go and support people if you you go and you support people who are doing that thing whether you know it or not which is which is the definition of implicit bias you are supporting that bias therefore promoting that bias right it doesn't mean that you are directly a racially biased person I'm not calling you a racist man like that's that's never my claim So is your so you're saying that it okay so your idea is implicit bias can exist without intention. How how can you prove that right-wing um Christian ideology promotes it then rather than just people simply possess it.
Okay.
Okay. So I gave the example of >> why implicit racism is kind of [ __ ] >> of things called Jim Crow laws, right?
We have >> that was pretty that wasn't implicit.
That was pretty explicit.
I think those were pretty like yo listen you black people we don't want you over here. Do the line bro. That was kind of you know that was kind of >> that was an implicit bro. You just you just said this implicit [ __ ] happens unintentionally.
So, how can we know that people don't just possess it? It's not from the ideology.
You can't >> How do we know that just white people aren't just like evolutionary? It's just evolution that white people prefer white people and evolution has made black people prefer black people >> and and and evolution has made Japanese people prefer Japanese people. How do we know that's not just the case? You just said it's not. It's not intention. We don't know. So, is that racial bias though, right?
That's the question.
>> No, you you sit here and you give examples of racial Yes. White people prefer white people is literally racial bias.
That's what it means.
>> Right. But I asked you, Right. Sure. But I this is why I asked you a different question here. I said if it was if it can happen without intention, right? If you can be imp like if it can be implicit without intention, >> right?
>> How can we prove that the the ideology is what promotes it rather than those people just possess it? Right? If if someone can hold an implicit bias without even realizing it, how do you determine if the source is Christianity, family upbringing, media, culture, God?
How do you how do you determine where the source of that is if you can have it without even knowing it?
>> Right?
So, so the without going to the specific statistics themselves, it's the point of the stat [ __ ] It's the point of the statistics, right? So the point of the statistics to show you that people uh who identify as Republican or evangelical Christians or both are are five time was it five four or five times more likely is the number they gave. But they're far more likely to hold these racial biases that that are there. Right? that that was the point. The point of the statistics was to show you that whether it's explicit or implicit that they do hold that position. That was the point of the statistics. Now, for an example of the implicit racial bias, things like um that it's often done in in jobs where they uh create job descriptions where they're not intentionally uh excluding people based on on on race, but but they find later, oh, this was this was racially motivated. um the the the voter maps that that have been a big thing in the news, they go and and they make them and the Supreme Court says, "Oh, no, that's that's a that's a racial that's that's a racially biased map that you made there." Right? So whether they intended to do it or not, they did create that racial bias.
That that is implicit race racial bias.
>> Okay.
I I am willing just for a minute here to grant that for a second and ask you if I can do that without realizing it. How do I determine if the source was Christianity or my neighbor [ __ ] Bob that I just don't [ __ ] like because he's [ __ ] >> because he's black and he beat me up my whole childhood.
>> How do I know that's not the reason I'm racially biased instead of me being a Christian?
because it overwhelmingly and disproportionately exists only on the right. Everyone else in the country rejects all of those things.
>> What? So you >> overwhelmingly >> really was Black Lives Matter a a right-wing movement?
Huh? Seems pretty racially [ __ ] biased to me.
>> Exist on the right.
You did >> I did not say exists on the right.
>> You literally just said overwhelmingly exists on the right.
>> Even even overwhelmingly that's not true either.
>> The left is constantly talking about the white man and how bad the white man is.
Like is it not racially biased? If you're talking about white people, is it that the only one we're allowed to be racist to or what? Is it if it that Let me ask you that. Is that racist?
about white people. Like >> all these [ __ ] white guys, they just want to [ __ ] be with white [ __ ] people. What the [ __ ] is that racist or these crackers out here?
>> Yes, there's more than one way to be racist.
>> Okay, so the leftwing shits on white people all the time. What do you mean?
Oh, white women this, the white man that.
>> It seems pretty racially biased.
>> Do you only care about racial bias if it's towards a certain group?
>> I mean, you would have to give me some kind of actual >> You have to give me some kind of actual sources or quotes or things that that the right-wing is is specific people in the rightwing are saying. I don't know.
Like, you're just I don't even know what you meant by that.
>> Okay. Okay. You want some examples?
So, let's go back to Black Lives Matter.
Would you take that as an example or No, Black Lives Matter.
First of all, I'm not the best person to to speak on this issue, right? But I would say that Black Lives Matter was fighting against the the racial systemic biases. like that's that's what their that's what their goal was was to fight against the against the systemic racism that exist within certain uh communities and police departments and laws. Like that's that's that's what their goal was. Uh so is it involved in racial biases? Sure. But not all the time is this uh inherently bad. But the the the the question that that we were asked here today is does this rightwing ideology promote racial bias? And I showed you the ways in which it does it.
I showed you the people who claim to agree with it. I showed you the history of it.
>> So uh >> if if it changed, when did it change?
When was this big change that they that they are no longer that thing that they were historic?
>> Let me ask you a question.
um would would um say say someone that was probably leftwing and and atheist said that I was appropriating because of my hairstyle and then later we find out that my father is actually black.
What would we talk? What would we say that atheist or that uh um secular man was doing in that moment?
>> Uh I would I would say they shouldn't have made assumptions about you that that they didn't have information to back up. Um >> I I don't just race skin color anymore.
>> Race isn't just skin color anymore.
Um, again, whether you're talking like >> am I black or am I white, bro? I I don't know. Can you help me?
>> Your your your dad is black, right?
>> Yep. And my mother's white.
>> So, so, so, so we call that mixed usually, right?
>> Damn. My race is mixed. I got a new race. Damn, that's sick. I I mean I mean I mean you get I mean I mean honestly like that's that's uh all people are mixed the the way that I look at it. But you know um race isn't actually a thing the way I see it but that's not the way the rest of the country sees it. Right.
>> That's not the way that it's used colloquial colloquially hard work for for that Kentucky accent.
>> Oh [ __ ] But >> yeah, I love the people talking about my dirty basement, too.
>> Yes, it's a [ __ ] basement. This is where I have to go to yell at people. I have kids.
>> Like, if we were to if I was to like point out like officially atheist regimes that discriminated against, you know, racist or race, different races, right? Would you would you now say that um atheism promotes racial bias? Like >> what do you say to that? Like when I if I was to just say Joseph Stalin deported entire race uh race and ethnic populations, what >> I would ask how the the act of rejecting the claim of a god uh in itself is promoting racial bias.
