Does SCIENCE Make a CASE for GOD? | John Lennox, Stephen C. Meyer | Kirk Cameron on TBN

Video Transcript

Welcome to Truly Right View
Let The Truth Be Told!

Are you ready to hear the real truth unfiltered by bias media or government intervention?
Subscribe to the Truly Right View Channel

all things came to be through the word and there is John explaining How the Universe came to exist it is word based it was spoken by God who is the word there was no matter to do the causing so no materialistic explanation is going to be sufficient for the origin of the material Universe you need to look for something immaterial that’s nevertheless powerful and that’s the god hypothesis one of the things that was so important to me as a brand new believer was to be able to reconcile seemingly opposing ideas or disciplines like math and science which I’ve always loved in school and then this idea of faith and believing in things like a virgin giving birth and the resurrection of a man from the dead and listening and learning from people like you has been so helpful to me uh so here you are at Oxford and you’re debating notable atheists you’re teaching on math and on science and yet you you are a man of Faith debating people like Christopher Hitchens uh who’s wonderful to listen to and and Richard Dawkins who’s challenging to so many of us uh have you always had a love for math and science uh or is that something that that developed later in your life no it developed very early on I was quite good at arithmetic at school and that then led to an interest in mathematics it also led to an interest in languages I love languages and I’ve kept that going but right early on my parents who were wonderful in encouraging me to think about the big questions so I wanted to know where mathematics fitted in science and where science fitted into the big picture and I was a teenager at the time when I discovered that it was quite clear that science didn’t give us a full picture it can’t explain everything and I started voracious ly reading and thinking and studying and particularly CS Lewis who I lived to he in 1962 in his last lectures was a tremendous help to me in showing how logical Christianity was just as logical as the mathematics that I loved for some people um studying mathematics is worse than eating broccoli and yet you say that you love to study math what what is it about mathematics that’s interesting well I love broccoli too um I think the fascination is you here have a very highly compressed language and we discover that in some mysterious almost way that it tells us something about the universe we can reduce some of the things going on out there in the universe to mathematics and we think of Isaac Newton and his gravit ational equation or Kepler’s laws or the Clark Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism and that always fascinated me that in a few symbols you could capture something which when you unfolded it gave you for instance if you take Newton’s equation gravitation equation you can very rapidly see that the planets move in ellipses around the Sun as focus and that kind of thing absolutely riveted me of course it all depends I think at school time of having a really inspirational teacher which I was very fortunate to have so I love mathematics but you see the the fascinating thing is Einstein once said the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it’s comprehensible and he put his finger in something very important and that’s one of the reasons I’m a Christian because mathematics works and atheist is M gives me no explanation of why mathematics works but the great scientists Newton I’ve named Kepler Galileo Clark Maxwell Faraday all of them were Believers in God and I think the best way to sum that up is in the words of CS Lewis he once said men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law of nature because they believed in the lawgiver so there’s an intimate connection with the biblical worldview and the rise of modern science I often say to people Kurt that I’m not remotely ashamed of being a scientist and a believer in God because arguably Christianity gave me my subject I I love that and I and you mentioned earlier that your parents encouraged you to uh read on a wide variety of subjects and from a variety of authors not just a Christian worldview but others as well do you recommend that for parents today because there’s certainly things that they could be reading that would undermine a Biblical worldview we need as parents particularly Christian parents to prepare our children for going out into college and university and I know the statistics in some countries are horrifying that over 70% of of kids who profess Christianity at school within two or three years of University they’ve lost it and I think one of the main reasons for that is that the parents are not spending time answering their questions or if they can’t answer them which is often the case feeding them with really good information which is available today in a measure that it wasn’t available when I was younger and helping them to think through these worldview issues you cannot live in a pluralistic complex Multicultural world and stand as a Christian without facing questions and you need to be ready to answer them and defend the Christian Gospel and that’s what I try to spend most of my life doing you mentioned that you had a chance to actually sit in some of the classrooms or the lectures hear lectures from CS Lewis what a privilege that must have been how did uh your sitting at his feet influence the career path that you’ve taken well I went to the last of his lectures in 62 in Cambridge not knowing that he was seriously ill and he died the following year uh as you will recall but he’d begun to influence me long before I reached Cambridge in in 62 because my father gave me a copy of Mere Christianity and it was like standing under a firose of logical thinking and it just opened my mind and I devoured every word and what was most important for me was I have no idea what it’s like to be an adult and not a believer in God and I needed someone to guide me into what that was like and so CS Lewis who was an atheist until middle life until his 30 certainly provided that guide and helped me to understand the nuts and bolts of atheism and I didn’t know that one day I would confront the leading atheists of the day like Richard Dawkins and so on and all of that was enormously helpful because what got really into my heart at an early stage was that Christianity was true I’d seen it lived really lived in the lives of my parents and they loved me enough not to force it down my throat and they encouraged me to think so that I was persuaded inwardly of the truth of Christianity so when I left Ireland