ANDREW WILSON GRILLED ON CHRISTIANITY

本站添加: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]Andrew and I and Taco, we clarified this kind of behind the scenes in setting this up. Uh but so the topic is Christianity shouldn't be in government.

[00:00:10]Uh but we clarified government means the United States government. So Andrew doesn't have to defend some random country's government. And I don't have to defend the general concept of government because that would make the debate impossible and pointless for both sides. A theocracy is a kind of government. So arguing Christianity shouldn't be in a Christian theocracy would be pointless. It would also be pointless to argue does Christianity belong in a Islamic theocracy. So we agreed on that. Um so the United States government, it's a constitutional republic. That's a form of government where citizens elect representatives to make decisions and the government is limited by a written constitution. Our government has features. Citizens elect representatives. They're represented in the Congress. And then there are specific limitations on the government.

[00:00:58]>> This means that we kind of know what the type of government we have does and how it functions. Not how it ought to function, but just how it does function.

[00:01:08]So to make it a little bit easier, I'm just going to draw kind of an analogy.

[00:01:14]Compare the government to some other sort of system cuz governments are systems. So like an engine. An engine transfers mechanical power. There's no such thing as the correct engine, but you can still compare engines that transfer mechanical power because that's the task of an engine and then see which one is better at that task. Or we could say something like as basic as drawing a straight line. We're not saying you should draw straight lines, but just that that's what you're trying to do. A ruler does that very very well, whereas a compass does that horribly. So we can't derive oughts from ises here, but we can still measure normative objectives and more importantly we can point out contradictions. In this case, the the claim that a compass is good at drawing straight lines, it's not really a contradiction, but it is literally not true and a ruler is definitely objectively better in this sense. So back to constitutional republics. Okay, >> a constitutional republic that disenfranchises people and violates its own constitution is clearly one that doesn't work because that's the opposite of what they are. So, I'm not here to tell you that there's a correct type of government that I know exactly what it is or that uh Christianity in government would be like objectively the worst option or anything like that. But we can prove that Christianity should be in government is uh false in the same way that a compass is good at drawing a straight line is a false statement. So point number one is that we literally know for a fact that religious sorry religiosity positively correlates with dysfunctionality.

[00:02:51]Uh you can read about this in scientific and other academic journals. I do have some studies I I can uh link those or share my stream screen later. I'm happy to do that. Point number two is that the framers of the constitution I don't think they were idiots. They studied this and they thought about it extensively and they understood that no religion can make a claim that is legitimate to rule that can be acceptable. Um, even in a Christian nationalist's wildest dreams, this could never work because, well, if we became a Catholic theocracy, well, then Protestants would lose their minds. They wouldn't get what they want out of this.

[00:03:32]>> So, what is it that you do then when you can't Christianize Islam, you can't Judaize Christianity, you can't Catholicize Protestantism, uh, you make compromises instead. And that's what limited powers do. And that's exactly what happened. Madison drafted the first amendment and its establishment clause. Now Christians in an attempt for confirmation bias, they try to uh they they go with this mantra of no separation in church of uh of church and state. That was something Jefferson said in a letter. It's not actually in the constitution. But um what I suggest you do is that you should read what the Christian Madison was a Christian. So this is could argue this is a Christian perspective. Um he's the one that wrote the amendment and when asked what it means or the establishment clause when asked what it means he said congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. So according to the United States Constitution, Christian ethics are forbidden from being part of government.

[00:04:42]A national religion creates dysfunctional or a dysfunctional government. In other words, it's a compass, not a ruler. So, Andrew's position I think would um be illegal.

[00:04:54]So, I'm not really sure where I I mean, kind of good luck with that, I guess. I don't think Andrew respects people who root root loot and riot uh cross the border illegally or violate the Constitution in any other way. So, I don't know. Well, I'm curious to see what we're going to hear, but that's a an issue I think we have.

[00:05:15]>> And then uh the last thing is the point of how I set this up is that governments are systems and systems are they have a certain function and that function if you want to discuss or describe >> how it ought to work or how it should work, what the best way to make it work is these are just normative claims. So, I'm not really here to talk about objective ethics or morality or anything like that. Um, but if Andrew does try to do that, I'm not really sure that Andrew has the argument. Um, but even if he did, we have the problem of um, arbitrariness and you can't derive a knot from an is. So, I'm not really sure how Andrew is going to try to prescribe Christianity being in government.

[00:06:00]He's perfectly welcome to use because I this is what I will try to do. He's perfectly welcome to use any normative claims uh for what Andrew wants to see happen in government and why he thinks maybe Christianity will help with that, but I think they're going to contradict both the religion and the government in question. Um, and we'll see whatever it is or later that whatever normative objectives Andrew believes Christianity brings and those would be his reasons for wanting it in government. I think that there are serious and literal contradictions in almost all of them.

[00:06:37]Um, so that's my opening statement.

[00:06:41]>> Andrew, let me know when you're ready and I'll start the timer.

[00:06:43]>> Yeah, I have 10 minutes, correct?

[00:06:45]>> Yes, sir. Are you ready?

[00:06:47]>> Yeah. Go ahead.

[00:06:48]>> Cool. You have 10 minutes starting now.

[00:06:50]>> I would like to remark in my opening statement that Mr. Peterson made a very long hit piece about yours truly called Andrew Wilson is a [ __ ] Very good framing on that. By the way, inity claims I misrepresented and gave bad arguments against secular humanism and Craig FTFE. When offered the same debate with the same prompt so he could prove it, our good friend Mr. Peterson did decline. I just want to point that out.

[00:07:14]Instead, demanding that we do a debate where I needed to quote convince him Christianity needed to be in government.

