Where the Jordan Peterson vs. atheists 'Jubilee' debate went wrong
The internet is ablaze with clips of the recent “Jubilee” debate between Jordan Peterson and 20 atheists — and many on the right are criticizing Peterson for his answers to the theological questions presented.
However, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey doesn’t believe the clips circulating on social media actually reflect Peterson’s performance.
“There were some things that he answered that I thought were really good, that I would affirm and say as well, and then there were other things that I’m like, ‘That is not at all the Christian perspective,’” Stuckey says on “Relatable.”
Peterson made four claims that the atheists were supposed to be contending with. The first claim is that “atheists reject God, but they don’t know what they’re rejecting.”
While the atheists took a major issue with this assertion, Stuckey believes they misunderstood Peterson’s point.
“Jordan did not actually claim that you can never reject that which you don’t understand. That’s not what he said. That’s what this atheist is assuming that he meant by his claim,” Stuckey says, explaining that instead, Peterson “claimed that atheists specifically reject that which they don’t understand, not that no one can reject anything that they don’t understand.”
Peterson’s second claim is that “morality and purpose can’t be found within science.”
“Maybe it’s too far to say the implication is that morality and purpose have to be from God — I would say Christianity — not just from any supernatural entity. But that seems to be the implication here,” Stuckey says. “And actually, the implication is what most of the debaters are debating against. And maybe that’s their error, or it's a safe assumption.”
One atheist attempted to make the point that morality can’t come from Christianity, as slavery was depicted in the Bible. He also claimed that slavery ended because humans “evolved,” to which Peterson fired back, “The reason we evolved, so to speak, away from slavery was because the West was founded on Judeo-Christian morality and the presumption that every person was made in the image of God, and so slavery itself became immoral.”
“I liked the last part of Jordan Peterson’s answer there, because he is absolutely right,” Stuckey says, before diving into Peterson’s third claim — that “everyone worships something, including atheists.”
This part of the debate has gone the most viral, as an atheist named Danny, whom Stuckey calls “Reddit Timothee Chalamet,” did not appear to be arguing in good faith. Rather than really getting to the heart of the debate, he spoke over Peterson and focused on seemingly irrelevant points.
“Danny is probably trying to argue, in the same way, atheists attend to and prioritize certain things, but they don’t worship them,” Stuckey says, adding, “As a Protestant, I would say, ‘No, that is worship.’”
Peterson’s last claim is that “atheists accept Christian morality; they just deny the religious foundation of Christian morality,” which Stuckey agrees with.
“I actually think that Jordan Peterson did a lot better than some critics on social media are saying,” she says. “I enjoyed watching it, and it made me think myself, and I always welcome the opportunity to think more deeply about my faith and why I believe what I believe.”
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
EPA reverses Biden-era rules on greenhouse gas emissions
The Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump is looking a lot different than the one that existed under Biden after Trump’s rollback of greenhouse gas limits.
The agency is now proposing to repeal all greenhouse gas emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants, which would include requirements set under Biden.
“This is a big deal, because when you think about your electricity bill, when you think about the cost of powering the country, these power plants are a huge part of it,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere explains on “Stu Does America.”
“When you limit how they can produce the fuel that you need, you wind up driving up the cost of that energy. That’s why your power bills have probably gone up over the past couple of years,” he continues, noting that the reasoning behind Biden’s requirements were silly in the first place.
“You have to remember that 88% of emissions don’t come from the United States. Everyone’s obsessed with the United States and what we’re driving and what kind of power we’re using, but 88% of global emissions come from other places, not us,” Stu says. “So really, the focus on us just kind of seems to be a little bit more about anti-capitalism than anything else.”
And while 12% of global emissions do come from the United States, 75% of those emissions are coming from sources that are not power plants.
“What we’re talking about here is only 3% of global emissions. A little, tiny slice of a little, tiny slice that comes from coal and natural gas plants,” Stu explains. “And that’s not even the entire picture, because things have been changing, honestly, in a direction that nobody on television wants to tell you about, because everyone wants to scare you.”
