2,277 videos 1,364,597,333 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Charlie Kirk Debates Student on Morality, Christianity, and the State at Campus Event
Charlie Kirk faces off with a student who argues for the separation of religion and politics, sparking a passionate debate about the foundation of morality. When the student claims morality comes from the collective rather than God, Kirk challenges him with tough questions about Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and whether murder can be objectively wrong. The exchange exposes the logical contradictions of relativistic morality and demonstrates why Kirk believes Christians must engage in the public square. What begins as a question about science and faith evolves into a fundamental discussion about truth, wisdom, and whether society can function without appealing to something higher than human opinion.
A student approaches Charlie Kirk with a question about something Kirk discussed earlier regarding science and the church. The student fundamentally disagrees with what he believes Kirk said about separating the two, arguing that "science for me explains God's creation."
Kirk immediately clarifies the misunderstanding. He explains that he never said to separate science and church. Instead, he talked about reason and revelation being two different matrices of viewing things, with one actually pointing to the other. The student agrees with Kirk's position that science explains the world and can prove that God is true, noting that studying the human genome and DNA reveals the miraculous improbability of human existence.
After some discussion about semantics, Kirk and the student align on the basic premise that science can explain or prove God. But then the conversation takes a sharp turn when Kirk asks why this matters for political discussion.
Why Religion Belongs in Politics
The student pivots to his real concern: "Why does it have any room in our political discussion whatsoever?" When Kirk asks for clarification about whether he means politics or religion, the student directly asks why religion should play any role in politics at all.
Kirk responds by referencing his opening speech and posing a fundamental question: "Can you have a separation of morality and state?" The student answers yes, which leads Kirk to press him on where morality comes from when creating laws.
Using the example of murder laws, Kirk asks, "By what standard do we believe that?" The student argues that the separation of church and state means he can derive his reasoning for believing murder is wrong from any source he chooses. Kirk agrees that people can derive morality from various sources but identifies this as a problem, arguing that Christianity doesn't need to be the fundamental cause for morality and therefore should be separate from the state.
The Dangerous Logic of Collective Morality
Kirk then asks the critical question: "What cause of morality do you think the state should ascribe to?" The student's answer reveals the core of his worldview: "There's no basis for morality. Morality is what the collective believes."
Kirk immediately identifies this as democratic majoritarianism and tests the logic with a provocative question: "Was Hitler right to kill the Jews?" The student responds that the people wanted it but notes there's more than just Germany in the world. Kirk counters by bringing up the Soviet Union and Mao's China, asking if those regimes were right to imprison and kill millions.
The student tries to argue that there are more people than just those in Russia or China, but Kirk points out that when you add up China's population, Russia's population, and the population of Europe, you're talking about half the world's population, all with different beliefs.
Kirk then asks directly: "Do you believe murder is objectively wrong?" The student answers yes, but only because "the collective says it's wrong." When Kirk notes that not every country agrees, the student dismisses this as the few in power making decisions, not the actual collective.
Testing the Limits of Relativism
Kirk continues to press the logical implications of the student's position. He points out that in Nazi Germany, the body politic wanted bad things to happen to Jews, even though most of the world said it was wrong. The student acknowledges the country itself said it was okay.
Kirk then brings up abortion, noting that most of the world says it's okay, and asks if most of the world is right. The student says "probably," appealing again to collective agreement. When Kirk asks if the collective can ever be wrong, the student admits "probably."
This admission creates a logical problem for the student's framework. Kirk presses the point by noting that throughout world history, the entire planet believed slavery was okay for 2,000 years. When asked if the entire world was right, the student admits they were obviously not, having just acknowledged that morality can be wrong by the collective occasionally.
Kirk drives home his point: "When the collective gets things wrong, then maybe we shouldn't appeal to the collective because the collective has given us really evil things over the years. Instead, we should appeal to something higher than us, something greater."
Christianity's Role in Moral Standards
The student challenges whether Christianity has any merit above the collective, asking if Christianity has ever led to anything evil. Kirk acknowledges that of course it has, comparing it to using a shovel to dig a ditch or to murder somebody—the tool can be used for good or evil.
When Kirk asks what faith the founding fathers had, the student responds with "separation of church and state." Kirk clarifies that those words are not explicitly in the Constitution and asks if the student knows where that phrase came from. The student says it came from people escaping religious persecution from their home countries.
Kirk provides the historical context: it was from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Convention, guaranteeing them that the state would not come after them. The student tries to undermine this by noting that Jefferson also had slaves, asking how he could be inherently right. Kirk agrees that people make mistakes but notes that wasn't the point he was making about the phrase's origin.
The Foundation of American Government
Kirk quotes John Adams: "The Constitution, the structure that we care about, is only compatible with a moral and religious people." He explains that when the American people are no longer moral or religious, the promise of the Constitution starts to fall apart.
The student pushes back on the exact wording, suggesting Adams meant "moral or religious" rather than "moral and religious," arguing that people can derive morality outside of religion. Kirk agrees someone might come to a conclusion with a blindfold on but suggests it's a bad way to operate.
