Transcription
I'm worried about history.
Yeah. So, like I don't care if they're white, brown, black, blue, green, red, all over, you know, as long as they're Christian and they're or they're going to assimilate. Great. So, I'm all fine with that. Yeah.
So, here's my here's my ju can I just focus in on the borders and nation bit?
Yeah, sure. Yeah.
Right. When when we understand the nation, right, there's three different categories to work by. You've got the ethnationalism. So nation is your ethnicity.
You've got the civic nationalism. Nation is your state institutional governance. Right?
And that's where Steven Wolf is. He overlaps that with a Christian concern, right? And then there is the na the nationalism I'm talking about which is this super ethnic superstate institutional nationality of the church by covenant that the church by covenant is a is a people that should pursue its own socioultural economic and political concerns.
And as part of pursuing its socioeconomical and political concerns right part of that is to maintain border. There's nothing wrong with a nation controlling borders.
And being selective about who it lets in and who it doesn't let in.
But one of its concerns shouldn't be to preserve the white race.
One of its concerns shouldn't be to um
Yeah. to Yeah. to out whitey. Right. Exactly. So that's where that's where the the Steven Wolf's uh definition is flawed.
See, this is this is exactly why I will not ever use the label Christian nationalist.
Why not use my definition of it? Because
because
the definition I'm fine with you using the definition. I'm saying I'm not going to use the label because the label means so many different things. It's so muddy.
Maybe if in 5 10 20 years it gets more honed in on your specific definition. I'd be fine with it. But right now,
brilliant.
It means whatever you want it to be. Well, but this is the thing is there's different schools of thought within the Christian nationalist canopy, right? And there is a debate.
I would just say get your own definition. Get your own label instead.
Well, no. I I I No, I'm not. All right. I'm going to hold on to Christian national.
But I want to challenge you, right? I want to challenge you in saying that because you already accept Do you do you accept that as Christians we have social, economic, cultural, and political concerns to pursue in society?
Yeah.
that do you accept that Christianity works as a civilizational project?
Yeah.
Right.
In that case then in that case then right we need to find a way of of of categorizing that for other people to pick up that idea. Right. And Christian nationalism is one way of giving that I that collection of ideas and values a handle that other Christians can pick it up with.
Why not just use Christian civilizationalist?
I mean, you'll find you'll find that then we start slipping into sophism. I'm happy to use that term.
Yeah.
Yeah. But that you're not going to find much of a distinction between Christian civilizationalist and Christian nationalist.
Yeah. Yeah, but I mean let's go
you're just you're just wanting to Yeah. And and this is my point. This is my point is you're begrudging the term
whereas whereas I'm saying that there is a way to define the term and hold on to the term that allows us to communicate a bundle of ideas and values that are important to the disciplehip of Christians in their engagement with a whole bunch of socioultural, political and economic issues.
Work on it. I mean, if you get the label honed in on and people like Stephen Wolf, Nick Fuentes stopped using it, I'm on board.
Well, let's be clear. We both know Nick Fuentes is not a Christian,
right?
So, let's not let's not let's not give him the deep let's not validate his his kind of activism by Chuck. Steven Wolf is a Christian,
okay?
But Steven Wolf is a Christian who hasn't figured out fully what it means to live out his Christianity politics. He's trying to do it and he's still a bit liberal. He's still a bit he's still a bit enlightenment.
He wants a prince. Yeah.
Yeah. But I want to come to this second point. This second point you mentioned
because I talked we talked about borders. Here's the second point. You said that the one of the reasons why you rejected Steven Wolf talks about Christianity um imposing Christianity on our society.
Is that is that fair? Did I understand you correctly?
Imposing it. Yeah. And in the sense of like we're going to force it. Uh like you know like it'd be like forcing it depends like which government there's always going to be a sense of force. The question is how far does the needle go?
Do I think that we should force Christian values?
Some Yeah. Like anti-abort abortion should be outlawed. That's a Christian value. Yes. Absolutely. Yes.
What about polygamy?
Uh yes that should be outlawed. Yes.
Outlawed. Pedophilia.
Yes. Out should be outlawed.
Child marriage outlawed.
Absolutely.
Right. But how do we decide what should be outlawed and what shouldn't be outlawed? It's by looking to our values and beliefs.
Yes.
All right. As Christians, we can't commit to any other one's values or any other one's beliefs. So, we have to believe that when we are in power, we will organize the laws according to the Christian faith.
Right. Right. Yeah. But I also
So where's where's the issue then?
I also think that the Christian faith brings about a lot of ideas, a lot of principles of freedom as well. So I think for example the US constitution was heavily influenced by Christian values, freedom of speech, free of religion, freedom of expression. So like if somebody wants to come in power and they want to say all right, I want to start to limit the separation of church and state as the founding fathers understood it in America. Yeah.
I want for example blasphemy laws. You cannot blaspheme Jesus. I'd be against that. I think that's that's going against Christian values. So, I would say that's going too far. That's taking away freedom of speech.