[00:07:19]When I said that was fine if I could do the same thing to him in secularism, he also declined. He also, strangely enough, told his audience some false things, and I just want to clear those up very quickly. Mr. Peterson didn't demand this format of debate. So, I couldn't evade questions. Rather, we are doing the format that Taco himself does every single debate. I have seen him host and the same format that Taco requested to begin with. So, I have no idea why Mr. Peterson made that up, but he did. Perhaps to sound like he got me in some kind of format I'm not used to, but he's going to find out better tonight. Now, to the debate itself. Mr. Peterson has the affirmative that Christianity shouldn't be in government.

[00:07:57]He qualified American government, which I agreed to. He just went over that himself. I'm completely uninterested in any tangential debate that Mr. Peterson actually wants to have, which is just God isn't real, though, which means nothing in this debate. To start with, I'd like to bring up the country most libs point to is the happiest in the world, Finland. In the happiest country in the world, there exists two state churches. Yes, that's right, two. Both of these bodies have the ability to levy taxes. The tax is paid by members of the two churches and the rates determined on the parish level. While the government collects the taxes, the two churches pay for the cost of collecting them and receive the amounts paid. These go to fund the maintenance, repair of churches, and public services such as recordkeeping, funeral services, and many others. We would call this a a form of symphonia in Orthodoxy. The idea of the church working handinand with the state represented by a two-headed eagle.

[00:08:54]Now, here in the USA, you can imagine that the government levying a tax the behest of the church and then collecting it along with normal income taxes would be something Mr. Peterson wouldn't like very much. It's an example of the church in government working just fine. But wait, there's more. Since these are two different churches, one the Orthodox church, the other a Lutheran church, you would think there would be significant social problems. He brought this up in his opening. Quite the contrary. That's odd considering their dogmas and doctrines are so removed from each other, isn't it? Yet, by all accounts, these two bodies, while they engage in rigorous debate, generally work hand in hand towards the general good and welfare of the peoples of their nation.

[00:09:41]Mr. Peterson will claim in this debate that there are so many different denominations of religions. How did I predict that? How could we possibly choose which one would represent us? Yet all of those denominations exist in Finland and they're doing fine. The happiest people on earth supposedly yet they have Buddhism, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Anglicans, Islamics, all under the same roof of a nation with two denominations being officially recognized as state churches and those churches having a say in actual policymaking.

[00:10:14]This should be some kind of nightmare for Mr. Peterson. But it seems to work so good that they're the happiest people in the world. Go figure. Now to US policy. Try to understand that our nation itself isn't divorced from religion any more than Finland and never has been. There's simply an establishment clause saying the federal government can't favor one religion over another or prohibit the free exercise of it. Interestingly, they still can. One way is they simply don't recognize a religion is valid. And they do this by not recognizing the church as legitimate and not recognizing them as a church and giving them the same status as other churches, which by the way they do all the time.

[00:10:56]The IRS has official rules for what a church is. In fact, it includes creeds, forms of worship. It's super extensive.

[00:11:04]Now, to the arguments themselves for Christianity being in government. One, the early history of the United States is one that tells a different story than modern secularists would have you believe like Mr. Peterson. The founders in shaping this constitutional republic referenced Deuteronomy more than any other philosophy. This study was cited by the American Political Science Review and is noted by the CS Lewis Institute who remarked this uh this is also a book that records God's dealings with the chosen nation especially in establishing the political and legal institutions necessary to govern a nation. Now we can find text in the New Testament that deals with government. Think Romans 13 for example. And it gives us a sense of the duties of citizenship and the like.

[00:11:50]But what we find in the book of Moses and in that condensed version of Deuteronomy is the nuts and bolts of how do you make the establishment of a nation. This is direct proof, by the way. End quote. Uh this is direct proof the Bible was indeed used heavily to determine government structure itself.

[00:12:08]My second argument is that most states at our founding already had state religions and that you had to swear oath to Christianity to even hold office. The Constitution was ratified 1788 and there were still states with official state religions, which makes it laughable that under the 10th amendment, uh, they didn't allow states to have state religions cuz they clearly did. Our founders were fully aware of this fact, stating the Constitution was for a moral and religious public. Quote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams. Adams is talking about men who believe like Mr. Peterson.

[00:12:45]By the way, nine of these states required a sworn oath that Jesus Christ is Lord. In fact, there didn't seem to be very much confusion. My third argument is that the entire United States has already run like a religious institution. Men with ceremonial black robes who sit on high pedestals judge the people on judging days. Other men in black ceremonial robes give and interpret the law. We have national anthems, the emology of which are lurggical hymns. We have dogmatic beliefs in every sense of the word.

[00:13:17]Dogmas around patriotism, American exceptionalism, a strict adherence to the concept of rights, an invisible metaphysical concept, which isn't true, but we put faith in it anyway. We persecute heretics. We call them communists and socialists and people who quote want to destroy our way of life.

[00:13:34]Anybody who goes against the law of the land is interpreted by the lawgivers and the law interpreters in the black robes and they will be persecuted for it.

[00:13:43]Things like rights and other dogmas are forced on the population as a way in which they must live their life as a sense of normative claims. Our politicians take oaths of office often given on the Bible itself. But the fact they are given giving oaths at all infers there will be some kind of divine intervention to that oathbreaker. They give oath of office just like they used to. I would argue the entire system is religious and dogmatic in its very nature and Peterson will have to explain why those dogmas are incompatible with Christianity or reject it or in any way wouldn't be made better by it. My fourth argument is that blind justice makes no sense. It makes no sense absent the Christian view. This concept is uniquely biblical. Neither rich nor poor judge them the same. In a non-Christian view, there isn't really any reason at all for justice to be meed out the way we me it out. An eye for an eye or serious punishment is just as reasoned for justice as forgiveness and rehabilitation. Why can't a rapist be castrated or graped himself for the crime of rape? Why not murder the murderer? This is every bit in conformance to reason as the current justice code, except the current one still relies on Christian ethics. I have six more arguments after this, but I think that that's probably as much as I can fit in for my opening, but let me address a couple things before we get to the cross-examination.