I would I would ask did they use their atheism to do those things or did they have some other ideology to to do it?
No, it wasn't based on atheism. Stalin didn't do it based on atheism. He thought he was [ __ ] God. Like, >> no. Yeah, he did it based on atheism.
They have this idea that evolution was made white people superior.
>> Okay. So, that's an atheistic worldview.
>> That's called social Darwinism, which is not part of evolution.
>> That's that's the bastardization of the teachings of Darwin and adopting words like Darwinism in it. That's not Is that a no true Scotsman you're doing right now or?
>> Yeah.
>> Is that a new choice a no true Scotsman you're doing?
>> No, it's it's it's you're trying to use it's you're trying to use a keyword in in a way that it wasn't used. You're using both definitions at the same time.
It's called dishonesty.
>> How am I using both definitions? What do you mean?
>> Many racial theorists, if you go even look Yes. Yeah. the Darwinian social theories, right? I I didn't I'm I'm not claiming it caused racism. I'm claiming that many racial theorists used uh secular evolutionary concepts to construct this racial hierarchy and justify the the differential treatments of populations. The remember this the thing in the skull that was apparently only in black people which was [ __ ] >> right? technology.
>> That wasn't that that wasn't taught from Christian. That wasn't taught from Christianity. That wasn't taught from rightwing anything.
>> Wait, that was that was that that was taking a a thing and then applying it to a thing that it doesn't apply to social socially like eugenics and and all of that stuff you're talking about. like that is that is taking an idea and misusing it to to make claims about about us socially and and yeah there was a lot of racial bias involved there obviously I mean the Nazis were clearly racists >> that's why what I'm saying is the reason I point these out though right the reason I point these out Joe is because Christians atheists uh leftists rightist monarchists communists capitalists uh secularists, every one of them, racial biases can be found among all of them. Right? So the obvious conclusion is that racial bias, racial bias is a human problem, right?
Not something uniquely produced by right-wing Christian ideology.
>> No, I No, I I agree with that statement, but all of those things you just mentioned, >> debate over them.
>> It's only in the majority of the It's only the majority of the rightwing, right? like in those other things you mentioned there there's like uh in in this country one in 10 people um accepted uh the things said in that study overall but 80% >> the majority of rightwing the majority of right-wing people I've met aren't racist >> sure >> I promote Christian nationalism >> that's that's the the majority of people that you met are not the majority of people that hold that ideology What do you mean? They're right-wing Christians. What do you mean?
>> Well, you're giving anecdotal reasons to in order to say, "Well, I the people I've met don't do that, so it's not a thing, right? This is this is the same.
>> No, you produced studies.
>> I know.
>> You gave studies that said there was some people who identified as Christians said they uh are racist. Short short words. Uh but I'm showing you I know Christian right-wingers, not racist.
So we're on even playing ground now. So, do you want to show me where the ideology itself teaches some type of racial hierarchy?
>> I I know I know some Christians that don't do that. Therefore, I get to dismiss percent figure, right?
>> The problem you can't escape is that Christian Christian right-wing Christian ideology. You can't escape that Christian the the the doctrine of Christianity. Every created equal under God. Every one of us.
>> Doesn't matter your skin color. Doesn't matter if you're missing a leg. Every one of us equally.
>> Oh boy.
>> Equal value under God.
>> That's >> right.
>> What?
>> So So why is that written that way? And what did it originally say >> in the Bible?
>> What? What did it originally say >> in the Bible? No, you're talking about every man created under the law.
Christianity. Where does that come from?
And what did it originally say?
>> It comes from Christianity.
That's what I'm saying.
>> Where where does Christianity say that?
Because because that's not from the Bible. It's from the Constitution. Man, >> h how many how many scriptures uh you want me to know where it references that?
>> No, it doesn't.
>> Okay, I'll give you the exact How many do you want me to reference where where it says kill all the people in all the nations around you? How many do you want me to reference? Like we could do that all day.
>> I mean, you did ask about the reference.
So, let's allow easy to to look for >> the reference.
>> Which one you want?
>> Want you can look for for one.
>> How many you want? So, we can uh we can go to Genesis. God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created he him male and female created he them.
What is that?
>> Yes. And and and who is he talking about when he says men there in the Old Testament?
>> What about when he says there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free. There is neither male nor female.
For ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
What's that mean?
>> We are all one.
>> What's that mean? I mean, he also says that there is chosen people, right? I mean, I mean, you can't like when you have a a contradiction to that exact thing two pages later, like what are you trying what point are you trying to make here? Because he he says that the Jews are his chosen people and that this is only for them that this is this is this is their land and they're to go kill everybody around them. He that's that's what the Old Testament's about, man.
So, so are you talking about Jews then?
Are you arguing with Jews?
I I I I'll argue with them at that point.
>> You want me to help you? I I'll argue with them with them, too. They're they're, you know, they they don't believe that the Messiah's already came.
And yeah, let's let's [ __ ] let's get them, bro. I'm with you. Are we being racist right now?
If you want to have a religious conversation, we can do that. I'm all for it, man. Like, I I don't care to sit down and talk to you about about Judaism and Christianity and Islam and atheism.
I don't care to sit and talk about all those things. But you, what you said, though, is you were going to give me a quote where it says, "All men are created equally under the law," which is a quote from the Constitution, not from the Bible. And then you gave me a quote where it says something different than that and you you took it to mean that.
>> Yeah. God created man in his own image.
>> That that's that was the first one I read.
>> Right. Does that have anything to do with equally under the law?
>> No. No. No. Did Did I say under the law?
Like that's talking about the creation event of one man.
>> I said that all men are created equal under God in the image of God.
>> And if I did say under the law, I I definitely missed both.
>> Maybe you meant God.
>> I'm pretty sure Yeah, I'm pretty sure I said Yeah, I >> The Bible The Bible flip-flops on this idea over and over. So if if you want to pull verses that um you can infer to mean that I can pull verses that mean exactly the opposite and then we have to decide whose interpretation is the best and what methodology we're going to use to do that. So I mean like that's a conversation to have certainly um but we're not going to get anywhere pulling verses from the Bible because it's not a it's not even a reputable source for anything we're talking about here.