So, let me reply to that because I think this is this is where and and I just want to say for the sake of the cameras, are you all right? Are you needing to go somewhere?
No. Life is just trying to find me. I'm going to text them up. Come over here.
Who's finding you?
Life is
life. Right. So, when you're ready to stop, we'll go and grab a coffee. Let me know.
Okay. Yeah.
But I I just want to say because I do think this is an interesting conversation, but for me, this conversation is not a do or die conversation. I respect your work. I respect you as a brother in Christ. But I do think that you've called this bit wrong genuinely.
Laws.
Yes. And and freedom of speech and a lot of the American Constitution because I would say to you that the American Constitution has more to do with liberal deism than it has to do with Christianity. When you know when the I think it was like 16 of the original states of America,
13 original. No, I know they were 13 colonies,
but but I think that that 16 of your states as the Americas grew had established churches.
Yeah, they did.
And blasphemy were laws in those states. And blasphemy as a category is 100% biblical. It is it is understood in Old and New Testament as being a real thing. God punishes a blasphemer in the New Testament where he strikes down I forget which king it was who was
Yeah. He strikes them down. And so as Christians, we can't go along with an absolute censor of speech that permits blasphemy. And that actually as Christians, if we're working to Christian categories and Christian values, we should impose a blasphemy law. Now, where those lines exist and how they should be implemented is where the real debate is. But I don't think as Christians there's a debate about allowing blasphemy. So what what would be the reason you want blasphemy laws?
Right. The reason why I would want blasphemy laws is because firstly freedom of speech is not a Christian value. It's an enlightenment liberal value.
And well this is the debate we this is the discussion we need to have. Michael this is right. But secondly secondly the the the idea of blasphemy is a biblical category. Christ says he talks about blasphemy as a real thing. You can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. You can blaspheme against the son of man. Right? So blasphemy is a biblical category, we can't dismiss it. So then if blasphemy is a real thing and one of the ten commandments is that you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. That therefore in certain circumstances and in certain situations, society should not allow blasphemy against Christ or the Christian faith. So, example number one, it should be illegal to take the eucharist into the street and to desecrate it in public or to take a Bible and to desecrate it in public or to stand on a street corner and to mock and insult Christ. That that that would for me should be a law. I wouldn't apply that to Islam. I wouldn't apply that to Hinduism or any other religion. Um, you know, though I would obviously protect their places of worship, I don't think you can just go into a church and disturb a a mosque prayer service, for instance, a salat service. But, but in public, I don't think that a Christian state should allow blasphemy.
Yep. This is why we had the revolution, folks. Let's just say that's why we had to separate from these red coats.
Um,
no. The blasphemy laws weren't upheld in America.
So, that Let's talk about that. I do want to talk about that. Okay. But we got rid of them.
Yes.
Because you became less Christian and more liberal.
Actually, no.
Here's let me let me make my case here. Okay, so at the founding of America,
yeah,
uh for example, Rodney Stark has pointed out only 17% of people belong to a church.
Yeah.
That was awful. Then we had the second great awakening that jumps up to close to 50%. And it continues to go up through the third great awakening. Okay, why did that happen? Because the exact opposite was kind of happening in Europe. Church attendance was going down while it was going up in America through the 1800s through 1900s because when we got rid of state-run churches, what we allowed was with the clergy actually had to go out and evangelize. They had to go out and go, "All right, the state is not going to give me a paycheck. I got to go out and bring congregants in, convince them to be a part of this church, convincingly committed Christians." And that caused basically capitalism of churches. Now, the good churches, the ones that are actually preaching the gospel, win. We see it today. The liberal churches are dying because they don't preach the gospel. People want the gospel. It's the conservative churches that are, it's the conserv that are growing. Meanwhile, the problem you have in Europe here is you have these state-run churches. You have these lesbian bishops in Denmark, and Sweden that get a paycheck from the state and they're atheists for all we know. That is a huge problem for me. So, I would push back and go, "No, state-run churches are bad because it's so easy for it to get corrupt." And we see this throughout the Old Testament. So, we see Moses established this great idea. We see them establish it in Jerusalem. It doesn't take many kings for things to start to go ary. It's much better when church is an everyman issue. As Paul says, work out your faith with work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. We ought to do that. State-run churches get in the way and they prevent the spread of the gospel. We need almost like a system of capitalism, dare I say, where churches are not getting funded by the government. Instead, they're bringing in their own congregants. They're and they how they do it by actually preaching good gospel Christianity. Liberal churches die and thank God, but they're not dying in places like Denmark and Sweden because the government keeps funding them. So, this actually I think strengthens my point because when we got rid of the state-run churches in America, things got better.
Can I reply?
Yeah. So, as much as I actually agree that we should have churches that are going out there and taking evangelism seriously, you're not going to find any argument from me on that. I've argued that for years from this part, I know you're
But but but the point is, respectfully, you've kind of missed the argument cuz we're not talking about whether churches should or should not be doing evangelism or should or should not be liberal. We're talking about whether when Christians are in government, they should pass laws according to their Christian faith that for instance curtail free speech. And I so so so and and and anything else. I don't think that I think we should outlaw abortion. I think we should outlaw um, you know, um gay marriage. Um, we should outlaw polygamy. Uh euthanasia. Um, I can go on and on and on and on. Yeah.