[00:15:02]I agree with Mr. Peterson. He can't get an offer is, but then he makes this really bizarre claim. He said Peterson says, "I'm at the mercy of a should claim, but he's at the mercy of a shouldn't claim, which is also an ought claim." I don't know if he knows this or not, but when you say you should not do thing, that's also an ought claim. Just like saying you should do a thing. So saying we should not have Christianity in government is making a normative claim. It's literally making an ought claim. So I don't know what the [ __ ] he's talking about there, but we can get into it. Uh what can you do uh when you can't criticize Islam, he says, or Christianize Islam or Christianize these people? What do they do in Finland where all of these different denominations live together and there's two state religions? Well, what happens is the 10th >> Yeah. the 10th amendment goes into effect and it's up to the the ethics of the population to put in the religion that they choose. Uh, also he says Christian ethics are barred from government. And that's actually kind of just counterintuitive and stupid. If you vote your conscience and you're Christian, that's Christian ethics. Just like that. That's Christian ethics. If you're a politician and you're voting based on your normative ethical framework and you're a Christian, you're going to be voting against abortion bills. You're going to be voting against tax bills. You're going to be voting for all sorts of different things which are going to rely heavily on your actual ethical framework, which is Christianity. It's already there. It's already there. And does he want to get rid of it? No. What he'll say instead is, "No, I'm fine if Christians utilize the Constitution by voting in other Christians who can then amend the Constitution." So, it's like he can't even tell me that they shouldn't be there. He'll actually have to say that they should. And with that, I'll seed my time. we can get into the cross- examination. I'll make a deal with you, Eric. If you I'll answer all of your questions good faith and concisely. If you promise, you'll do the same when it comes to my cross exam.

[00:16:58]>> I mean, that's what I planned on doing.

[00:17:00]>> I know. I just always make that deal at the outset because, well, people people often if they go first, well, they become bad faith when it becomes your turn to cross-examine them. So, if we make that deal, I'll do it.

[00:17:14]>> Um, yeah. I mean, sure. The only thing I mean, I'm I'm going to be pretty pretty anal about like staying to the topic of the debate.

[00:17:24]>> Good. Good. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, no problem. I'm not going to divert. I'm just here to answer your questions on cross-examination for my position.

[00:17:31]>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay, that's fine. Talk. Um, Taco, I'm ready. So, just tell me when you're ready.

[00:17:37]>> Starting the timer now. You have 30 minutes.

[00:17:40]>> Okay. Um during the uh summer of 2020, the summer from hell and all the uh I'm sure you remember Andrew, the uh Black Lives Matter riots were going on, there was uh a lot of looting that was excused by certain like radical leftists and their rationale for that was because the people were stealing were poor and they stole from mega corporations for example who have too much and they don't contribute to society. So, I assume you don't accept that position.

[00:18:14]>> Um, I I actually don't don't understand how this relates to the topic, but I'm willing to engage with it, I guess, anyway. Um, no, I would not accept that uh standard, but I also I think that the justification they were really using for BLM was different, which they were making it about social justice, though I do think it was there were a few leftist apologists who were definitely making the claim of social inequality.

[00:18:39]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and okay, that's that's perfectly fine. Um, I mean, without getting into like like if you can do it quickly, fine. If you don't want to then or if you don't think you can, that's fine. But what's your position on like the redistribution of wealth in general in welfare in general?

[00:18:58]Just kind of like for against or I think it can be done properly, but whatever.

[00:19:03]>> Oh man, that's uh that's kind of loaded.

[00:19:06]So uh generally speaking I'm a capitalism supporter. I think that that has done as Bono rightly pointed out it has done more to bring people out of poverty than any other system which is available. But I also believe in the uh charitable donations of the various peoples who uh follow the faith and that they should help where they can help.

[00:19:30]>> Well personal charity and uh redistribute. I guess I was thinking from a the lens of a bureaucratic government apparatus.

[00:19:40]>> Well, I mean, it's hard. You You'd have to give me something specific. Like, do I think that the government has a right to levy taxes? Yes. Do I think that the government should levy income taxes?

[00:19:50]Probably not. I think there's better ways like tariffs or things like this, but generally speaking, I'm against a redistributive model. If you're talking about government takes from rich guy and then hands it to the poor guy, uh, generally speaking, I would be adverse to something like that.

[00:20:08]>> Okay, fair enough. Um, so I have some quotes and I want to read the quotes for you and then I'll kind of get your reaction to them. Um, whatever certain people have in super abundance ought to go to supporting the poor.

[00:20:24]>> Mhm. The next one is it is lawful for a man to support his own need by means of another's property by taking it either openly or secretly. This is not properly speaking theft or robbery.

[00:20:38]>> Another one.

[00:20:39]>> Say that. Say that one again.

[00:20:41]>> It is lawful for a man to support his own need by means of others property by taking it either openly or secretly.

[00:20:50]This is not properly speaking theft or robbery. Okay.

[00:20:55]>> Um, couple more. Anyone who has material possessions and sees his brother in need but does not help doesn't possess love.

[00:21:04]And this last one's not super relevant, but >> yeah, you're talking about Well, the third one's referencing sins of omission. So, there's three categories of sin. And a sin of omission would be like you can help a person, but you choose not to help a person.

[00:21:22]>> Fair enough. Yeah.

[00:21:23]>> Um, next one. Now, in human society, no man can exercise coercion except through public authority. With regards to rulers, the public powers entrusted to them that they may be the guardians of justice. It's not exactly related to the others, but kind of in a little bit um or will be in a little bit. So, I have one more quote, but one more uh preface to the quote for you. So, sorry to bombard you with quotes, but there are some people like uh Hassan [ __ ] not a huge fan of him. You probably aren't either, but they take this position that, for example, being tough on crime doesn't do anything. That's the wrong position because it doesn't address root causes. Instead, they believe we should expand welfare or do reparations um or whatever to lift people up and then uh people just won't want to steal.