“Everyone wants to tell you that the emissions are going crazy, and we’re all going to die, and global warming is coming to town, and it’s going to, you know, going to backhand you across the face, and we’re going to have these terrible storms,” he continues.
In a chart revealing the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2022, the amount continues to drop.
“They’ve been going down since the mid-2000s, not dramatically. Down from 5.5% in 2005,” Stu says. “With the exception, really, of the COVID year, where we had one dramatic drop. And even the dramatic drop, it wasn’t all that dramatic, which kind of tells you something about greenhouse emissions overall.”
“When we basically shut down our economy for a year,” he adds, “we just had a slight drop in greenhouse gas emissions.”
Want more from Stu?
To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
New evidence could blow open the Oklahoma City bombing case
For years, the FBI denied that key evidence existed in the Oklahoma City bombing. But court documents, leaked files, and eyewitness accounts suggest a darker truth buried beneath the official story.
President Bill Clinton visited a church in Oklahoma City on April 19 to mark the 30th anniversary of the 1995 bombing that resulted in the deaths of 168 people. In his remarks, Clinton said we “owe” it to the victims to “do better” in honor of their sacrifice. But just like three decades ago, commemorating the bombing still requires airbrushing a mountain of contradictory evidence.
This is a test of whether the Trump administration will honor its promises on transparency.
Clinton’s Justice Department owed the nation the full truth about the bombing. Instead, it spun a cover story that both distorted the past and endangered the future, leaving the American people exposed to new threats.
Among the most striking but forgotten facts surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing is the mystery of “John Doe 2,” a man 24 eyewitnesses claimed to have seen in the Ryder truck with Timothy McVeigh. The FBI now insists he never existed.
After the bombing, the media abandoned its role as a watchdog and became, in too many cases, an enabler of the official narrative of lone-wolf terror. It professed that the FBI acted swiftly and heroically, the Justice Department delivered justice, and President Clinton led the country through its pain with grace and resolve.
Fortunately, not everyone gave up on the truth. Today’s most relentless truth-seekers are anonymous digital investigators and citizen journalists, armed with Freedom of Information Act filings, archived footage, and a hunger to uncover what the gatekeepers tried to hide.
I’ve been part of one such effort for almost two decades. Working alongside attorney Jesse Trentadue, I’ve investigated the likely connection between the Oklahoma City bombing and the horrific 1995 death of Jesse’s brother, Kenneth, in federal custody. Jesse’s FOIA lawsuits unearthed shocking documents about the FBI’s concealed activities — clues that led us deeper into the bureau’s involvement than we could have imagined.
Then, a former FBI undercover operative came forward. What he revealed gave us a key piece of the puzzle. And yet for all we’ve uncovered, the vaults of secrecy remain shut.
Which brings us to a critical moment. On March 26, Trentadue submitted a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging the release of a decade-old sealed deposition from that very whistleblower. The contents of that deposition could expose the true scope of PATCON — the FBI’s sweeping 1990s operation to infiltrate alleged right-wing extremist groups — and potentially tie it directly to the Oklahoma City bombing.
This is a test of whether the Trump administration will honor its promises of transparency. Very few are aware that the Oklahoma City bombing was caught on camera. We know this not just from speculative claims but from on-the-record sources — contemporaneous media reports, corroborating federal files, and sworn FBI testimony. The footage exists. It’s a documented fact. Yet the tapes remain hidden. Authorities only released video of the aftermath.
For over a decade, the FBI fought Trentadue in court to keep the video out of public view. The footage may prove conclusively that McVeigh was not acting alone. If made public, the tapes could shatter the myth of lone-wolf domestic terror. They could implicate associates of McVeigh who were never charged.