You know that we should teach we should teach Christian ethics in state school and that there should be regular prayer in and regular regular Christian education in state school. Um, this is almost separate to the question of established churches or not. Right? Established churches can or cannot exist and it's it's not actually relevant to my argument. Let me finish. Let me land. Let me land. Let me land.
You agree that established churches government are bad? No, not necessarily. Not necessarily.
That's fine.
I think I think that we've got a bad established church.
Yes.
And I would replace it with another one.
Okay.
Right. But but I'm not against established churches by nature. But the but the point is the real question is do Christians have a right when they are in power to bring in a law such as a blasphemy law? And I haven't heard any Christian defense get for liberal absolute free speech. I would say that what you're doing is you're doing a slightly left-wing version of what Steven Wolf is doing. You're confusing Americanism and American social norms and American liberalism. He does it with statism and the and and a further extreme of the white Anglo-Saxon race, but you're doing it around free speech. And that's actually connected to deism and it's connected to liberalism and the enlightenment and it's not connected to Christianity. Where in scripture does it teach free speech?
So there are principles I can I can draw from about free speech. Okay. Now I'm not going to say we see something like the first amendment in the Bible.
Definitely not.
But we do see for example Philippians 2 Paul talks about people preaching Christ out of vain out of bad. And he says, "What do I care? Christ has preached." Yes, I'm not going to go stop them. You also see uh when Peter takes out his sword to defend Jesus, he says, "Put your sword away. You know, I can call out angels."
So Jesus is and then of course what happens on the cross. He says, "Father forgiven. They know what they do." So we see this idea that he's going to let them say what they want. We also see for example with the Pharisees in Matthew 15. Let them go. They are blind leading the blind. One will they'll fall into the pit. Let them be. Okay. We're going to do what's right. Don't worry about them. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Jesus came at a time when the Caesars were engaging in rampant pedophilia. They were engaging in slavery. And he said, "Listen, right now we're establishing the spiritual kingdom here." This is what he said. My kingdom is not of this world. So, this starts to bring out the separation of church and state. Now, on the whole issue of blasphemy laws, I worry about something I call the three generation rule because it happens for multiple groups. The three generation rule is quite simple. The first generation, the Bob generation, establishes the blasphemy laws and they do it for righteous reasons. They have they have good intent. They're sincere in what they want. They don't want Jesus to be blasphemed.
Bob generation.
The second generation, we'll call it the Bill generation, follows what their parents taught them because they want to honor their parents. The third generation does it because that's just the law. I don't want people to be afraid to blaspheme Christ because they're afraid of the law. I want them to not blaspheme Christ because it's wrong for because they know it in their heart. But if you start making the law, the law replaces the moral heart in your law. And that's what happens. We see it throughout history. People just start doing it because the government is going to get them, not because they actually become a rational son of God who's one day going to be worthy to judge angels. They're just a blind sheep. And we need people to become rational. That's what Christianity is all about. Making us better versions of ourselves. You can't do that by forcing it through law.
Right? So the point of Christian law is not to make people Christian. The point of Christian law is to uphold that which is good, that which is true, and that which is noble. Blasphemy is not true. It is not good. And it is not normal.
It noble, sorry. And normal, right? Cuz normal should be defined as disciplehip in Christ. Now, the the point that I I would suggest is I still haven't heard a Christian defense for free speech. The verses that you quoted, I would say none of them lead you to free speech. None of them. So, I'm going to I'm going to suggest to you a a a better verse to try and steal man your argument in good faith. When Christ went into a certain town, the people rejected him and didn't want to hear him. And the apostles said, "Shall we call down fire from heaven?" Right? So these people obviously were rejecting Christ. And the apostles response was, "Let's punish them for rejecting Christ." I think that is the verse that is the closest one that you can use to uh to to try and argue for a free speech uh law.
Okay.
Right. But that in itself had nothing to do with free speech. That was to do with the freedom to choose or reject Christ. And I'm certainly not advocating for punishments for those who reject Christ. Blasphemy is established in the Old Testament in the commandments in the two commandments. One that you should not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain and two that you shouldn't build images and worship them. Right? Blasphemy is something that Jesus speaks about. He says that it is possible to blaspheme him as the son of man and that it can be forgiven. The fact that it can be forgiven means that there is involved in the act of blasphemy a punishment, a divine punishment. And if we believe and as we pray, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, then if there is a divine punishment for blasphemy in heaven, there should be a secular worldly punishment for blasphemy on earth. Now, what that punishment is and where it should be applied and how it should be applied and what the defenses in law are, that's where the real Christian debate should be. But if we're debating whether blasphemy is a Christian category that should be in law, then I suggest that we're leaning on liberalism and the enlightenment rather than grounding our arguments solidly in the apostolic and prophetic teaching.