Just to clarify on the declaration of independence, the quote says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalenable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So that is the quote uh verbatim, just to clarify that.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. And like I said, if I said under the law, I misspoke.
What what what did the what did the uh the framers of the constitution mean by their creator? What do you think they meant?
>> God.
>> Because I think they meant something different.
>> What do you think they meant? Yeah.
>> I think they were deists.
I think they were deists and they didn't mean the Christian God.
>> No.
>> But again, it's >> all of them or like you think all of them didn't mean the Christian God or I think so. I think that Christianity has um changed quite a bit since the founding of this country like um now Christianity is is basically uh the doctrine of the book of John, right?
Like they believe in all these magical things about God and stuff. In the past, uh, Christianity during the founding of this country, in fact, the one of the famous things I'm sure you've heard about Thomas Jefferson is him writing this Bible of his own that takes out all of the magical stuff, right? Because they were they were overall deists. Like they believed in some of those things, but they when >> you say magical stuff, what do you mean by that?
>> The things that >> like the creation of the planet, is that magical?
creation is is is what it's called. And yeah, I would say it's magic. It's literally like a a golem spell, >> right? He made he made mud figures, clay figures, depending on how you how you interpret the the original Hebrew writing. So he he made these figures and then uh uh put the breath of life into them which uh you know again we can get into in interpretations of of the original Hebrew of the Bible but the uh you know that's it it's it's what you would call blood magic today if it was anybody other than Christians.
>> Okay. I mean >> real quick.
>> I get it. You can cherrypick stuff and do that. Oh, go ahead. What are we going to say?
Yeah. So, real quick, we are we're closing about the the hour. I was just going to ask to either of you if you want to continue the conversation, we can add either another uh six minutes all the way to we can just add time. So, if you want to continue for another 30 minutes, you want to continue for for another hour is dependent upon both of you.
>> Yeah. Like >> I I still would like to hear like a part of like core right-wing Christian ideology that like teaches some type of racial hierarchy, right? Like if you want to stick to Christianity teaches this like that's the problem. Like you you you want you said at first you don't want to get into the Christianity, but like that's there, right? Right-wing Christian ideology. We can't take that out.
So, like if if you want to keep going, I'm willing to go for a little bit more, but if you want to end it here and do uh closings and then an open panel or whatever, I'm good. Either way you want to do it.
>> So, I'll let you make the decision based on my answer because I've already given you this answer. So in the the the literal case that I made here today was that they do this through their history, through their own reporting in in these statistical studies and through their organizations.
And the fact that these things are overwhelmingly right-wing Christian groups tells you that Republicans who support these things are therefore promoting racial bias. Like that's They they do it through those things.
>> Yeah. Um so you're just saying history, their own reporting and organiz So like again there's been people that have identified as this that have done racist things and that means the ideology teaches that.
Just to clarify, I'm going to put the timer on. Uh if at any point any of you want to stop it or there's anything, just let me know. It's just to have a a time a time frame. Okay.
>> Yep. Yep. No problem. Thank you.
But yeah, so like when you say like >> if you're looking for me to >> go ahead.
>> If you're looking Oh, sorry. If you're looking for me to point to like somewhere in Christianity or right-wing ideology where they just say only white people and other people are bad and they're directly making these racial slurs and things, we have to go back a long time in history, but that's there. You would agree that historically there's some of that involved uh in in our nation's history, right? So my question is is when did that change?
like when when did they stop doing that?
There should be some event that you can point to or or some progression of where these things were phased out, but they weren't. They just changed form and now we have dog whistles and we have laws that that that have systemic racism baked into them.
>> Like what?
>> Like it's not racial slurs all the time.
>> We do have some systemic racism uh now. You know, DEI would be one of them for sure.
I don't know any other examples though, >> right?
>> What where would you think is like an example of systemic racism today?
>> Well, I mean, I I pointed to a major one already, but um we So, >> hey, um voter ID laws are also have an implicit racial bias, right? Why?
>> So, and where this is all baked. So, it's systemic, right? So, a couple different.
>> You walk into all the ones, huh?
>> Go ahead. Sorry. I'll let you finish.
>> A couple different.
>> Finish telling us how you're not racist by telling us certain races can't go get an ID. Go ahead.
So historically, we created these these certain districts within cities that that poor black people were were housed in. Right. Um after World War II, they famously set up certain areas where they uh allowed um black people coming back from the war to get homes in that area.
Those became what's later called red redline districts. Um things like that.
So you you have this and then whenever you make laws that exclude um poor people in general even that also excludes lots of black people because systemically they have been they have been kept in these in these poor places within our country. This goes into education, employment.
I mean you can laugh but look any of these things up. It's there.
>> I'm laughing and you have to sit and just say no irony. This is irony right now. You're literally the one sitting here talking about black people can't get [ __ ] IDs, but it's racist to want black people to get IDs.
Do you not see the irony here, dude?
>> You don't understand. You don't understand.
>> I do understand. Yes, I do understand.
In 2026, anybody can go get a [ __ ] ID, bro. What are you talking about?
>> So, so the systemic issue >> you're basically here. Yeah, because of the past.
>> Because of the past, all the black people today are too stupid and poor to be able to go get >> these.
Do these laws, do voter IDs laws disproportionately affect black people more than white people? The answer is yes.
>> No. Statistics are there to support it.
Go look it up. Go look it up, man. Like, like you're just No, they don't.
>> What do you mean by effect? How does it affect them? How does it affect them?
>> I just explained this to you that historically we have this systemic racism >> because they don't go get the IDs. That means that's where it's because they're what? How do I know they're just not [ __ ] lazy? They don't go get their IDs, >> right? So So >> I I'm not even going to give that an answer. We're good. Let's >> Why?
>> Yeah.
What do you mean?
>> How do we know they're not lazy?
Like, I'm not going to entertain that.
Let's just do closings, man. We can come back and talk about Christianity or something later.
>> Okay.
>> I don't want to get into a race argument with you.
I'm not a black person. I'm not here to represent black people. And >> this is I'm not going to entertain that kind of stuff.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But but you decided to take it somewhere else. So that's cool, man.
Like let's just do our closings and and be done with it.
Like we can do the questions and all that stuff. I don't have I probably go down.
>> That's fine. That's fine.
>> That's fine. So we're going to be doing five minute closing statements. I believe that >> we are going to start with you uh with you. Easy.
>> I'm going to go first again.