with all its religion and its factions and everything else and bigotry and got to Cambridge I didn’t lose my faith in God as many of my contemporaries did because they had never em bibed it they’ never believed it for themselves in an individual way so parents were very important Lewis was important and other people were important in helping me to think about scripture as hard as I do about my math as a mathematician John when you look at the universe what are some of the evidences that point you to believe that it was created by God well the very first thing might surprise some people it’s the very fact that we can do science with mathematics in other words we discovered that this is what I call a word-based universe it’s describable in a language and that resonates wonderfully with two things two Central statements in in the biblical text firstly the the first words of the Gospel of John in the beginning was the word the Word was God and then a bit later on all things came to be through the word and there is John explaining How the Universe came to exist it is word based it was spoken by God who is the word and in the simpler language of Genesis but no less profound you have the constant repetition and God said and God said so one of the things that points me towards God is the semiotic nature of mathematics it describes the universe in language and another thing that fits beautifully in with that was discovered relatively recently and that is the fact that the human genome is the longest word contains the longest word we’ve ever discovered 3.4 billion chemical letters all arranged in a row and and when Francis Collins Stood Beside the president of the United States and announced that they decoded it they said this is the language of God and there in our genetics and every one of the 10 trillion cells in our bodies is a lengthy word and that to my mind speaks directly of an intelligent input from a speaking God it’s a word-based universe so that’s where I would start and then I would pick up probably from physics the fact that’s recognized by virtually all physicists and cosmologists that this universe is incredibly fine-tuned to have carbon-based life on it the basic constants of nature are so precise have to be so P precise otherwise the universe wouldn’t exist and again that demands explanation every scientist sees that it demands an an explanation but people like the late Steven Hawking who was a genius and was in Cambridge around the same time as I was there they reject of course the god explanation but they come to believe in a universe that created itself from nothing which to my mind is logically absurd apart from anything else John uh I’m so glad you’re not recommending that people stay away from the tough questions but you are inviting them into those difficult questions and to explore those things and and that’s what I want for my children and and i’ love that that you see studying math almost as a way a form of worshiping God explain what you mean by that uh we think of singing as worship or reading the scriptures but studying mathematics in in what way does that send us into worship well not quite in the same way I think if we’re singing really good music they’re actually verbalizing things about God and that is very important because as I understand Worship in its narrow sense at least it is a response to God speaking and it’s our articulating what we think about God and believe about him just to give you a crude analogy if you want to get people to laugh you have to tell them a joke you don’t discuss the mechanics of laughter and if you want to get people to worship you tell them about God you don’t discuss emotion or anything like that and therefore it seems to me the primary source of worship is God speaking to us through his word but mathematics and the study of nature in general the heavens declare the glory of God not only visually but mathematically and there’s a there’s an absolute Beauty in some of the mathematics that that we study and it’s certainly fits perfectly in with the idea that whatever we do whether it’s mathematics or expounding scripture both of which I like doing we do all to the glory of God it’s not restricted to what happens inside a church building I heard that you wrote a little book and it’s being read around the world called can science explain everything why is everyone talking about this book so much IT addresses a feeling that’s very widespread that science has been so successful look at the technology it has produced surely in the end it will answer everything and push religion right out to the side and especially any ideas of God and I want to combat that and I want to say that science is powerful I love it but it’s limited and it’s easy to see that it’s limited there’s a very brilliant Nobel Prize winner called Sir Peter medir and he once said it’s so easy to see that science is limited because it cannot canot even answer the questions of a child where do I come from where am I going and what is the meaning of life and he hit on something very important there the late Lord saaks who was the chief Rabbi in the United Kingdom and and Commonwealth wrote a book once he was a brilliant philosopher and he said something roughly like this science takes things apart to see how they work religion puts them together to see what they mean and the point is that science can answer many questions but it cannot answer the questions of meaning we often put it this way that science answers mainly the how questions and the why questions of function why is that bit there but it cannot deal with the why questions of purpose and I often illustrate this by telling a story about a fictitious Aunt Matilda who’s baked a beautiful cake and there it is in front of us and she presents it to an assembly of all the Nobel Prize winners and ask them to analyze the cake so you get a brilliant chemical analysis you get an analysis in terms of biology and physics in terms of quarks and electrons and everything else and they give you a huge and perfect analysis and when they’ve finished she says now just before you go please tell me why the cake was made and she begins to grin and the physicist well he could tell what it’s made of but he can’t tell why she made the cake and nor can the chemist and nor can anybody else not even the mathematicians who don’t get Nobel prizes none of them can tell her why only she can if she reveals it to them now this is a very simple analogy but it’s hugely important because it’s the same with the universe we can examine what it’s made of and get brilliant scientific theories but to understand why it was made and why we were made God who created it will have to reveal it to us now here’s the important thing when Aunt Matilda reveals it to