Okay. So, let me respond. So, the first thing I I want to say is I don't think liberalism was developed in a vacuum. It clearly came out of the Christian West. I call it like the bastard red-headed stepchild of Christianity.
Totally agree.
Yeah, it but it drew stuff from Christianity at light and thought it could build a civilization without the Christian foundation. That's the biggest problem. It's not some of the values in and of itself. So when Jesus before Pilate for example, he says that my kingdom is not of this world. I think that's an important lie because he says you know if it is my servants would be fighting. They would be going out and defending me for these kinds of things. But we see that Jesus is establishing a spiritual kingdom. So I like what you said. It's about there's a divine punishment. I agree. There's a divine punishment for it. Absolutely. That's the point. It's a divine punishment, not a worldly punishment. Again, it's very it's I get worried about and I see this play on sociology. When we push that needle too far into what the Christian values should be enforcing or not, it starts to replace the moral law within us. I would like that to stay divine law. I don't see that as something that the government needs to handle. I see that as creating far more problems in the long run. And I think it just be better to let that be a divine punishment. I think what the Christian government needs to deal with is going to be more civil things like life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. So that originally it was life, liberty, and property for example.
Ryan.
So I think those are the things. It's like if I'm waving, I can wave my fist around all I want. It becomes a problem and hit you in the face.
I don't think words are like that. They don't hurt necessarily. So, I mean, of course, there's exceptions. Don't don't yell fire in a crowded building because of course that could cause people be trampled to death. But you see that that's connected there. If someone is blaspheming Christ, I reject it. They're going to be divinely punished. I don't think the state needs to handle that. I think it's going too far.
Right. So, let me reply to that. Okay.
because you you've connected your defense now to your position. And by the way, for those that are watching there, this really is not an embittered debate. There's two brothers working out the the the the caveats of disciplehip.
So you you're connected your defense to the idea you've connected your defense to the idea of the two kingdoms.
Yes.
Right. And I agree there are two kingdoms, right? There are two cities.
Yeah.
you know the the eternal city and the worldly city
as Augustine said yeah city of god city of man now let's let's just look at this what this verse Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world when he said that what he means by it I would suggest to you is that the authority of his kingdom is not rooted in anything in this world so it's not rooted in the power of the sword it's not rooted in the democratic vote it's not rooted in people's opinions Its authority comes directly from God. It is an authority that is invading this world. Secondly, his kingdom is not of this world in the sense of it doesn't advance by the means of this world. So we don't put the sword to people's neck and say to people become Christian, get baptized or we kill you.
Right.
Or we don't say we don't um we don't conquer people for the purposes of uh evangelizing them.
Right.
Right. Our the the kingdom advances by the good works and the power of the spirit acting and active in the church, right? As the church goes out and disciples the nations. But the kingdom of heaven is invading this world. And as it is invading this world and discipling the nations, it means that it has to transform the laws of those nations to conform to disciplehip in Christ because law does disciple us. There are people in this world that just go, well, it's legal, so I can do it regardless of whether it's ethical, right? Regardless of whether it's righteous, there's lots of unrighteous behavior that's legal, right? So we can use the law to disciple people. And so by having a punishment for blasphemy, what we're doing is saying that blasphemy is harmful, unrighteous, it's dangerous. We're moving people in the right direction. And I want to say to you that blasphemy is harmful. Let me make the case.
Okay?
Individual blasphemy is not harmful. If individual A starts blaspheming Christ in front of us, it's not dangerous to society. But if that becomes normal, if it becomes familiar, if it becomes popular, if it becomes something that everybody does, it means that in it, it communicates a sociological message that Christianity is not serious, that we shouldn't organize our society by Christianity, and that therefore it poisons the the the nutrient-rich water of the Christian truth that flows from Christ. And so that's why it should in certain circumstances be restricted and punishable, I would say, as a civic offense, you know, with a fine or for repeat and um grotesque offenses. Uh a term in jail.
Let me let me respond with a story. I was invited to speak in a Muslim country uh somewhere in the Middle East. I can't say. Uh it was a lot of Christians were there though. So, it's like there's a lot of Christians. Uh, it's been delayed because I have a bunch of family issues right now. Uh, but that's still probably going to happen. I They want me to debate, come there and debate, get this, an atheist.
And I said, why can't I debate a Muslim? They said, whoa. So, see, the blasphemy laws here won't allow that.
Yeah.
And that is my concern. Look where we're at. We're speaker's corner. There are people blaspheming all over this place.
Yes.