>> Uh I believe so. Yes. Unless we're changing the the format.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. I'm I'm done with that.
>> So, um whenever you are ready, I will start the clock.
>> All right. So, ladies, gentlemen, uh I want everyone to remember what tonight's debate was actually about.
Okay. The question was not, "Have some right-wing Christians been racist."
Right? Uh, the question wasn't, uh, can you find racist Christians in history?
The question wasn't, uh, can you find me a poll where some Christians hold views that you don't like. The question was, does right-wing Christian ideology promote racial bias? All right. So, after this uh entire debate, I think my opponent hasn't proved any of this. All right. So, we got to think about what happened here. I asked repeatedly for the ideology, the doctrine, the teachings. I got KKK, Arian nations, uh, polling data, political organizations, uh, Republicans, everything except the ideology itself.
My opponent spent the entire debate proving that some people who identify as right-wing Christians have held racist belief. I don't deny that, right? Never have. uh not once. Uh the problem is that doesn't prove the resolution because if the existence of racist members proves an ideology promotes racism, every ideology on the earth promotes racism. Everyone, atheists, secularists, progressives, communists, liberals, conservatives, uh human beings, all of them. Right? So the question is what the ideology teaches and that's where the opponent has collapsed because he never demonstrated that Christianity teaches racial superiority. He never demonstrated that it teaches unequal human worth. Never demonstrated that it teaches racial hierarchies.
Um and why?
Because Christianity doesn't teach those things. In fact, it teaches the opposite. Again, every human being is made in the image of God. Every human being possesses an inherent dignity.
Every human being stands equally before God. Right? That's that's not the foundation of racial bias. That's one of the strongest arguments ever articulated against it. So my opponent accused me of committing a no true Scotsman. But notice what I never said was I never said the KKK wasn't Christian. I never said segregations weren't Christian. I never said racist Christians don't exist. I granted all of it because it doesn't help his case. The existence of bad Christians no more proves Christianity promotes racism than the existence of corrupt politicians proves democracy promotes corruption. Right? The ideology and its followers are not the same thing. And that's the distinction in this entire debate here. Uh the truth is that my opponent needs Christianity um sorry needs Christianity to be responsible for racism of Christians because he can't show uh Christianity actually teaches racism right so he he's he substitutes the guilt by association for proof the anecdotes for doctrine the the correlation for causation you know we should notice though because once you strip away the emotional examples of and these historical anecdotes, right? His his argument becomes this. Some right-wing Christians are racially biased. Therefore, right-wing Christian ideology promotes racial bias. That logic doesn't work and never worked and it wouldn't be accepted against any other worldview. All right, so let's end where we began. If Christianity promotes racial bias, show us that doctrine. Show us that teaching.
Show us the principle. After this entire debate, we still haven't seen it because that doesn't actually exist. My opponent hasn't has proven imperfect people exist. And guess what? The Bible tells us that, too. I've shown that he never proved the ideology. And if you fail to prove the ideology promotes racial bias, then I've already won. Thank you. And I want to say thank you for actually coming through cuz like I said, a lot of people say email me and they'll come for a debate and don't show up. So I appreciate you coming through and I you know gets contentious. I don't ever hold any bad blood with these things. So I appreciate you.
>> No, >> thank you very much for the closing uh statement to you. Uh EC whenever you are ready I have restarted the clock so start talking.
All right. So rather than than deal with the history that the right-wing Christian ideology was literally founded on segregational ideas that segregation was literally preached in from the pulpit in churches historically rather than deal with the fact that it's not uh some people hold a racist bias uh in in different areas but it's 80% of republic Repans who hold that racial bias and over 50% of of Christians that hold that bias, evangelical Christians, sorry, that hold that bias rather than deal with any of those studies. Uh my my opponent sat here and attempted all night to point to other people who are or aren't racist or say that things aren't racist because they don't teach people slurs and and specifically target uh groups openly. And that's just not uh anything connected to reality in any way. Um the uh the the fact uh that there are racists that are right-wingers was never the the claim that I made. It was never the point that I made. It's that these originally Christian groups that were white supremacists, many of them, the majority of them jumped right into right-wing political movement in concert with that Christianity and became right-wing Christian white supremacist groups. So unless you can account for there's been some change along the way to where these things are no longer the case, I have to assume that they still are and that they just changed form, which is what we see, which was the the whole history of of Jim Crow in the United States. It's it's been a thing here for a long long time, especially in the South where I'm from.
Um, I don't think that, um, all Christians are racist. I don't think that all white right-wingers are racists, um, explicitly. But I think that when you do support racists, you're implicitly doing a racially biased thing. And that is the definition of the terms that that I laid out in the beginning of my opening tonight, if you saw that. Um, as for the uh the the way that this ended, I'm not mad at you. Um, I just don't want to get into a thing of defending why we don't know that these black people aren't lazy. Like, that's that's not that's not a an avenue I want to take. It's not it's not anything that that is a reasonable discussion to have.
Um, so that's that's the reason I don't want to continue. I'm not mad at you and I don't care if we talk more later about some other thing or whatever. Um, yeah.
But, uh, I'm Joe the Kentucky Atheist.
Uh, all you loving people in chat, go check out my channel and I'll tell you all about how there's no hate like Christian love.
>> Thank you very much to the Kentucky Atheist for his closing statement. Yeah, I believe that was done. Uh, thank you to both of you for the debate. It was an incredible debate. Uh, following the tradition of speak easy, I will ask one question to each of you and then we'll move ahead to the chat to the questions from the chat. Yeah, this is this is my time to shine, I guess. Uh, I will start with with easy. I thought about these specific question. It's going to be a little bit complicated, but um do you think the fruits of Christian nationalism for example the evident racial bias in accordance to the Kentucky atheist is that would not be proof in accordance to Christianity that uh that in fact there's a problem in this movement like thinking about the fruits of a spirit.
I think you're muted easy. Sorry.
Yeah, wouldn't be a speak easy show if I didn't uh um if I didn't talk on mute once. So, uh so not necessarily, right? So, this is where we need to actually separate uh like fruit correlations, proof of causations, right? bad fruits can be evidence of a problem like but that wouldn't mean that it's um proof of the source of said problem right so like if you have like a church that's corrupt like there's some corruption going on a church does that would that pro prove Christianity promotes corruption or is there maybe something else going on there right if a democracy elects a bad politician Joe Biden Does that pro prove that democracy promotes uh putting vegetables in office or is it just >> kind of looks that way today too, huh?