[00:22:18]I think that that's kind of like me per I think I don't think that that's right.

[00:22:23]I'm just curious what your take on that is.

[00:22:25]>> Well, I think that you can have a multi-tered approach. The purpose of Christian ethics, we definitely have to keep dangerous people away from society, but we would try to focus uh on rehabilitative justice before we would try to focus on corrective justice.

[00:22:41]Meaning, and when I say corrective in this sense, I just mean punishment. So rehabilitation would always tend to to move to the to the forefront though there could be exceptions to that depending it just kind of depends on what the case use is. Sure. Um to be a little more clear the the idea is that being this isn't about this is about before people enter the justice justice system. Do you agree with the idea that we should like expand welfare and things like that so that people have better means so that they don't feel like stealing? Do you think that >> I would I would adjust I would adjust policy so that you could try to steer clear of there being a need for welfare.

[00:23:24]So, I think addressing things like inflation, the value of the dollar, Congress's ability to coin money, okay, >> various things like this would be a much better route to attacking the causes of poverty rather than just handing poor people money. Uh, ultimately, I don't think that that gets at the root either.

[00:23:41]>> Okay, fair enough. And then I have one more quote for you. Sorry to do that, but um the quote is, and it's related to the thing about uh well, we shouldn't be tough on crime. we should just uh give to the poor so that they don't want to steal. So here's a quote. There are dreadful punishments enacted against thieves, but it would be better to make such good provisions that every man might have the means to live and so be prevented from the necessity of stealing.

[00:24:11]>> Yeah. So I give you a >> I actually would generally agree with that statement but when you're talking about the conditionals for how you go about that that may be where you would get into the argument like what are the conditionals which would address the fact or the thing that made the person the thief to begin with.

[00:24:27]>> I don't think that it's uh you solely going to be pointing at poverty. There's going to be a multiaceted effect counter. So >> fair enough. um in the context of the person speaking about that, that is kind of what they were talking about because they were talking about uh people stealing. So, it is material needs that aren't being met. But anyways, >> well, who's the person speaking there?

[00:24:48]>> I'll tell you in in just a second. So, I just want to know Do you agree with >> You feel like you've scared the trap.

[00:24:53]>> Go ahead. Go ahead, bro. Yes.

[00:24:56]>> Do you do you agree with any of the logic of any of those quotes I gave to you?

[00:25:01]>> Yeah, I would have to They would have to be context specific. It's like if you if you if you do what's called a quote mining, and you probably run into this all the time with academics. People will take studies. They'll quote mine from studies or they'll quote mine from various academic papers and then use that. As an example, flat-earthers do this all the time to uh to you evil globies, right? [laughter] They take just portions of what's being said and then they don't contextualize them. And so because they don't contextualize them, you don't really understand in context what they're saying. So, I could easily on the surface agree with at least some of what's being said here, but I would probably need to dive into the contextualization.

[00:25:41]>> Well, I'll I'll try to pick out one that I think is actually unambiguous.

[00:25:46]Um, and it is the idea that it was the second one, the one you had me reread.

[00:25:50]If somebody steals from somebody to support his own needs >> and that person's poor and that other person is well off, then that isn't technically theft or robbery.

[00:26:01]>> Yeah. Well, the thing is is um what you're talking about is you're talking about a pardonable sin. So like this is um this is a normative fight [snorts] that people have all the time in Christianity or the I or probably in every secularism, whatever it is. The idea is like if you're coming out of the desert and you're parched and you're going to literally die if you don't steal water from a well, are you justified in stealing water from the well? Right? This is what the question is. And so again, I think that you can you can add some sort of pardonability to something like that versus, well, I broke into your house to steal [ __ ] so that I could buy drugs. I think that that's I think that there's a distinction in contextualization and that's why I'm I I can't actually agree or kind of disagree with that without additional context.

[00:26:54]>> Okay. In America today, does that sound like something you would support?

[00:27:00]Uh, generally speaking, no. But again, I I still think that I think that if like a kid stole a candy bar, >> I wouldn't cut his hands off either, right? I I I would give some kind of pardon for that.

[00:27:13]>> Well, yeah, but I mean, we're not talking about we're not talking about children.

[00:27:17]>> I'm talking about a 19year-old. Let's just say like I I'd call him a kid, right? 19. But he's 19, right? He's a dummy. He did something stupid, you know? He stole a candy bar or some something like this because he didn't have enough to eat. I think that most people would probably pardon something like that.

[00:27:33]>> Yeah. But I mean, the question isn't whether or not we should enact corporal punishment for it. It's whether or not it even counts as as theft. And a pardon doesn't mean that you absolve the person of guilt either. So, we're I mean I I've already used my first 10 minutes, so I >> Yeah. I don't want to like I don't want to sidetrack. If you can give me the context for this, I can answer it better.

[00:27:58]I I actually don't think that these >> You don't want to give me the context, do you? Because then the trap doesn't work. Can you just give me the context and then I can answer it honestly?

[00:28:06]>> See what I think is not Well, no. I think you're not answering because you don't I guess I'm not really sure these I don't find these quotes to be um requiring very much context. It's not theft if you don't have and you steal from somebody you do or uh somebody that does or that people with super abundance ought to give their things away. So the reason I >> So okay so again generally speaking I think no Andrew I'm reclaiming my time here. We've already gone through these so I want to move it along. So I'm not I'm not changing the subject. I'm just moving you along.

[00:28:42]>> No problem. It's your cross exam. Go ahead. But I don't think that this now these things I don't really agree that these are my politics either. Um and I'm I'm a left-winger. But I don't think that these agree with your politics either as a right-winger. But these um these quotes are from Jesus, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Thomas Moore.