But notice what it's doing. You've talked about this. There were dawa tents here eight years ago. They're gone because the Christians fortified themselves. They came here and they took over this place. Okay. If we do that though, again, it's no longer the Christians becoming disciples. The law will protect them and now they're just fluff cake. They the law is going to protect us. We don't have to worry about taking over speaker's corner. They're not going to blaspheme. But you guys came here, you did the hard work and you won. That's real disciplehip. The law is not going to do that. You guys did it and we're so proud of you in the US. That's what we want to see. That's real disciplehip in action here. If the law was in place, it'd be more like the Muslim country I mentioned where I can't go debate Muslims because they're worried what sounds what I could say could sound like blasphemy. So, they can't have a speaker's corner there. They can't have real growth. And that's a problem. But see, with this, look at what the Christians become. something far better than what they could have been if the law was there trying to force Christians or non-Christians I mean to not say mean words
right believe it or not I anticipated
sure
this argument is sure
all right so what I'm going to say next is not ad hoc I promise you I've got camera evidence I've said this before we've had this conversation but in my concept of a blasphemy law right in my concept of a blasphemy law I don't know if you've ever done any how you do law when you're writing the law. What you do is you write what the law is and the reasons for the law and then what you do is you you you put you put you put the defenses under the law. So it is a defense if this it is a defense if that. So when you get to court if you can demonstrate one of the defenses you get off innocent not guilty.
In my definition of the blasphemy law it would be this one. It would only apply in public places, public institutions, and companies that are employed by the state. So, in other words, it's where tax money goes. So, if it if you're in a private property that you own and you're blaspheming, it's entirely up to you. It's none of our business. Number two, if you are walking down the street and a Christian comes up to you and goes, "Hey, let me tell you about Jesus and in that context of him evangelizing you or her evangelizing you, right?" It would be a defense under law that if you are approached publicly for evangelism or in public for evangelism, in that conversation, you can blaspheme as much as you want because I agree with you. We don't want to create an environment where people can't honestly engage.
Yeah.
My understanding of the blasphemy law is this. That it stops people like anti-fascist smashing up Christian statues or invading church services or as some have done taking the Eucharist. taking the Eucharist that has been given to them by a priest, running off or like Satanists do, taking the Eucharist that have been given to them by a priest and then desecrating it in public.
Okay?
Or artists for the sake of the shock value.
Okay?
Desecrating a Bible
or sticking a crucifix in a vat of piss, which happened in England, or encouraging people to graffiti all over a Bible as happened in England.
It would be that that's the kind of where the restrictions would be. So how you respond?
Yeah.
So for a couple of those I think we don't even need blasphemy laws for like damaging damaging like statues of Jesus damaging property. Yes.
That's covered.
But I'm saying that that should be in in court that would be an extra legal thing, you know, like an agitate like an additional charge.
That's that's kind of showing it's not needed.
Well, but but but that by that law there's a lot of law craft that you would have problems with because multiple people can be charged with like aggravated assault. You know, if you attack someone because they're black, you haven't just assaulted someone, you've also assaulted them because they're black. And so that's an aggravated assault.
Yeah. I that that's
I don't want to get into that. Okay.
But I mean, just like some of these issues like damaging property, evading church services is disrupting the peace. Yeah.
You know, like you're going into somebody's private property. Churches are not state.
What about stealing the Eucharist and desecrating it in public property?
No, no, no, no. When I say stealing, it hasn't been stolen. What happens is the Satanists
Yeah, I know. Yeah.
Yeah. They go to a church, pretend to be a Christian, they receive the communion, and then they walk out with it to ritually abuse it in public.
That is blasphemy. They haven't broken any law. It wasn't stolen, right? But it's blasphemy and it should be punished. There are laws that prevent that kind of thing. I forget what they're called, but it's like if I give you like for example like an object and you use it as it's not supposed to be. Like for example, like
let me let me give you an analogy. So like Airbnb,
let's say I ran out of room in my house for people to sleep in. But then I find out they shot a porno in there. I can then go after them legally because they didn't use the property that I had properly. So there are actual laws you can have in place for that kind of stuff. Regardless, if they're not going to use the Eucharist properly, that's not the priest's intent. That's not the church's intent. Therefore, therefore, they're violating a law.
Do you believe that that should be illegal?
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure.
Right. That's So, that's a blasphemy law by another name.
Exactly.
Right. Great. Then you're agreeing with you're agreeing with the idea of a blasphemy law. You just don't want to call it a blasphemy law.
It's not because it's a blasphemy law.
It's a property violation.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. Because because the the the Eucharist was given for consumption.
For for consumption.
Yes. For consumption. For consumption. But the but I I don't think there is any law in America. In fact, I know there isn't a law in America because Satanists do this all the time. And they're not getting arrested for it. They're not getting arrested for it. Do we do we do we do we agree that they should be arrested for that?
Arrest for Yes. Not not the the punishment is
you're so close to embracing blasphemy laws.
But here's the thing. I already showed you that you can apply the Airbnb example.
But but America doesn't. America doesn't. Britain doesn't.
Yeah.
Yeah. Because it's not con it's not seen in the same way. I'm saying I'm saying it. But all you're doing, Michael, all you're doing is agreeing with the idea of a blasphemy law and you just don't want to call it a blasphemy law
because the my problem with a blasphemy law is more related to free speech. So you've moved away from free speech.
That is to property issues.
Okay. Okay. No. All right. Well, let's stick it to free speech.