>> But you you understand what I'm trying to say, right? So my answer is in every case it's not automatically, right?
>> Yeah. Um that's a that's a good answer.
I will I will actually go back to it then to you the Kentucky atheist. you pointed to the people who are supposed to be Christians that you were actually saying that this is the effect of Christianity. Now I think the whole point of the debate was quite literally asking for a doctrine or anything when it comes to to these um when it comes to the the Christian part that actually creates this kind of racial. Do you have any doctrine that you can point to that is the source for this racial bias?
Well, I'll answer your question, but first, where is that in the debate question?
>> No, no, no. That that is a question I have for you for through the right. No, no. You you said the debate was doctrine saying this and it never was that that that's the the the foundation of your question is flawed. That's what I'm saying. But I I'll answer you.
>> Well, I I'll give you the prompt promise. Does rightwing Christian ideology promotes racial bias? So the point of my question is I said okay fine there is effects of racial bias. Okay.
This is supposed to come from Christian right-wing Christianity. So there's we're supposed to be Christian inside of it.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. If that is the case, can you please show like can you please tell me what is the if there is any doctrine that you can point to that is causing this?
So I can't point to many things in the Bible that are directly saying one race preferred over another. I mean it does talk about like uh um what is the um that the mud people's thing uh came from uh oh who was the who was the uh the son of uh of Adam in the Bible that went and uh um it was the the the paints black people as evil uh um in in that part uh the um but but here's here's the thing about Christian doctrine. Um, is is the only doctrine of Christianity that which is written in the Bible or or do we have white Jesus statues all over the place when when if any of it's true, Jesus didn't look anything like that, right? Like so these are these are little things um throughout Christianity and there and there's there's plenty of these to point to um when they talk about um these other races being bad and lesser than and inferior and go defeat these people and that's I mean that's kind of the thing within the Bible. They they they you know but hey God kills everybody in the Bible over and over and over. So, uh, yeah, I I don't necessarily know that it directly points has has words in the Bible that say this race is far better.
It does say that the the what became the Jews are the chosen people and and um the elect is is kind of uh kind of that way too. But yeah, so no, I I don't have direct words from the Bible, but I think it exists in modern Christian doctrine implicitly. Right.
Thank you very much for both your answers. I will start the timer for the 30 the 30 minutes for the Q&A and um I'll be reading your questions at Crucible Crusader. Thank you very much for the $10 says just for the support. 0707 to you sir.
Tempteral chaos with $2. He says nothing, just showing some support.
The Sodo M the SO master chef once again for the $10, he is saying, "Hey, clean up that mess, bro." I believe uh they they really want you to clean your room.
>> Robin Webster, 1968.
>> Yeah, that's cuz they didn't just say, >> "What are the origins of doc? What are the origins of doctrine of discovery?
I I'm not entirely sure what that means.
>> What? Sorry. Sorry. Bring it up again.
>> What are the origins of doctrine of discovery?
I'm not sure what you mean. Robin, if you want to put it in chat, maybe give us a clarification.
Or maybe I'm just dumb and I'm not getting it.
Just a bear with the >> I don't know what that is off the top of my head either.
>> No, just a bear with the five pounds.
Europeans are not white, dummy. I'm pink.
Brits aren't even real with $5. Reducing a person's worth to their DNA is a Darwinist midweek trap. We got to do better, brother.
>> Yeah, that's what I was saying. That's what that a lot of that comes from. This the the the race in itself is a is a atheist atheistic worldview. That's where that comes from. The idea that no, we're just all here animals. We're just like animals. We're a little more advanced. You know, we we were it's all based off evolution.
like and for some reason, you know, that turns into, well, somebody with said color skin is going to do said type of behavior and that's just never been actually proven.
You got any any comments?
>> Not my position. Uh so, >> uh just a bear with another five pounds.
Drop that pecking mick. Easy label with two $2 support for the sake of supporting the supporters.
Limited light for five. Plenty of evidence. USSR rejected Darwin in favor of listencoism.
I think would you like to to tell us what lenoism is? The Kentucky atheist.
I don't know what that is.
>> I don't know.
>> I don't know. Okay.
>> So, what he what he's talking about is a it's like a pseudo scientific movement that the Soviet Union >> um it was a dude that's his name Leenko, right? And uh >> it it basically it basically um promoted the idea that environment is what um what um affects your organism and it's and your traits that you're you acquire um is actually inherited by your um your parents.
>> Thank you.
just a bear with another five pounds >> and racist against the pope because he's not God. Jesus is ambush a postate with two working so I can't stay but there's a few coin a lot support today. Thank you for the support.
>> Are we at the end of them there? Okay, so we got some in the question here.
I'll bring them up for you in the Q&A.
>> I I don't never know where the Q&A is to be honest, but I try to figure it out.
>> In what way does being against mass immigration constitute racial bias?
>> It's a good question.
>> I think that one's for you, Kentucky.
So, so in the United States, it's not mass immigration from everywhere. It's mass immigration from brown countries.
Um, he had no problem with white Africaners coming in, no problem with Europeans, no problem with with uh people from Sweden. Uh it was it was targeted at brown immigrants from Mexico, from Muslim countries, uh from from places that have predominantly brown people. So again, was it because they're brown?
I don't know. But it it excluded only brown people or predominantly brown people. So it's implicitly a racial bias.
>> Well, can I just point something out here? You're you're looking at the color of those people's skin, right? I look at this as Mexico is run by a [ __ ] cartel first off. So, it's a like literally a country of [ __ ] criminals. I know you don't like people saying this type of thing and that sounds racist, but they're literally run by cartels. Their government can't hold their [ __ ] together and cartels are running major regions of the country.
Literally a country of criminals. And then Islam is an ideology that says you need to eliminate all Jews and Christians. And Islam needs to imply Sharia law on the planet. Another huge dangerous ideology you shouldn't want in your country no matter what color you are. So like I'm not seeing him saying let's keep the Islamists and the uh Mexicans out as a racist thing. It's literally you see what's happening in these countries. You don't want that [ __ ] in your own country.
Why is that racist?
>> How how how was how was ICE told to identify uh immigrants?
>> Sorry, >> by the way they look by the by the way they look.
>> No.
>> Right. So So look, I think that you get confused with with other identify them by their status based on on what we >> can't identify them by their looks.
