Well, it's so sick because South American and Central American countries are actually very religious and very Catholic. So they're going into religious countries with almost missionary fervor to go and try to make these countries less religious. And again, there is no separation of church and state. It's a fabrication, it's a fiction, it's not in the Constitution. It's made up by secular humanists. It's derived from a single letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the D'Ambary Baptist Convention. Of course, we should have church and state mixed together. Our founding fathers believed in that when we go through the details of that. They established literally a church in Congress. Anyway, separate issue. The point though is that this is acting like a religion, though, isn't it? If we live by their own false premise of separation of church and state, then why on earth and how on earth would, why would they want to go bring this belief to other countries? I mean, they're almost kind of as if it was the 1400s of sending missionaries to the new world filled with despotic, nihilistic, atheism and humanism. I mean, what's the thought process behind this? That was far right propagandist Charlie Kirk incorrectly claiming that there is no separation of church and state. Now we'll talk about why he's obviously wrong, but he's not the only far right fruitcake to make the same exact argument. In fact, a sitting member of Congress, Lauren Bobard, made the same argument recently. Representative Lauren Bobard says she is, quote, tired of the longstanding separation between church and state in the United States, adding that she believes the church is supposed to direct the government. Quote, I'm tired of the separation of church and state junk. That's not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like they say it does, Bobard said, earning a round of applause from the audience. Now the audience she was speaking to was a bunch of fundamentalists. So of course, they were clapping like seals, but to disprove their arguments, all you have to do is read the Constitution and I'll make it easier for them. Let's put it up on the screen. In the very first sentence of the First Amendment, it reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Now it doesn't explicitly say the words separation of church and state and they're correct to point out that that phrase in particular came from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, but the establishment clause legally achieves the same thing. It creates a firewall between church and state and for good reason. In fact, this is deeply rooted. The separation of church and state is deeply rooted in our nation's history to borrow a phrase from them. So prior to U.S. independence, the Church of England was the state religion for many southern states. And the Church that they were forced to not just subscribe to, but pay taxes to. And a lot of people thought that that was unfair rightfully so because not all of them believed in that particular doctrine. Many of them were Lutherans or Presbyterians or Jewish. So they thought that it was wrong for them to have to pay taxes to a church that they didn't even believe in. Therefore, quote, after independence, there was widespread agreement that there should be no nationally established Church. The establishment clause of the First Amendment, principally authored by James Madison, reflects this consensus. The language of the establishment clause itself applies only to the federal government. Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. All states disestablished religion by 1833 and in the 1940s, the Supreme Court held that disestablishment applies to state governments through the 14th Amendment. And that is the most common, widely accepted interpretation of the establishment clause. That's not me saying this is how we should interpret it. That is the most common, historically accepted interpretation. But Charlie Kirk rejects that. And he in a way is violating his own textualist judicial philosophy, but I mean he's inconsistent. These people don't care about anything but executing their agenda. And they will do that by all means necessary. Now lucky for Charlie Kirk, we have a Supreme Court that seems hellbent on destroying that crucial provision of the Constitution. And you know, because of that, he kind of answered his own question because remember in that video, he talked about how it's a little bit bizarre that atheists are proselytizing effectively. And doesn't that kind of make them a religion too? So let me explain why atheists and secular humanists are supposedly proselytizing in a way that we see religious people spread their beliefs. It's because religion poses a danger not just to humanity and civil rights and civil liberties, but to democracy itself. And all of you are kind of being a little bit too brazen lately. I know that you're emboldened after the Supreme Court overturned Rovy Wade, but you're giving up the game and you're giving us all the more reason to proselytize and spread secular humanism and atheism because of the danger that you pose. In fact, I want to share a guest essay written by Catherine Stewart for The New York Times. This is someone who's an author who studied the religious right for more than a decade. And she wrote about how Christian nationalists are emboldened. And since they've been emboldened, they are now explicitly becoming more violent in their rhetoric and they put this on full display at this year's Road to the Majority Policy Conference. Quote, the intensification of verbal warfare is connected to shifts in the Christian nationalist movements messaging and outreach, which were very much in evidence at the Nashville Conference. Seven mountains, Dominionism, the belief that biblical Christians should seek to dominate the seven key mountains or molders of American society, including the government, was once considered a fringe doctrine even among representatives of the religious right. At last year's Road to the Majority Conference, however, there was a breakout session devoted to the topic. Much of the rhetoric on the right invokes visions of vigilante justice. This is about good guys with guns or neighbors with good eavesdropping skills, heroically taking on the pernicious behavior of their fellow citizens among the principal battlefields will be the fallopian tubes and uterus of women. So evangelicals in the United States have not only embraced this once fringe doctrine of Christian Dominionism, i.e. Christian nationalism, but on top of that, they've amped up the violent rhetoric because they view themselves quite literally as soldiers and God's army. Therefore, they have a divine mandate to rule over all of us by force, to impose God's law on all of America because God has chosen the United States of America. And if we're standing in the way, then God has allowed them to crush us. This is their belief. There were people at this conference who are powerful. Rick Scott was there, former president, possibly future president. Again, Donald Trump was there, referring to domestic enemies, who, of course, they have a divine mandate to conquer. So people like this are precisely why we have the separation of church and state. It's not just because religion is dangerous, and it harms individuals and it's counterfactual, but because religion, especially when it comes in the form of Christian nationalism, quite literally poses a threat to democracy itself. So when people like Charlie Kirk and Lauren Bober talk about how really there shouldn't be a separation of church and state, and that doesn't really exist, well, what they're telling you, simultaneous, is that they're also against democracy because to rule by an iron fist with a divine mandate from God means that you don't need to take into account what people in a pluralistic society might or might not want. You just do what God wants you to do. That's why these folks are so dangerous. That's why the separation of church and state is crucial and we have to fight to protect it because it's not something that is always going to be a thing in the United States. The Supreme Court in their last term chipped away at it in a multitude of ways. So even if we once thought this is something that is constitutionally protected, even if it's right there explicitly in the constitution, well, that's not going to stop these zealots from just reinterpreting it in their own extremist way. So that's why it is important for atheists to as Charlie Kirk put it proselytize because if we just let these religious zealots have their way, there'd be no democracy, there'd be no civil rights, there'd be no civil liberties, there'd just be theocracy. Do you enjoy watching independent news shows like the Hewness Report, the rational national and the majority report, but oftentimes YouTube doesn't deliver our videos to your subscription box? Well, I've got a solution for you. It's called the opt out app available right now in the iOS app store coming soon to Android. Opt out as an app made by and for progressives where they take all of the most popular independent news shows and they put them in one convenient location. You'll find all your favorites on there like the Hewness Report, the rational national, the majority report and the app is updated multiple times per day. So your news feed is constantly up to date. If you enjoy watching independent media, this is the app to get downloaded today. Before everyone else is tremendous, many people are saying this. Join today folks, you won't regret it.