Further, the videos could show that 168 Americans were murdered not just by a madman but by a preventable failure of federal surveillance — or worse, by a deliberate cover-up. This cover story has allowed neo-Nazi terrorists to slip through the cracks, denied justice to the victims, and kept the American public in the dark for far too long.
That’s why the Justice Department must act. Release the tapes. Unseal the deposition. Let the American people decide for themselves what really happened. We stand at the threshold of a new era in open-source journalism. If the Trump Justice Department delivers on its promise to unmask secrets, it could mark the rebirth of investigative integrity in America.
As Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) wryly observed earlier this year, “Sounds to me like we need to get some new conspiracy theories, because all the old ones turned out to be true.”
It’s time to test another.
Glenn Beck predicts JAIL TIME is coming for Democrats — including COVID liars
After years of unceasing Democrat lawfare, the Trump administration is setting its sights on potentially illegal activity that occurred under the Biden administration — and there's a lot of it.
Top officials within the Democrat fundraising platform ActBlue are in danger of being subpoenaed if they refuse to interviews with House committees investigating allegations that the platform accepted fraudulent and foreign donations during the 2024 presidential campaign.
"Democrats are just, I mean, they are really floundering," Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck says on "The Glenn Beck Program." "And maybe we're going to see some more justice here. ActBlue officials, they have been asked to come testify in front of Congress because Congress is doing a foreign donations probe."
“Foreign donations, that would be like if Trump was being funded by the Russians. That’s a pretty big deal," Glenn continues. "Now, the ActBlue people are refusing to testify, and Congress is like, 'That's fine, we'll subpoena you.' So there might be some people going to jail there."
And Glenn believes this is only the beginning.
“I’m telling you, handcuffs are coming. Handcuffs are coming over the next couple of months. I think we’re going to see lots of handcuffs coming out. We’re going to see handcuffs on the people of COVID, the COVID fraud, the cover-up,” Glenn says.
“It’s going to be the people that knew that there were really dangerous side effects and then tried to cover that up and keep that out of the press and keep people from knowing about those side effects,” he continues.
“Those people, you’re going to see them in handcuffs, I think, very soon,” he adds.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Glenn Beck answers 'Is Brigitte Macron a man?'
Just as the rumors surrounding French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife began to fade into the archives of the internet, a viral video reignited the debate surrounding the truth about Brigitte Macron.
The video, published by the Sun, shows Macron as he was exiting his presidential jet, when a hand believed to be Brigitte’s reached out and appeared to shove him in the face.
Now, one question is back on the tip of everyone’s tongues: Is Brigitte Macron actually a man?
“I think it’s so funny when people are like, ‘It’s a man, man.’ Uh, no, I think she’s just a hideous human being. I mean, she was 39 and he was 14 when she started coming on to him,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck tells BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”
“She was a teacher, and she just thought he was brilliant. She started coming on to him. They started having a relationship by the time he was 15. Sixteen, the parents find out, and they’re like, ‘Whoa, wait, I thought you were having a relationship with the teacher’s daughter,’” Glenn continues.
“I mean, why isn’t she in jail? She’s clearly somebody who has abused this boy forever. One way or another, that is mental abuse. And anybody who has gone through that with a 41-year-old and you’re 16, there’s something mentally missing from you,” he adds.
Wheeler agrees that it’s “predatory behavior.”
“Imagine for a second — I think this is actually an apropos time to make this comparison — if a 41-year-old man began a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl, do you think it would have just been brushed under the rug like this?” Wheeler asks.
“No, not even in France, it wouldn’t have been,” Glenn responds. “It’s really disgusting. And so I think this guy has set himself up for being her whatever for a very long time.”
As for whether or not Brigitte Macron is actually a man, Wheeler isn’t sure.
“People ask me all the time if I think that Brigitte Macron is a man, and my answer is ‘I don’t know. I have no idea.’ I do know — what we know for a fact is that this person is a predator, man or woman,” Wheeler says.
“I personally think that’s more important,” she adds.
Want more from Liz Wheeler?
To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com