That's impossible.
>> Right.
>> People who looked like they were Mexican.
>> Yeah. That's what they told him. I mean, that's that's in the >> I mean, that's that's the thing. Sorry.
>> They said it out loud on TV.
>> They they they they profiled people by by their looks as as being from another country. And those are the people that they went to approach to ask for their papers, which is unconstitutional, by the way. But yeah, so that's that's it's written down. That's the way that they trained them.
>> That sounds like some Reddit madeup [ __ ] dude. I don't believe that whatsoever.
>> You're telling me that the what? The the the ICE was telling them anyone who looks Mexican, just approach them.
>> You don't you don't know this?
Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I don't know things.
>> They were allowed to approach people based on looking at them.
>> Well, go look it up again. Like, >> dude, >> you want to sit and just say, "No, it's not."
>> That's crazy talk. Do you >> I mean, I didn't bring sorcerers for every single thing that they said.
>> Joe is your idea.
>> Yes, it is. You're right.
>> Your idea is the ice dry.
>> Oh, look. There's a Mexican looking guy.
Let's go get him. Is that what you think?
>> ICE just drives around looking for people.
>> Hold on a second. So, you're gonna say >> ICE is an operations unit.
>> I'll give you the quote.
>> They don't just show up willy-nilly.
It's literally operations.
>> Okay. Give me the quote and then tell me who said it so I can go look it up, too.
I just want to say as uh the Mexican person in panel that I also don't want French people here.
Oh [ __ ] >> It was Tom Hman.
>> Tom Hman.
>> What did he say?
>> It was It was Tom Hman. He said that they don't need pro probable cause to detain people. They can do it based on uh suspicion of by the way that they look.
Trying to find this observations.
The American Civil Liberty Union argued in court that US agents were apprehending or questioning Los Angeles agent agent Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles residents simply because they looked Latino. And that was the reason that the court upended uh that policy that he made. It it was reversed in federal court.
>> So not only did he say but the court says he says the location he said >> yeah he says the location their occupation their physical appearance their actions when pressed specifically on physical appearance home and clarified physical description cannot be the sole factor to give you reasonable suspicion.
He literally said it can't be the only reason. So you just you should look up your own guys that you're bringing here with their quotes because he literally clarified it.
>> If they didn't have if they didn't have probable cause, how were they deciding to if they had no suspicion of of any kind of probable cause? What were they using to detain those people?
>> It can't be the sole reason. Physical description cannot be the sole reason.
>> So So I mean Yeah, he said that later to not be a racist piece of [ __ ] right? Yeah, he said that after the fact.
>> If someone has When he's talking about their >> No, no, no, no. When he's talking about physical appearance, too, he doesn't even say race here. Physical appearance could mean the dude has an MS13 tattooed on his [ __ ] face. Yeah, that guy should be taken in for suspicion, bro.
100 fucking%.
A gang that is running [ __ ] Mexico.
>> Yeah. If you come here with a big MS13 tattoo on your face, you deserve to be detained and checked out, bro.
>> 100%.
>> And even that is not allowed. Even that wait, even that by your own guys standard is not allowed to be the only thing.
>> So that's not right. That's not That's not what's going on.
But uh here let me bring up the next decided.
>> Can Christian nationalism protect the United States of America from being overthrown by Islamists?
>> Yes, simple.
>> You got nothing. I >> guess I agree.
>> Okay.
Uh, this one I would just say >> Jesus white >> more than likely.
>> White is a dove.
>> Not white like you know he would have been probably darker than me.
You know, >> uh, I'd say he was non-existent. So, >> there's more there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is Jenghis Khan. And you probably believe we all [ __ ] share his DNA, don't you?
>> Where is it? Where? What historical evidence?
>> Wait, go ahead.
>> Are Are you actually serious?
>> I literally have lists of >> source of historical evidence outside of the Bible.
>> Yeah, I have I have list of this [ __ ] Let me bring up my list.
>> Oh man. So, um We have uh we have first off we have our Roman historical references uh uh uh that refers to Christ executed under Pontious Pilot.
>> Pontious Pilot, >> right?
>> Yeah. So, so >> that particular thing, uh, >> I can point to to plenty of of, uh, of, um, biblical scholars of and historians who suspect that to be a complete forgery and that they're not talking about Jesus in any way whatsoever.
that that was added later.
Literally across all religious and secular scholarship, Jesus being a Jewish preacher in the first century is agreed upon.
>> He was crucified under Pontious Pilate.
Again, agreed upon.
That's that. Well, so the thing that you claimed that across all historians and and religious scholarship they they agree on that, that's absolutely not the case. Um that's that's just false what you said.
So um Dr. Kip Davis, good friend of mine, uh disagrees with that statement.
>> Your friend that nobody [ __ ] knows. No, he's a he's a he's he's the biblical scholar and and Dead Sea Scrolls expert.
>> Yeah, we're I thought you wanted to be outside of the Bible.
>> Well, you you said biblical scholars and historians, right?
>> So, >> I said religious and secular scholarship.
>> The broad consensus is that Jesus was a a Jewish preacher. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate and he had followers who believed he rose from the dead. This is the broad consensus across religious and secular scholarship. Dude, I I don't disagree with parts of what you said, but I I I would actually need some support for that. Right.
>> Okay. Well, go uh that that Yeah. Bart D. I man uh Bart Dman and and uh uh Ed P. Sanders. Search these these uh Ed P. Sanders is an American historian of early Christianity and second temple Judaism. All right. And then uh Bart D. Urman is a a New Testament scholar and historian of of early Christianity.
>> Yeah.
>> Go look up them. No, I I'm familiar with both of them already, so I'm I'm going to answer you.
>> Um, so so what Barman when Barman talks about Jesus, he does claim that that Jesus existed. He doesn't really support that with anything, but most of what Bartman talks about is that there are changes made throughout the Bible that to to what Jesus said. His his book he's famous for is misquing Jesus. Um, but Bart Urman's argument is that the character that you call Jesus from the Bible isn't isn't actually the person that they're talking about. So from I'm what's called a mythicist. And there are experts, historians, and biblical scholars who who agree with that as well. So again, we can do this thing to where we point to different things and say, "Well, this person says it and this person doesn't." But like again, let's get out like like >> just do this for me then. Just Google what is the consensus.
>> Google what is the consensus among historians of Jesus existing.