Yeah. So that's my
I would I would I would have someone arrested
and prosecuted.
Okay.
If they were standing on a a street corner and ridiculing and mocking and insulting Christ for no reason. They were just stood there doing it.
Okay. Would you arrest somebody for possibly doing like standing on a corner and just blabbering nonsense as well?
For blabbering nonsense?
Yes.
Can we be clear about what you mean by nonsense?
Literally just saying
gibberish.
Maybe they're saying the aliens told him that, you know, the rice is going to kill you. No, I wouldn't.
You wouldn't? Okay. So, I would say that depends because if they're disrupting the peace, there is a there's a legal precedent for them to go out and actually do that.
Here's the problem with that argument because disrupting the peace is exactly how the British police shut down conversations about Islam in this country.
Okay. Yeah.
Right. It gives it because it is an UNP because it isn't a law that's connected to a principle. It's connected to a mob. And the idea of stopping mob violence that is used in Muslim areas in this country, all around Muslim areas in this country to shut down Christian evangelists because the mob gets excited and then the police come and say, "Uh, preacher, you're in uh, you're you're breaking the pre you're breaking the king's peace. We're going to arrest you."
You know what you need?
No, no, let me finish. Let me finish. That is exactly why that is exactly why we should have a blasphemy law that says that and a blasphemy law that that says clearly where the limits of speech are.
You know what you need?
Not a free speech law.
You need a you need a first amendment to get you
don't because you're exact. Michael, you're arguing for blasphemy. You're making an argument for blasphemy. No, you what I'm making a case for is if
you can't shut down conversation with disturbing the peace. If that were to happen in America though, that would go into the courts. The courts would say you're violating this individual's first amendment. He has a right to preach the gospel.
But in America, but in America, you can take the host and you can desecrate it. In America,
property issue. I agree.
Yeah. In America, you you you're just arguing for a limited blasphemy law and you're using property
property issue that
Listen, here's another thing.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me let me land. Let me land.
If an orthand I'll let you land another example.
Yeah. So, so, so my point is my point is again, your defense isn't rooted in Christianity. Your defense is a
I your defense is a mix of liberal enlightenment. And don't worry, I mean, I'm not I'm not trying to villainize you in any way. Like, we all have these points of syncratism in our lives, including me, right? The job of each of us is to desynatize as much as we possibly can. And as a brother to a brother, I'm trying to highlight that a lot of Christians, a lot of good, faithful, sincere Christians who are doing great work for the kingdom are blind to the fact that they have still syncretizing to a great degree Christianity with liberalism. And this issue of free speech is one of the totems that that reveals that.
Okay.
Defend my challenge to you is defend free speech from scripture.
Yeah. We're So, first off, let me give you another example why this is a property.
By the way, how many rounds do you want to keep going?
I go for another 10 minutes or something.
And then do you want to go for a drink or
Yeah, so let's say an Orthodox priest sells an icon and he stipulates this is for veneration, you can actually take them to court if they desecrate it because he specifically sold it for a specific purpose. So again, it goes back to my Airbnb example. If I sell a room for the example of someone just sleeping in it, they can't use it to shoot a porno in it. Now, I agree certain laws in the books don't go too far in protecting property for specific uses. And but back to the whole liberalism issue again, if liberalism is the redheaded stepchild of Christianity, they didn't pull those values out of a vacuum. They got them from the Christian worldview, but they all they they cherrypicked them. That's the problem with liberalism. They cherrypick values and that's why that it sucks. So, but in terms of defending it from from a free speech from a uh Christian value, first of all, nowhere in the Bible do we see this idea that you can't say whatever you want. So, that's my Now, I guess that's not enough. I know that's not enough. But what we see Christ doing here, he doesn't say, "I'm going to establish a kingdom where I'm going to punish the Pharisees for blaspheming me or for blaspheming the he condemns them in places like Matthew 23. He condemns them for their spiritual sins, but he doesn't say the state should go after you." So the way Christ sets up the kingdom, the spiritual kingdom includes the freedom of speech. I I see that as flowing out of the ethics of Christianity, is it stated perfectly? No. The first amendment is not in the Bible. But that principle comes out of what we see. It's what we see with what you're talking about. We can't force anyone to be Christian, but I also can't force them to say what I want either. So why should I do it anyway if it's not going to help the cause?
Right. So my my response to that is your your argument is about you you see this as outflowing from things Christian.
Yeah. I I would suggest to you that the American connect them the American belief in freedom of speech is connected to the enlightenment's emphasis on autonomous individuality and that's where it emerged from. Autonomous individuality is a non-Christian belief. It does not originate in scripture. It is a distortion of something Christian autonomous individuality the idea that I should be free to do what I want. so long as I don't hurt other people. Right? That's autonomous liberal autonomous individuality. And that is not a Christian belief. It can't be found in the Christian tradition. It is a distortion of certain aspects of Christianity that that move towards individualism. Now, when we look at the argu Christian arguments for capital punishment, do you believe in capital punishment?