us we don’t shut our reason off we use our reason to understand her revelation and just as we use our reason to understand science how it works we use our reason to understand her explanation of why she made it and it’s exactly the same because so many people think that faith is a religious word it means believing where there’s no evidence that’s nonsense faith is an ordinary word it means trust and it’s as important in science as it is in any other field and that’s why I say that we need to distinguish between these two explanations why are people do you think so committed in the academic fields to not believing in God and they’ve done they’ve done a fantastic job of making us think that we’re the ones who believe Fantastical things but really it’s it’s the ones who deny God who appear to me to be living in this fantasy world that out of nothing everything comes sometimes I when I’m talking to scientists I’ll say what do you do science with and they will talk about some expensive equipment and I point to my head and I I say this oh they said you mean you’re and they’re about to say mind when they know that it’s not politically correct to believe in the mind so they say your brain you do signs for your brain I say okay I believe the brain and the mind are separate but that’s another discussion you do signs with your brain give me the short history of the brain and they come up with for something like this well the brain is the end product of a Mindless unguided process and I look at them and smile and I say and you trust it I said tell me honestly if you knew that the computer that you use every day for doing your science was the end product of a Mindless unguided process would you trust it now here’s the interesting thing I have always got the answer no and I say to them you have a problem don’t you because you are giving me an explanation of your brain mind that you wouldn’t accept in any other area atheism gives you no ground for trusting the rationality you need to do science so what atheism does is not only shoot you in the foot and that’s painful it shoots you in the head and that’s fatal it’s new to the scientific Community to be really seriously considering the god hypothesis and your work is specifically in this area of intelligent design for those who aren’t familiar with it can you just give us a summary what is intelligent design well intelligent design is the idea or the theory that there are certain features of life and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence rather than by an undirected unguided me mechanism such as for example natural SEL acting on random mutation or you could say even more succinctly that intelligent design is the idea that you can detect the activity of an intelligence from the features of life in the universe that we see around us so is going the route of intelligent design to end up with a god hypothesis uh is that really necessary when we have something like the revelation of God in scripture uh why not just assert that God exists based on the authority of scripture rather than what appears to be backing into that Truth by way of evidence for a number of reasons one we’re a group of scientists and that were interested in what the science can tell us about the origin of the universe and the origin of life so we’re looking at the scientific evidence and we want to come up with the best explanation or the best theory about how things came to be and when we find things like the digital code that’s stored in the DNA molecule or the tiny miniature Nano machines the rotary engines and sliding clamps and little turbines and things that we find in cells we want to explain where they came from and uh as we examine what we know about undirected material processes un undirected chemical interactions if we’re talking about the origin of the first life turns out that those undirected processes simply don’t have the creative power to generate the types of features that we’re we’re seeing and living organisms uh Bill Gates for example has said that that DNA is like a software program but much more complex than any we’ve ever uh created and we know from our uniform and repeated experience which is the basis of all scientific reasoning that software comes from um from a mind from a programmer so the best explanation of what we’re looking at when we see the digital code stored in the DNA U is by using standard methods of scientific reasoning the activity of a designing intelligence and that’s just so we’re just wanting at that in that in that sense just to do good science to follow the evidence where it leads in accord with our standard methods of scientific reasoning but from the standpoint of Christian faith um if you’re wanting to to persuade someone of the existence of God and they don’t already presume the reliability of the Bible you can’t appeal to biblical authority to persuade them you have to appeal to them on the basis of something you have in common a common ground premise and scientific evidence actually provides that um many many people in the culture accept that science is a good way to know things and that there’s the evidence that we’re looking at whether it’s the digital code in DNA or the Min miniature machines I was talking about or what physicists are talking about when they talk about the fine-tuning of the physical parameters of the universe or the discovery that the universe itself has a beginning just as the Book of Genesis affirmed uh all of those discoveries are uh in the realm of science that pretty much everyone accepts and so that provides a common ground for reasoning about how best to explain them well that makes perfect sense and and what you are explaining here is also affirmed in scripture and I think of Romans chapter 1 uh wherein we we read that what can be known of God is obvious to men through the things that he’s made and that’s what you’re talking about these little Nano machines these little rotary engines these sliding clamps uh how on Earth do we explain this other than uh uh a god of of immense power and intelligence and design Dr Meer intelligent design challenges uh the scientific Orthodoxy that has been in place for so long how have you found the response been to you asserting this God hypothesis in intelligent design well um I might tease those two ideas apart first um the theory of intelligent design just affirms that there is an intelligence of some kind that best explains certain classes of evidence and in my first two books uh signature in the cell and then a second book Darwin’s doubt I argued that the evidence that we have from biology in particular about the bursts of information that come into our our planet into our biosphere provide evidence of the activity of a designing agent uh but many