>> No. No. I I think that most biblical scholars do do say that.
But I think that also most biblical scholars fall under what would be more considered an exed or wouldn't have their jobs as biblical scholars if they didn't support that. Like most of them are also believers. So like that's kind of baked into that. They have to believe that, right?
But but outside of the Bible, where are these historical sources? Because we arrive back at the Bible.
>> Okay. So I you just pointed out though that Barty man is not a Christian, >> right?
>> So there's a someone who's not a Christian.
>> Sure.
>> Who >> and he doesn't >> argues that Jesus did exist >> that is portrayed in the Bible.
So, so yes, he believes that a person named Jesus did exist who had followers, right? Or Joshua really, you know, but but the character of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible, he does he does not agree with that that it's been changed o over and over over the course of time.
>> Okay. What about Paula Frederickson?
>> So, he does believe that there is an original personal state.
>> What about Paula Frederickson?
I'm not familiar enough with that to to to quote anything that >> okay that's a secular historian and and and and Paula would say that Jesus's crucifixion is one of the most certain facts of an ancient history.
David Fitzgerald is a secular historian who's wrote four books on the issue who says that Jesus isn't mythological. So what what do we do?
>> No, no, no, no, no, no. See, you're wrong. No, the >> So that's not that's very few. That's very few that that uh that look at Jesus as a a mythical character. That's very few of them.
>> Do I disagree with with the majority of them on this issue? Sure. But I think that the majority of them are believers and you have to believe that to be a believer. Like that's you have to believe Jesus existed. That's >> the majority of them.
>> There's a lot that aren't though.
>> Oh no. Now if you want to get into the secular scholars, I don't agree with with with even that statement.
>> What I don't I can name off a bunch.
>> Yeah. I can name off a bunch of secular scholars like there's Maurice Casey, right? There's um uh um uh John John Crossson. These are these are these are people that are not Christians.
Uh a Amy Lavine. These are not Christians.
Like if you just search up like this is why I'm so confused how like how you would even deny this like >> you shouldn't go ahead. Yeah. So so so I am wrong. The majority of them do say that Jesus uh in fact existed.
They they point to >> Flavius Josephus, right?
>> Who wrote the antiquities of the Jews.
>> Not someone who knew Jesus.
>> What's that?
>> Someone who that's that's not a person who who knew Jesus. That's that's a a church person on down the road a couple, >> right? But yeah, he refers to James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.
who who he also didn't know, right? So, there was historians present at the time. There were plenty of people that could have been eyewitnesses to Jesus and we don't have any of those eyewitness statements. The closest thing you have is Paul who says he went and talked to people and they told him this story that 500 people seen Jesus rise from the dead and and that I I don't disagree that Jesus had plenty of followers and that for intents of purposes of Christianity that you know >> what about the Syrian writer what about the >> what about the Syrian writers who wrote the uh wrote the letter referring to the execution of a wise king of the Jews whose teaching lived on afterward.
>> Uh I don't know of that.
>> Like there's many different historical writings that refer to Jesus.
>> It fits in to refer to Jesus, >> right? Roman historian uh Tacodus, right? Christ uh Christis from whom the name had its origin suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our uh pro uh of of Pontius Pilot.
>> This is this was written >> again you you bring up Tas you said you said historical in in this >> you asked for historical references outside of the Bible. I'm giving you them. There's also the Flavius Josephus existence, right?
>> Yes.
>> The Flavius Joseph, just to clarify, the Favius Josephus was written in 93 AD. So, it's >> Yeah.
>> during the first century. It's at the end of it, but it is during the first century, >> right? And and my question was, did he did he know Jesus? Did he experience the person Jesus existing himself? Is he an eyewitness of this thing? He's not.
He's he's what they call a church father later on that that I mean obviously Christianity in in its younger days again it's a requirement that you believe certain things.
>> What about the Roman historian that literally didn't like Christians? He had no incentive to support Christianity, but he confirms that Jesus was exe executed under Pontious Pilate.
>> Like, don't you look at these things and say, "Well, I mean, he probably at least as a man existed or >> what Roman historian are you talking about?"
>> Uh uh, Tacodus.
>> Tacitus, right? one of the most controversial um claims about this, right? So, so what what is said about the writings of Tacitus, right? Should should we trust the writings of Tacitus historically?
>> What do you mean?
>> I think there's an excellent case made that that most of them are forjuries, right?
>> Why? What's the excellent case? You're just saying things, >> right? So, so there um again I don't have everything on this right in front of me to give you names of this as as you are looking at a a script over there >> but the literally went >> I just Googled historians that confirmed Jesus existed. That's all I did.
>> Well, I mean do you I mean I can Google it if you want if that's what you want me to do for you. like but there's Tacitus has been challenged numerous times uh considered to be a forgery by by several historians. Um, and if you want names again, I can Google it and look it up for you. But >> if I have online about that, >> I just don't know why this like forgery to confirm Jesus was a person would talk so much [ __ ] on Christians and on Jesus.
Like he literally didn't like didn't like Christians. Referred to uh Christianity as a as a superstition.
Why would they Why would they forge it to talk [ __ ] about Christians to confirm Jesus? That doesn't even make sense.
I mean, that you're making the very point, right, that that if you wanted to make people believe it, that's what's if it's a forgery, right? You want people to believe it's true. If you would do that, you would make people believe it's true. That's the point you're making, right? I mean, hold on a second, though.
Um um Volater said Tacitus was fake. Uh um Tacus um the Tertullian project. Um I mean there's lots of discussions Roman histori >> is Voltera Roman historian.
>> Um, how long after Tacitus?
>> How long after Tacitus did Volta live?
>> Like 1700 years after Tacitus. You want me to believe this guy knew that? did you live?
>> What the hell?
>> How long after him did you live sitting here trying to like what are you doing?
>> Yeah, he's a textual critic.
>> Apply the same point to yourself like like again I it's it's my position, right?
and and we can go through and and talk about failed prophecies uh within the Bible, but >> No, you're just bringing up Voltier's opinion and I'm telling you >> you So you think that Voltater discovered something that modern scholars missed.
Historians evaluate like many No, no, no. Listen, this is the problem.
Voltater was an opinionated [ __ ] All right? historians, they they study the manuscript traditions, the linguistic styles, the the the historical context surrounding it, the citations by later writers. They don't just go, "Oh, I think this was forged, man. Look how this was written. That doesn't seem right." That's not what this is going on, dude. They I don't care what Voltater's opinion, dude.