Mean the death penalty.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Right. When we look at the arguments for capital punishment, they they they would follow exactly the same course that I'm making for a blasphemy law. What are they? We see that God commands it in the Old Testament. God commands punishment in the Old Testament. We see that it is reaffirmed in the New Testament explicitly. When it comes to capital punishment, Jesus affirms it for those that dishonor their parents. And in Romans 13, it's expressed as a right of the state. When it comes to blasphemy, Jesus takes a whip and uses it against the money lenders because they had desecrated the house of the Lord. So Jesus believes in acting against blasphemers.
I got a question.
Wait, wait. And God himself punishes a blasphemer by dropping him dead. There's multiple examples in Acts where God punishes the blasphemer. And if we believe, "Your kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." And if we believe that the kingdom of heaven is invading the earth and that we should disciple the world in the ways of the Lord and the law of one of the ways to disciple the world, then we should have punishments for blasphemy. And I would argue every Christian in America, as much as you love a being American, and I have nothing against that, right? And I and I think that the American Constitution is a work of political art. I don't believe it's perfect. And I believe that it must also be subject to disciplehip in Christ. And that means there must be a limited blasphemy law introduced into any nation that sees itself as Christian.
It was perfect after they wrote the Second Amendment. Let me just say that. Okay. Anyway, do you mention honoring your father and mother?
Yeah.
Do you think there should be a law against that?
Yes.
You think that somebody Now, how is that now here's my issue here. How is that even defined?
Yeah. I'll give you an example.
Okay. Go ahead.
Right. So, I believe that we should pass a law that's known as elder abuse.
Okay.
So, we all or elder neglect. So, what what do I mean by elder neglect? It's basically child abuse and child neglect but reversed.
Yeah. You have a moral responsibility to honor your parents in their infirmity in old age. If you neglect that and they come to harm or you abuse them and they come to harm, you should be punished.
I agree.
Therefore, we should have a law that says you honor your parents.
So, I agree that we should not abuse them. Absolutely.
Agreed.
But notice what you did. You didn't go on what scripture said. You defined honor thy father and mother in a very different kind of way than the Bible. just says, "Honor thy father and mother."
Correct.
So that could mean so many different things. So you have to add on top and that's my whole point.
I agree. No, no, hold on. No, I I agree. I agree that if someone is publicly disparaging their parents, they've committed a civic offense and they should be punished for it.
Okay. But let's say let's say my father really wanted me to become a police officer.
Yeah.
And he says, "You're not honoring me.
Then I should I be thrown in prison for that?"
No. Because that's that's the idea of subjective that that's a lie. No. No. I'm sorry. That's not true. No, Michael. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. Your argument doesn't work. Because that's like someone saying, "I'm a female even though I'm a man. You should respect what I say." There are clearly biblical ways that honoring our parents is described. And one of the principal ways in scripture is to honor them in their infirmities. In scripture, it says, "He who does not care for his parents is worse than a pagan." That's not my point though,
right? But that's that's the point. You're you're asking me you're you're asking me to give you a definition of honoring parents. I'm giving you a biblical one.
I don't want the city of God. I really wish.
No. I agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.
Do you agree there is divine punishment for lying?
Yes.
Okay. Should the state outlaw all lying?
No, it couldn't. It couldn't. It couldn't.
There point.
Do you agree that the state should outlaw lying in court?
Yes.
Lying in business contracts?
Lying? Wait, wait, wait. Lying in Parliament?
Yes. Let me let me finish.
Do you believe Wait, wait. No, no, no. Should should the state should the should the state punish people for lying under an oath?
Yes.
Okay. So, so therefore, we do have ways to impose these kind of laws
about the needle. Well, that's what I'm saying.
Yes. The law cannot enforce all the divine commands of scripture.
Agreed.
Exactly. So, when it comes to blasphemy laws, I would put that in a category that the law cannot enforce. That is something for God to do. So if you agree there are laws in the Bible that the state cannot enforce, there is a separation right there of church and state. This is why the idea of church separation of church and state comes out of
The Christian worldview. Doesn't come out of the Muslim worldview. It comes out of the Christian worldview. So then it becomes an issue where we draw the line. I'm saying these blasphemy laws are on the other side of that line. They're in the church's realm. And they, they, they fully are. I mean, they're not hurting anyone for someone to stand out there and just start blaspheming Jesus. But God will punish it. He'll deal with that. If we jump in and do that, it's going to the state is overstepping its boundaries in the same way it would be is if we tried to outlaw all of lying or all of fornication. I hate fornication, but we cannot. We literally just can't. It's impractical. Same with blasphemy laws. It's not the job of the state. Not only is it impractical, it's overstepping boundaries and it's going to destroy speaker's corner.