When the student accuses Kirk of taking his own bias into account, Kirk acknowledges this and also notes that John Adams didn't own slaves, so the student should take what Adams said more seriously.
The 20th Century's Lessons on Morality
Kirk returns to the fundamental question by pointing to the 20th century's mass murders in China, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany, all because they believed collective morality was correct. He asks if any of that gives the student pause that maybe we should appeal to something greater.
The student responds by describing those places as having power consolidated at the top. Kirk notes that the people largely gave power to those leaders. The student counters by referencing complaints about rigged elections, suggesting such things could have happened before technology was abundant.
Kirk proposes a hypothetical: if today there was an up or down vote and people wanted to bring back indentured servitude, would the collective be wrong? The student says probably. Kirk asks what definition of wrong the student is appealing to, and the student answers: "My own sense of morality that's not derived from religion."
The Problem of Subjective Morality
Kirk identifies this as the revealing moment: "It's your opinion versus their opinion." He explains that Christians believe there's something above both of them that they appeal to. The student claims Kirk's sense of morality is a "bastardization of the church word," but Kirk pushes forward with a final question: "Wouldn't we both agree then we need objective transcendent morality to live under?"
The student's response is stark: "Objective cannot exist in morality. That is opinionated." Kirk takes this to its logical conclusion: "Therefore, murder cannot objectively be wrong. Child rape cannot objectively be wrong. It's just an opinion."
The student protests that this isn't what he said, but Kirk insists it's exactly what follows from his position. When Kirk brings up child rape as an example, the student tries to dismiss it as beyond the scope of their conversation about philosophy. Kirk notes that religion is a form of philosophy, which the student disputes.
The Meaning of Wisdom
Kirk asks what the word philosophy means and leads the audience to answer: it comes from the Greek words "philos" (love) and "sophos" (wisdom), meaning the love of wisdom. He then asks where wisdom comes from and provides the biblical answer: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
The student argues that wisdom comes from experience and that "the word of God comes from the bastardization of man," noting that men wrote the passages in the Bible. Kirk clarifies that men transcribed them, but the student insists that's the same thing.
The Revealing Apology
At this point in the heated exchange, the student uses profanity and immediately apologizes. Kirk seizes on this moment, asking by what moral standard it was wrong to swear. The student claims he doesn't find it wrong personally and thinks every adult cusses.
Kirk presses the question: "If it's not wrong, why'd you apologize?" He notes there's something in the student that said swearing was wrong. The student responds that the collective of the room said it's wrong, and he tries not to offend. Kirk points out there wasn't a vote or scorecard—it was Christianity that taught the student not to swear.
When Kirk asks if Christianity teaching people to restrain their tongues has been a good or bad thing for humanity, the student says it's neutral and makes no difference. Kirk argues it's a good thing to teach people self-control and that words really matter, that people shouldn't just say whatever they want whenever they want.
The student agrees with this principle but notes he's also seen Christians do terrible things. Kirk agrees but asks how the student knows it's bad. The student returns to his own sense of morality, and Kirk points out they've covered this ground before.
Hitler's Morality and Democratic Elections
Kirk brings the conversation back to Hitler, noting that Hitler's sense of morality was to kill the Jews. If everyone has their own morality, what makes Hitler wrong? The student says the collective said Hitler wasn't right, but Kirk corrects him: Hitler was democratically elected.
The student disputes this, saying there are more people than just one country. Kirk agrees that lots of countries can make collectively awful and terrible decisions. He notes that the student is unintentionally minimizing the Holocaust by saying "it's just one country, it's just one thing."
Kirk points out that Hitler took over all of Europe, not just one country. The student responds that this was through military strength, not democracy. Kirk agrees but notes that Hitler believed he was right, and at first, the rest of the world didn't universally oppose him.
In fact, Kirk explains, Russia initially sided with Hitler, then changed their minds. Italy said Hitler was right. Imperial Japan said he was right. The whole world was not united against Hitler until two Anglo Christian nations—Britain and America—decided to tell him to stop.
The People Versus Their Leaders
The student tries to distinguish between the leaders of those countries and the people themselves, arguing that Kirk ignores the people's voice. He brings up the recent election, noting that 75 million votes is not a majority of 350 million people in America.
Kirk points out that the student brought up the collective, not him. The student acknowledges he also said the collective can be wrong, which brings them back to the question of moral standards. Kirk asks if there's absolute truth, and the student says no.
When Kirk asks if the student believes that absolutely, the student says he does personally, but his personal beliefs don't dictate the rest of the world. Kirk catches the contradiction: "You absolutely believe that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Therefore, showing that there is absolute truth."
The Final Exchange
The student tries to argue that his fundamental truth can change with knowledge being input, suggesting truth itself can change. Kirk asks if an adult can become an infant, and the student responds with a personal insult, saying Kirk acts like one.
As the exchange grows more heated, Kirk attempts to wrap up the conversation. The student claims they're talking about semantics of someone else's life where neither of them will change their minds. Kirk agrees to move to the next question but closes with a powerful statement about what just happened.
"This is the moral confusion that happens if Christians do not contest in the public square," Kirk concludes, pointing to the exchange as evidence of why Christian engagement in public discourse is essential.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.