>> That's not the argument you originally made. You >> All right, I'll answer that. But that's not the That's not the argument you originally made. You said how long after Tacitus did Volaterra live. That that was the argument you made originally, right? And that's the thing I answered and now you you shifted to this other thing, right? So >> yeah, because I'm so I'm I'm pointing out that Voltater was an opinionated [ __ ] He was a a textual critic. He he didn't actually do the things that modern historians are doing to confirm history.
Right. This is a he's just a he's just a famous intellectual that you know and and we can do the same thing in rever in reverse and you don't like those ones, right? The the the atheists that accept >> no >> Tacitus and Jesus's existence.
I think it's arguable that the that the person Jesus ever existed. The character of Jesus from the Bible. I think I think there is is there's a whole thing called mythicism isn't isn't the majority of people at all. But I find I find it compelling. That's that's that's the you know whenever you ask the question about was Jesus white? I don't believe he existed. That's the thing that that that I hold to and I have reasons to hold to that thing and and again it requires pulling up verses and and other things that I don't talk about off the top of my head. I don't even hardly talk about atheism anymore at all. So I don't have these things ready to go as well as I used to.
>> All right. All right. That's fair. Was there another super chat there? I think there was a couple super chats we missed.
>> Yeah. I was going to say that we have a couple super chats. Birds aren't even real for five. What is your definition of racism? Not sure if I missed it. You want to give your definition real quick?
>> I think racism.
>> Yeah.
>> Uhhuh.
>> Um, so I would say that racism is um taking a racial bias and using it to negatively affect people of another race. that that it's applied racial bias.
>> Thank you.
>> Applied racial bias. Okay.
>> Re-examination show for five. Besides the Bible, we have Josephus, Plei the Younger.
>> Oh, Ple the Younger. I forgot about that. Yes.
>> And the Bible is not just one book.
There are four gospels. So, what bases are these rejected upon?
that they're written by anonymous writers decades and sometimes centuries after the events they claimed to be written about.
That's why I reject the gospels. Um, and as for naming church people who believe the things in the Bible are true, I mean like, okay, sure. I mean, of course they do.
>> They aren't church. Like the next one, >> they have no knowledge of those things.
The next one's going to give you what I was going to just say like Josephus was not a church father.
>> Reexamination show for $2 says Josephus was a Jew, not a church father. Come on.
>> Which I believe that's true.
>> Like I don't know if you realize this.
Jewish people do not believe in Jesus being the Messiah. They are still waiting for that Messiah to come.
>> Right.
>> Right. So their ideology and Christian ideology can't >> can't equate.
>> Why do they not believe that?
>> Why do they not believe that?
>> Right.
>> Well, do you want my honest answer?
>> Sure.
>> Yeah. Because I believe that Judaism was corrupted.
And Christianity is the actual continuation of what where it was supposed to go with the new covenant.
>> Right.
>> I think one last one. Oh, sorry.
>> The missing the missing mode for five.
Awesome debate. You just got body slammed. I think it was a very good debate to be honest.
>> Thank you very much.
>> If you think that, you don't even understand the subject.
>> For the debate itself, >> you think I lost that debate, >> you're wrong.
>> I'm not I'm not putting out.
>> Yeah. I'm not putting outside my bias right now. I'm just the mod, but I'm gonna say no. I thought it was I I don't care either way, man. I I the the the chat has has talked awful about me the entire time. I don't mind. I don't really give a [ __ ] Like >> the chat is always right except when they're It's fine.
>> Yes, they are.
>> That is true. That is true.
So, are you planning to stay for the open panel?
>> Uh, I I I can stay shortly. Um, >> yeah.
>> Uh, I'm not going to stay for long, but I don't care to stay and answer a couple questions or >> Yeah, it's up to you. It's up to you.
You can stay as long as you want or as short as you want. Totally totally up to you.
>> Yeah, totally up to you. Um, I'll stick around till >> I like it. I like it. Okay. So, what I'm going to do is uh cuz I don't have my my sore outro on here. Let me see here.
Here. I'm going to play the uh the Bears Anthem video.
Are you staying too, Em?
>> I'm staying for a little while and then I'm probably going to going to leave as well.
>> Okay. Okay. Uh so, I'm going to >> Time to to go to the restroom and maybe take my dog out real quick. Yeah, exactly. I'm going to play this one.
It's going to play for like three minutes and then uh I'm going to drop the link for everybody who wants to join as well and then yeah, we'll do a we'll do a open panel hangout over here. But yeah, before we uh do this real quick, I just want to say again, thank you for coming through, Joe. I appreciate the the back and forth. I love this [ __ ] >> No, thanks thanks for having me.
>> Yeah, I appreciate it. I appreciate it.
All right, I'm gonna play this for everyone. Everyone go use the washroom, whatever you got to do, and then get your asses up here.
>> If the bears are in the building, best believe it's about to get real. Sticking to the facts, we don't care about your set feel. Some [ __ ] to hide and say it's better that you stay clear. Digging deep for specialty. Ain't God the weakest slave fear. We walk all together standing tall from every corner of the earth.
相关推荐
Russia Clashes With Romania, U.S. And EU At Security Council Meeting | DWS News | AC1F
dwsofficial
344 views•2026-06-02
Independence Calendar (Episode #25) - With Cory Morgan & Keith Wilson
JohnBoltonAB
3K views•2026-05-31
BREAKING: TRUMP ADMITS HE LIED ON CIA
DarrenMonroePolitics
10K views•2026-06-01
भिंत #rohitpawar#sharadpawar#ajitpawar#supriyasule#baramati #supriyasulefc#baramatikar#ncp#ncpsp
Aapla_Maharashtraa
9K views•2026-06-02
Bengal News | Another TMC MP Attacked In Bengal A Day After Assault On Abhishek Banerjee
NDTV
80K views•2026-05-31
Karnataka's Biggest Leadership Shift! What Changes Under DK Shivakumar? | South Central | ET Now
ETNow
205 views•2026-06-01
Atlanta debate stage left with empty podium | FOX 5 News
fox5atlanta
1K views•2026-06-01
Pawan Kalyan's Big Telangana Push: Jana Sena To Contest Elections Amid Clash With | #brasstacks
cnnnews18
351 views•2026-06-03
