 So these are two about the founders and Christianity. So one is, which founding fathers were not Christians? I guess the question is, what do you mean by Christians there? But all of them by the conventional definition. And what's the best argument against America as a Christian nation? I guess the two are related. Yeah, I don't think many of the founding fathers were conventional in regard to religion and all the major ones that you've done, Franklin or Jefferson or Madison. I'm less familiar with Adams and his sort of religious views, but yeah, they're not conventional Christians. Most, I think it's right to think of them as deists. And that is, deism is a way more rational perspective because it's that you need some kind of, I think it's all wrong, but you need some kind of cause for the world and maybe life on the world, something like that. But it's a cause. It's not an object that you owe obedience to. It's not giving you commandments and so on. And that I think is much more the view, it's certainly the view emerging out of the enlightenment. And then if you get, well, the arguments for this kind of first cause don't work, they're not right. So this is religion, it's part of what it means to say religion is on its way out, we're taking all the supernatural out. So it has to be causal in a natural sense, we're taking all the supernatural another dimension that's in control of this, that's out. And then it's, yeah, there's not really a reason to posit this cause. And it's waning and then would be eliminated. And some people think Jefferson, for instance, is an atheist, but has to spout some kinds of views. Yeah, I read a book that was arguing that a lot of the intellectuals at the time or some of the intellectuals were very influenced by Spinoza, for example, who was almost an atheist or maybe an atheist. And that they were much more secular than what they led to believe publicly because of their kind of environment against people who were not religious at all. But so there was a vibrant intellectual movement that the founders were part of that was far less religious than even the public stance would suggest. Yeah, I think that is probably right. But really the more important question is, were they creating a nation in the form of government that is religious in any sense? And I think they're the answer is definitely no. So whatever their personal view about religion should religion be what shapes the state and shapes government, the answer is adamantly no, it should not be. And I mean, they're on separation church and state because they think, well, somehow in the background church is gonna run the state. And so we don't need religion and we don't want religion. It will be destructive if it gets its hands on power. So the whole view of where the principles of proper government come from, it's all secular and natural and the Declaration of Independence, yes, and nature's God, but that's the kind of deist view. Well, maybe something got nature started, but all the principles would still apply even if this wasn't something got nature started. Nature was here all the time, which is I think the proper view. All the principles would still apply. So in that sense, it's secular and it's so anti-Christian. None of these principles are in the Old Testament or the New Testament anywhere else. I mean, you have a right to life, which means your life, not your servant, everybody else. You have a right to liberty, which means to think for yourself, not to follow commands. You have a right to property. You're not the custodian of the earth forever, next generation or whatever. You have a right to build and create and then earn the property and consume it. And then you have a right to the pursuit of happiness. I think Dr. Peacop, Leonard Peacop once put it, that this was a deliberate slap in the face of Christians and religion. And I think that's right. I mean, you have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not to throw your life away. In this world. Yeah, in this world. Not in, because they always say, oh, we're gonna be happy in another world. That's, they rejecting that, they're saying, no, you have a right to pursue happiness right here, right now. All right, let's see. I mean, a Harvard that would be preaching American ideas more specifically, reason, individualism, capitalism. If an institution of the intellectual prestige, which they don't deserve today, but they deserved it at one time of Harvard. If an institution of that magnitude were preaching the proper ideas, that is the ideas on which America originally was based. Or to say it briefly, the philosophy of Aristotle, which was the father of this country, who was. If they were doing that, you could have the biggest renaissance in the world, still not to late even now. You could have a better renaissance in the first one. This country would come back to life. But today, when all those institutions from Harvard on down are preaching, collectivism, mysticism, and above all altruism, self-sacrifice of yourself, the giving up, the resignation, all the disgusting kind of ideas that the whole world has been nurturing for centuries. When they do that, this country can survive. Can you see the super chat? And I noticed yesterday, when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support, or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...