[00:29:04]>> Yeah. Well, who made that quote?

[00:29:07]>> Which one?

[00:29:08]>> The one you just read.

[00:29:10]>> I I read four of them. They came from >> the last one. The last one that you said is unambiguous.

[00:29:17]>> The Well, the second one I said is unambiguous, which was it doesn't count if it's theft if you >> Yeah. Yeah. Who Who said it?

[00:29:25]>> That's Aquinus.

[00:29:26]>> Yeah. Thomas Aquinus. So, the thing is is um Aquinus's worldview, especially Aquinus. This is why context matters, right? Because I bet a single paragraph beyond that Aquinus would contradict himself. [laughter] >> No, I don't think so. So, I got >> I bet I bet he does. Keep reading. Keep reading. Let's see.

[00:29:45]>> No, I got I got this from Suma Theologica. And that's actually from the um I have it pulled up here. Um I mean, I'm not going to I'm not going to dive through. Or is it UT? No, Utopia is St. Thomas Moors, >> but I got this from the Suma.

[00:30:00]>> Well, Thomas Aquinus was a great apologist, don't get me wrong, but I don't agree. He Aquinus is uh is not a person that I agree with more often than not.

[00:30:09]>> Okay. And that's kind of my point because this is you can't just say that this isn't Christian ethics. These are some of the most important and influential people um in the history of Christianity. And agreed it >> it very good. But the problem is that um I think according to you these ideas don't really have a place in government but these are Christian ideas. Why do you understand the problem?

[00:30:39]>> Why are you saying that I think they don't have a place in government?

[00:30:43]>> Because you said you don't agree with these ideas.

[00:30:45]>> Yeah. Just because I don't agree with an idea doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in government.

[00:30:49]>> Yeah. But it's according to you.

[00:30:51]>> No. And the view here is here's what the debate is. The debate is should and this is Christian Christians shouldn't be allowed in government. They shouldn't, right?

[00:31:02]>> No, not Christians. Christianity.

[00:31:04]>> Christian. Okay. Christianity. Sorry.

[00:31:06]Christianity shouldn't be allowed in government. Fair enough. Okay, I'll I'll I'll go ahead and grant it and you can reclaim your time from here, too. But I just want to clarify this just so you understand. Um, what does that have to do with Christianity should or shouldn't being in government? I don't actually understand that. Can you help me out here? If this is Yes, because if this is Christian ethics and Andrew believes that the government needs more Christian ethics, but I can point at Christian ethics and it says that theft doesn't count if you're poor, then Andrew Wilson doesn't agree that that Christian ethic belongs in government. Andrew Wilson doesn't agree that Christianity belongs >> Well, I don't think you understand.

[00:31:46]Maybe maybe we can start with this. What do you think Christian ethics are?

[00:31:51]>> And so that's a good question for your cross exam right now. Well, I mean to but to answer and he can reclaim the time. I just want to make sure that we're clear on this point because >> it seems like we're we're talking. Do you think that inside of the ethical purview of Christianity that we there's not rigorous debate? Of course there is.

[00:32:09]>> And not only is there that's completely acceptable and the idea that that um Thomas Aquinas could be debating across from you know like an Orthodox bishop would be totally acceptable.

[00:32:21]>> Yeah. Well, I I didn't really lay out very much of this in my opening, but I think this is the problem. I think for the position that you take is that these are basically contradictions. Whatever it is that you think the government should do, Christianity, I don't think, is ultimately the source because you'd have to reject specific Christian ethics in favor of whatever Christian ethics you want or claim that it or claim that it comes from Christianity.

[00:32:52]>> Yeah. But that would be the claim with any ideology which existed.

[00:32:56]>> Like any two in fact I would just say any two people which exists that would be the the case and claim would be any any two people who disagree then therefore the person I disagree with has no place in government. Like that's silly.

[00:33:10]>> Like I disagree with Christians on all sorts of of uh of things constantly. But when you're talking about a general normative framework, we don't disagree very much at all.

[00:33:21]Um, well, I don't think you would agree with what the bishop at Trump's inauguration said, for example. So, it is the case that you find a fake [clears throat] that's a fake bishop.

[00:33:31]>> Problem fake bishop.

[00:33:33]>> Well, according to you, according to her, you're a fake bishop. You know, she would go their denomination recognized Orthodox as being Christian. We just don't recognize theirs.

[00:33:46]>> Um, well, that's an interesting position. But anyways, you can find justifications um in whatever you want normatively in government, but you're going to find the opposite of it too. So that means Christianity holds the position of X and not X. So whatever justification or reason you have for the normative >> I think you're conflating two things here. So it's not that Christianity holds the position of X and not X. It's that some Christians could hold the position of X and not X.

[00:34:16]>> Yes. But I thought you just said Christians aren't the what we're talking about, but Christianity, right?

[00:34:22]>> Yeah, but it's a Christian ethic uh developed by >> Well, which which Christian ethics are contradicting themselves? You're talking about specific people. So, I can make this argument to say, let's say I was talking about red pillars. I can say, well, this red pillar over here contradicts this red pillar, but that wouldn't tell us what the red pill was, and it wouldn't tell us what the uh normative framework was of the red pill, let's say. So you're just talking about uh particulars with specific people.

[00:34:49]You're not actually talking about the ideology itself.

[00:34:53]>> So for clarification, this has eaten up about 3 minutes and >> he can reclaim it. Look, I'm s I'm going to be super charitable here. He can he can definitely reclaim his time. I just I just want to make sure we clarify a few things. That's all.

[00:35:06]>> Oh, I thought we were still on my time.

[00:35:08]I mean, I've I've been okay with it because I've been asking the questions I want to ask.

[00:35:12]>> Okay, cool. So, how I have 15 minutes left then?