>> Can I reflect? Right. So, I agree. This is not about a gotcha moment. I respect you too much for trying to go for a gotcha moment. Let me just try and recategorize blasphemy for you. Blasphemy in culture is the same as littering, right? Like if you just, if you just drop one cigarette bud on the floor, right? You have not hurt the world. But if everybody just drops their litter on the floor, it hurts the world. One person blaspheming does not hurt the world, but everybody blaspheming does hurt the world. And so just as we have little laws to stop the world being harmed by everybody doing a small action that on its own doesn't hurt everybody, but collectively if it did would hurt everybody. So does blasphemy. By allowing one person to do it, you're not the world's not going to get hurt. But by allowing everybody to do it, it does hurt us. Because what it communicates by allowing that kind of culture is that Christianity is not true and it's not important and it should not be valued. But Christ is true. He is the truth. Christ is important and he should be valued and therefore we should have a blasphemy. Now, I, I would just point out to you, I agree with you that it is not possible for the state to legislate for every aspect to Christian ethics and values.
>> Thank you. We're >> all right. >> But, but there clearly are ways that the state can legislate. >> There clearly are ways that the state can legislate for Christian values. And you've already by using your property law example demonstrated to a agreed with a limited restraint on people's freedom of expression through property law. Yeah. >> Right. >> But that means, that means you're recognizing that we can pass laws that restrict people's behavior.
>> The only question is, as you've rightly said, where the needle is. And I'm saying that because of the influence of Americanism and liberalism, you've got the needle too far to the left. Right? Because of Americanism and liberalism, Steven Wolf has the needle too far to the right. And that actually there is a corrective that needs to happen in the discourse within the church that that that aligns our values, beliefs and practices and state craft more directly to biblical principles. Do you want to >> finish off with one more conversation?
>> I'll say my last word then you can have the last word. >> Yeah. Here's my last word here. So >> is Emanuel K said out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing has ever grown. My problem with giving man too much power is he will misuse it as he always does. If you start make violating free speech in ways that it does not need to be violated because it's not like yelling fire in a crowded room or accusing someone of great for example. Okay. If you start limiting freedom of speech, it will be used against you when your enemies get power because the political pendulum always swings left and right. And you talked about us being too far to the left by having free speech laws. The funny thing is it's people on the left in America that want to get rid of free speech because they think words are violence. So it's just kind of ironic to us because we're like, "What do you mean we're too far to the left?" We're the ones defending free speech in America. The leftists want to get rid of our freedom of speech because they think it's a problem. So that's my issue. I don't want those people in power without a First Amendment because they will use it against us. And that's why I'm thankful for the constitution because I can defense my First Amendment, my Second Amendment, which I do practice >> very well by the way. >> Right. So here's here's no sorry >> final that's all I'm saying at the end of the day. I think if you man as I'll just one more line for you as Milton Friedman said, where are these angels you're going to get to run society. There you go.
>> Right. So, so my, my point is notice the fathers that he quoted. >> I love Michael. Michael is a beautiful warrior for Christ, a great advocate for Christianity, a fantastic evangelist. You know, if you've not subscribed to Inspiring Philosophy, please do so. Learn from this guy. He has much to teach us. But notice which fathers he quoted. Did he quote a church father? No, he quoted an enlightenment father. Kantate >> K. Kant was not a Christian. Kant believed in rationalism. He said Abraham was wrong to obey God and offer his son for sacrifice that he should have turned around and said, "Screw you, Lord, that's not rational."
>> Right? Kant is not who Christians should be leaning on. John Chrism said in a game of Trumps of quotes. John Chrism, the great church father said >> theologian >> thank you. You're going to regret recognizing that. He said, "If someone blasphemes Christ in your presence, PUNCH HIM BECAUSE it is better that you go to jail for defending the honor of Christ than to allow blasphemy to be heard because blasphemy corrupts society." Now, I am not saying go and punch people for blasphemy. >> FOLLOW JOHN CHRIS. BUT WHAT I AM saying >> But what I am saying is John Chris Austin was onto something and that is why we should pass blasphemy laws as part of a wider Christian civilizational project because by allowing blasphemy in your culture, it poisons your culture. And I'm going to land by just outlining very briefly my version of a blasphemy law. A blasphemy law should only apply in public spaces, public institutions, and companies that take public money. It should only apply um, it should only apply um, in, in those public spheres. And it is connected to blasphemy against the Christian faith, not other faiths. If you're in public and a Christian engages you in a conversation about Christianity, it would be a defense in law to say he wanted to talk to me about Christianity and I blasphemed. And in that situation, the state will not punish you because the state wants you to engage honestly in conversations about Christianity. Also, if you are blaspheming in private, a private company or a private institution, then it's got nothing to do with the state. If you're blaspheming those situations, those places, you should be able to do so. Shall we take questions or do you want to stop? Hard stop.
>> We can take, we can take questions, but I say you red coats, do what you want. >> We're going to stay while we want to be in America. That's why we separated. Jokes aside, should American Christians be bringing themselves to closer discipleship in Jesus? I'm arguing yes. I genuinely believe this is a sincere blind spot on the part of many of my American cousins. We all have our blind spots, me included. We've all got them. But I really think that this is a blind spot amongst many sincere, good Christians doing good work. And hopefully you've explored it. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.