[00:35:15]>> Uh, about Yes, sir.

[00:35:18]>> Okay, that's that's cool with me.

[00:35:20]Anyways, um I I hear what you're saying and I I think the next line of questioning I has kind of gets to it.

[00:35:29]>> Okay.

[00:35:29]>> Um which is Okay. So, some historical stuff. Um and and I'm not trying to poison the well or lump you in with this stuff. These things are not good. Um, but I'm just throwing them out there.

[00:35:44]>> Are we doing the slave? Are we doing the slavery stuff now?

[00:35:47]>> No. Nothing about slavery actually, but I mean I could talk about that, but whatever. In Virginia, this is in colonial times. There was a guy, his name was Hugh Davis. He was sentenced to corporal punishment for having relations with a black person. His specific accusation was quote abusing himself to the dishonor of God and shame of Christianity by defiling his body in lying with a negro unquote. We agree that that's bad. In 1959, uh Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter, they were both sentenced to jail in Virginia um for the crime of being married. Richard was white and Mildred was black. uh the trial judge, he gave them a deal that they could actually avoid jail if they agreed to flee the state of Virginia for 25 years. And his reason was Almighty God created races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red. And he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

[00:36:52]And if you look at polling, interracial marriage at this time had a 4% approval rating. It was widely uh deemed I said, "Yeah, 4% approval." Yeah. It was just widely deemed to be wrong.

[00:37:08]There's this guy, Pastor Anderson. He's a real piece of [ __ ] He says, "Look, the Bible clearly says that homosexuals need to be put to death, and the United States government should do it." So, I'm sure that Andrew Wilson disagrees with all of that, right?

[00:37:23]>> Uh, yeah.

[00:37:25]>> Okay. So, were they wrong?

[00:37:28]>> And and well, what you're using is called a genetic fallacy. So, you're you're trying to attack the position based on the source of uh the particulars. So, um this is actually what you're making is a facious argument. if you were just asking me if you're well can you just very quickly again you can reclaim your time but can you just pull up a genetic fallacy and then tell us what it says?

[00:37:52]>> Um just from memory my understanding of a genetic fallacy is because things occurred like historically this is what occurred then therefore it was good or justified that those things occurred.

[00:38:05]>> It's a logical fallacy where someone rejects or accepts an argument based solely on its origin or source. And so the thing is is that the origin and source and in this particular case you're saying uh wait a second um look at these particulars and these particular people did bad things and so therefore Christian ethics itself is in question. That seems silly. It's not actually attacking Christian ethics.

[00:38:27]You're just attacking bad things a person did and then saying somehow this relates to Christian ethics. That is quintessentially a genetic fallacy for sure. Now, if you put it in question form, I can still accept it and I'll still answer to the question, uh, even accepting the genetic fallacy, which is like, so what? There's laws in Kentucky that you can't I believe you can't shoot rabbits from a trolley cart. I disagree with that law, too. I think it's pretty stupid. For one thing, I want to shoot rabbit I want to shoot rabbits from a trolley cart. That's one. But the other thing is is that I would not, if I were to say to you, secular ethics were bad.

[00:39:03]Now, if I were to say they were bad because I can't shoot rabbits from a trolley cart and you disagree, therefore secular ethics bad, you would reject that, right? And rightfully so.

[00:39:16]>> Um I'm not sure I I didn't follow the very end there that bad or that much.

[00:39:24]>> Yeah. If I said to you this law bad and person did bad thing based on this law and then used the justification >> I we don't shoot rabbits from >> um from trolley carts because we're secularists and then I applied that to all secularists that would be the same fallacy that you're engaging in.

[00:39:40]>> So genetic fallacy was already defined.

[00:39:43]This is just eating up time at this point.

[00:39:45]>> Sure. So I actually think that you'll see that I'm not really doing that but I I have to kind of evolve the conversation. So, we can both agree that that's wrong. And I would argue that you would probably say that what those people's positions was wrong >> from a Christian ethical position.

[00:40:05]>> I would wager at least. Okay, perfect.

[00:40:08]So, next question would be, do you think that the positions today that the majority of Christians have are all correct, or do you think that future Christians will look back at today and condemn uh certain positions that Christians hold?

[00:40:24]>> Yeah. Okay. So, I just want to make sure I got this right. Um, so I'm I'm just going to steal man this to make sure I have it correct and then you can tell me yes or no before I answer. And again, you can reclaim your time. I just want to make sure I get it right. So the question is, has Christian ethics evolved and will Christian ethics continue to evolve? So people will look back now and say, "Hey, we got this wrong." Is that is that correct?

[00:40:49]>> Um, in a way, yeah.

[00:40:52]>> Okay. Well, then the answer is most assuredly yes. There's going to be all sorts of groups that we're going to point to in the future and say they got Christian ethics wrong. For sure.

[00:41:00]>> Okay. So, I think we kind of already answer or you kind of already answered this, but what is it that you appeal to to condemn those things I brought up earlier?

[00:41:11]>> Well, I don't know at this point. I need to understand how this is pertinent to Christians, not shouldn't be in government. I need to actually understand that because now you're getting in, you started by saying you don't want to get into a normative framework and now you're bringing it to a normative framework, which I don't understand.

[00:41:26]>> I don't think I I never said that. I said I don't want to get into a moral.

[00:41:30]>> That's a normative framework.

[00:41:34]>> Um morals.

[00:41:35]>> Yeah. Ought. Those are ought claims, right? You should or should not do that's normative.

[00:41:41]>> Um I I draw a distinction between uh morality and and normative.

[00:41:47]>> Well, I don't understand. Well, how if you if you say something is moral, you ought do what's moral, right? That's normative.

[00:41:53]>> No, I don't think you can derive an from an is. But in normative we can say that >> how do you wait discuss this?

[00:42:00]>> Hang on. Help me out with this real quick. Just very very briefly. You can reclaim the time. Reclaim the time. I just need to clarify. I just need to clarify this. Answer your question.

[00:42:09]>> I just need to clarify. That's all I'm asking is for clarification.

[00:42:12]>> How can you describe a thing as being moral without an ought? I don't I don't even understand that.

[00:42:22]>> That's a good question for the cross exam. No, I need that clarified now or I can't I I don't even know what he's asking me. So, just just clarify it quickly.

[00:42:30]>> I understand that moral systems are systems of prescriptions or whatever for cla for taboss or claims of what you should do like should or should not.

[00:42:40]>> Yeah. So normative >> but like in a way but I don't but well no because it it's not I don't think it's the same thing as as normative because again like what I was talking about earlier in my opening statement was I can tell you that a compass is better at drawing a straight or as I'm sorry a ruler is better at drawing a straight line than a compass. not telling you it's morally wrong to draw.

[00:43:07]>> Yeah, I agree. That's that's all descriptive morally wrong to draw bad straight line.

[00:43:11]>> Correct. That's descript. But that's descriptive though. So you're making a descriptive claim. This when you say better, you're not making a normative claim. You're not saying you ought to make a better straight line. You're just saying this does make a better straight line. It's still descriptive. But when you're talking about what how do how should Christians how ought Christians do X, then you those are normative.

[00:43:32]That's a normative framework that you're diving into. You're talking you're talking about as then when so when you're talking about descriptors when you're saying hey a ruler does make a better straight line than a compass right that is not a you should make better straight lines with rulers these are distinct so when you're getting into normative claims though right I need you to tell me how this ties into the topic of whether or not Christians shouldn't be in government because that's your claim >> I'm pointing out a I'm going to get there very soon. And I'm going to do that by pointing out a contradiction.

[00:44:08]Taco, I have five minutes. Is my time paused or no?

[00:44:11]>> I've added seven minutes so far. There's a lot of >> Okay.

[00:44:15]>> Uh time being taken over for >> Yep. I understand.

[00:44:19]>> Well, you can't give him time back. You can't give him time back for me answering questions. You can just give him time back for me clarifying them.

[00:44:26]That's what's fair.

[00:44:28]>> Yeah. But I think we're now done.

[00:44:30]>> I've been very fair with it. It's been more than seven minutes. All right.

[00:44:33]This is Peterson's cross exam.

[00:44:35]>> That's fine. Um and >> Oh, is it taco? I didn't know that. I didn't know that. Taco. [laughter] >> So, here's where I think the problem lies in. Um you're appealing to a Christian ethic to condemn uh what those people did in the past. I asked you about that earlier. You said yes. But that's going to happen uh in the future to positions that Christians hold today.

[00:45:02]So I don't I don't understand how you can use the Bible or Christian ethics because people in the future will judge you or other Christians to be wrong using Christian ethics.

[00:45:14]>> Yeah. But can you imagine that's the contradiction like here? Well, first of all, there's no contradiction, right? A contradiction. A contradiction is a proposition in its negation. There's no negation of any proposition that you've made. All you've said is that >> Yes, there is.

[00:45:30]>> No, you No. what you said is >> because you're going to well hold on you're going to argue these are the things we should do these are the things we shouldn't do that's what uh slave traders and segregationists said in the past appealing to Christianity that's a genetic fallacy but you appeal to Christianity to say that >> yeah but what's my proposition will be used against you in the future meaning according to Christianity >> okay listen so that you understand the proposition is negation has to be mine in order for there to be a contradiction. You're saying that Christianity contradicts itself. You have to give me the proposition Christianity gives and then it's negation in order to demonstrate the the um the contradiction. What you're doing is you're giving particulars and saying because people make the self ID claim of X, therefore this system is flawed. Now if somebody did that back, you'd never accept it in a million years. So somebody were to say, "Well, this secularist in communist Russia, which was a secular nation, you know, uh, did the whole holidayore, therefore all secular ethics are bad." You'd never accept that in a million years, right?

[00:46:41]Because it's silly. It makes no sense.

[00:46:43]>> Well, I'm I believe in moral progress.

[00:46:47]Well, not really moral progress, I guess, but I don't know what else to call it. Um, but if you believe that you have an objective and unchanging ethic, then to say yes and the ethic evolves over time. To me, that screams that you're appealing to something outside of Christianity.

[00:47:04]>> That and that. Hang on. You're right.

[00:47:06]Hang on. Hang on. I'm going to give you I'm going to give you some charity.

[00:47:08]>> No, Andrew. This is actually I only need 10 seconds. you're claiming um that it's grounded in Christianity, but everybody at every instance has done that. And they use that that that logic to claim that the other person's ethic was wrong.

[00:47:25]And that's what I think the contradiction is.

[00:47:27]>> That makes no sense though because all you're saying is that a person can selfid with a particular and therefore everything will be applied to the particular even if people don't follow the particular ethic. when you're talking about the shared value of Christendom especially in Eastern orthodoxy uh or here I'll give you a better example uh so fascism is what really allowed for um for essentially interracial marriage that was not a thing which was done until basically the Catholic Church in Italy allowed that to to begin before that all of human history was basically against any sort of misogynation and it doesn't matter what people group you're talking about they were essentially against misogynation and that's what makes it a genetic fallacy. What you're doing is you're taking the history of the time period and you're associating it to the uh the laws of the land and the particulars of the time period and then you're moving it forward and saying well wait this is what Christian ethics was.

[00:48:26]It's not it's not what Christian ethics was and you can't point to individual >> you have Christian ethics today >> we Christian ethics was is yeah I'm trying to explain the no this is the no true Scotsman fallacy which is implicit in the contradiction you're sitt no true they weren't Christians whereas in the future this was just going to happen >> I didn't say they weren't Christians I said that they I didn't say they weren't Nope Nope I said they weren't >> you said that they weren't using Christians >> nope I said they violated them so So, here's the thing.

[00:48:58]>> Different. No, it's not the same difference. When you use a no true Scotsman, I'll explain so that you understand. When you use a no true Scotsman fallacy, >> you're you're misapplying it. If I were to say this this group over here that well, they just weren't Christians and there's absent no justification be a no true Scotsman fallacy. But if I say that a person follows or selfides an ethical framework and then doesn't follow the ethical framework itself, that's not a no true Scotsman fallacy. that's pointing to particulars in the ethical normative work and saying exerson violated those ethics and they can still self ID as in this case the Scotsman right but that wouldn't be a no true Scotsman fallacy do you understand the difference there in the particulars >> okay there's five minutes left and let's try to answer the rema I cannot speak the remainder of the questions directly and concisely >> okay I don't think there are 5 minutes left because uh my timer was just about to run out cuz Andrew did say like, "Hey, I'm taking over, but he can reclaim his time." But I I started my stopwatch at different >> I added seven minutes in total.

[00:50:08]>> Well, I think you're going to end up giving me too much time. Like I'm I'm going to try to be fair. Um I'm going to address what you said, Andrew, and then I only have I had a bunch of questions, but there's only one more I want to ask because I I don't want to take up a huge amount of time. That would that would look unfair. But um you lost me on the no true Scotsman thing there because the the issue I'm having here is you're saying that they the people in the past they violated the Christian ethic. That's what people in the future are going to say about Christians today and the and the claims like political or whatever that they make and they ground it in Christianity and they'll say that there's the violation or that they violated it as well. That's what I think is the pernitious contradiction in all of this.

[00:51:00]So well even if that even if that fallacy like even if I granted for a second just for the sake of argument that it was the no true Scotsman fallacy it still actually wouldn't be a contradiction there's still no proposition and its negation happening at the same time. All that all that would happen is that you could point out that I made some sort of facious argument like oh they weren't real Christians. However, the thing is is like if you follow any ideology on planet Earth, if you're a utilitarian, for instance, but you're not acting in a fashion which is utilitarian. You're not following the normative framework of utilitarianism. It's very easy for me to say, okay, your idea is a utilitarian, but you're violating the ethical purviews of utilitarianism. That's not a no true Scotsman fallacy. It's an objective statement of truth.

[00:51:45]>> That's a categorical imperative type of notion that I'm hearing there. I mean any anybody can fall short of ethics fall short of >> any anybody can fall short of what they claim they believe and we do that all the time but I but >> well Christianity actually adjusts for this what you're doing in what your belief is.

[00:52:06]>> So yeah you understand Christianity actually has an adjustment for this the idea of you shall know them by their fruits. So essentially we can tell when people are violating Christian ethics and our duty is to bring them back to the fold of Christianity. So when you point to just a particular of a violation of Christian ethics, that does not mean that this is uh on the back of Christianity, that would be a no true Scotsman fallacy. So if you're trying to say because Christians did this and you're and you the the Christian here are saying, well, wait, uh they aren't real, you would actually be making that fallacy. So the thing is like to back it up just so you understand if you make if you vi if you violate your ethical purview with self ID it's not no true Scotsman fallacy for me to explain that inside of our of the religious purview in this case Christianity we know them by their fruits that's what we know them by and we have the particulars in order to make those judgments >> the problem there is I'll say this and I'll just move on to the last thing you're kind of I don't know if I would call it begging the question or whatever, but you're telling them they violated, but you're ascribing your ethic onto them and saying they violated it instead of understanding that according to them, this is the ethic.

[00:53:24]>> So then as long as people groups at that time who are Christians also claimed that they violated it, you would have no case. Does that even make sense to you?

[00:53:33]>> I didn't catch that. So if Christians at the time condemned that as being non-Christian behavior, then you wouldn't have an argument, right?

[00:53:42]>> Um for that particular thing, but it's not as >> Except you still would. That's the problem though. You still actually would have an argument for that particular thing. That's why the argument has no merit. has no merit simply because you're pointing to you're pointing to a particular and then you say based on the particular can we not look at our normative framework and see if people stepped outside of the particular and it's like yeah of course we can >> of course you do it all the time everybody does that normative framework we have to begging by the way begging the question would be if you had a proposition and then inside of the proposition you put uh essentially what the conclusion was in the proposition itself which is not we're doing.

[00:54:22]>> I know. I know what begging the the what begging the question here is. My last thing though is is there anything that only a Christian is capable of believing in besides like the specific claims about like the divinity of Christ?

[00:54:36]>> I don't actually understand this question. So, pretend pretend I'm a fifth grader and you're asking it to me so that I understand it.

[00:54:44]>> That's time. Although you can No, no.

[00:54:46]Let him finish his question.

[00:54:48]>> Yeah. This this is the last thing. Um, I'm not really sure how to simplify it really, but is there is there I'll just ask it again. Is there anything that only a Christian is capable of believing in?

[00:55:04]>> Only a Christian is capable of believing in?

[00:55:09]I don't I I mean, I don't think so. I don't I I guess if I understand if I understand what your question is, can anybody believe in anything?

[00:55:19]>> Is that is that a the correct way to maybe rephrase that? No.

[00:55:24]>> I'm specifically trying to get at is Christianity privileged? Um and my my time is up, so I'll just end with um the point I'm trying to make here and you say no. I I think the answer is no as well. And then I I think that that's kind of devastating for well Christianity doesn't it we don't need it in government because if anybody's capable of believing whatever it is you're trying to get the government to do then anybody can believe it and it doesn't it's not sourced via Christianity.

[00:55:53]That's a very confusing argument to me as well. And I I would love to dissect it and I guess I can in a second with my cross-examination, but I'm just trying to understand. I guess I guess I would need more clarity to even understand what you were asking.

[00:56:06]But anyway,