of my readers after writing those first two books wanted to know well who do you think that designing intelligence is and what can science tell us about that question so in the most recent book Return of the god hypothesis I go beyond just the theory of intelligent design and reason carefully about what uh what type of designer would best explain the evidence that we have at hand and I expand the investigation from looking at just the evidence in biology but also then I look at evidence from physics and cosmology about the origin of the universe and about what’s called the fine tuning of the physical parameters that have been in place since the very beginning of the universe some scientists had suggested that yes there is evidence of design in biology Richard Dawkins even in an interview with Ben Stein in a film back in 2008 allowed is how we might be looking at a signature of intelligence is how we put it when we look at at the question of the origin of life but then he posited that well if there if an intelligence had been involved it must have evolved from some uh through some undirected explicable process on maybe some other planet and then was seated here on Earth uh and uh so that’s sometimes other scientists even Francis Crick proposed that at one point that’s a hypothesis called panspermia the space alien designer hypothesis I’ve never been uh persuaded by that it just kicks the doesn’t kick the can down the road it kicks the ultimate question of the origin of information out into space um but um in the new book I I very carefully examined that hypothesis as well as other design hypothesis for example a a deistic design hypothesis or a pantheistic version of of design and show that it’s really classical theism with the idea of a Transcendent intelligence that is also active in the creation that can explain the whole range of evidence we have some kind of intelligence is necessary to explain the information and biology but only an intelligence that is in some way beyond the universe could explain the Exquisite design of the universe itself in the fine-tuning of its laws and constants and initial conditions and clearly no space alien within the cosmos could explain the origin of the universe itself instead that would also require an agent beyond the universe to bring the universe into existence if you posit a an immaterial agency uh with great power separate from the universe then you’re able to explain how the physical Universe of matter space time and energy came into existence we now have very good evidence that the physical Universe did come into existence a finite time ago and that means that before that there was no matter to do the causing so no materialistic explanation is going to be sufficient for the origin of the material Universe you need to look for something immaterial that’s nevertheless powerful and that’s the god hypothesis and we need to be thinking in in this way because we get asked questions from critics like well uh if you’re saying that everything uh has a beginning and an end or if every created thing is created well then who created God if if God is here then how what was his beginning and we have to understand that that’s sort of a category mistake right we’re talking about the the uncaused cause we’re talking about the God that exists outside of the universe as you’re saying time and space who can actually create these dimensions and these things well yeah it’s a question of what provides adequate an an adequate explanation of the evidence that we have at hand every philosophical system every world viw has to propose what philosophers sometimes call the prime reality or a primitive the thing from which everything else comes in materialism it’s matter and energy that are thought to be Eternal and self-existence and do not require uh anything else to create them in theism theists affirm that God is the Eternal self-existent thing so the qu the question philosophically is which of those systems of thought is more consistent with the evidence we have now that we have good evidence that the material universe itself had a beginning a finite time ago we can no longer affirm that matter and energy have existed eternally into the past they had a beginning point and that makes uh that makes matter and energy a a a poor candidate to be that Prime reality the thing from which everything else comes and instead if you want to provide an adequate explanation for the origin of the material Universe you need deposit something that’s external to that universe and for that and other reasons uh the god hypothesis provides a better explanation of the evidence that we have Dr Meer your work in the return of the god hypothesis and other intelligent design books is is so compelling at least it is to me and to so many others yet you still have critics what do your critics say about your work and how do you respond to them well typically the thing we hear is um not that there is no evidence for intelligent design but rather that the theory is not scientific that it doesn’t qualify as a scientific theory because it posits for example an unobservable designing intelligence but um that’s not really a statement about whether not the theory is true it’s a statement about whether it qualifies as a certain kind of inquiry namely scientific inquiry and it turns out that as I’ve developed the case for intelligent design I’ve used the exact same method of reasoning that Charles Darwin used in the Origin of Species it’s a distinctively Historical Method where you infer a a past unobservable state or action in order to explain the evidence that we have at hand and uh in fact there are many unobservable entities that are part of Darwin’s theory unobservable past uh alleged transitional intermediate species or forms of life life past unobservable mutational events and many other branches of science also invoke unobservable entities theoretical physics for example invokes the existence of uh unobservable Elementary particles or Fields uh but these things are known we affirm them uh because if they exist they can help us explain things that we can see and so uh it turns out that if you want to say intelligent design is unscientific or not scientific because it posits a past unobservable entity you would have to say the same of a lot of other branches of science including evolutionary biology itself so there’s a kind of a double standard at work in this objection whatever intelligent design is if it’s I think it’s a historical scientific theory that has larger metaphysical implications I think we can say the exact same thing of Darwinism it’s an historical scientific theory that has larger metaphysical implications the two things aren’t different types of inquiries or different types of things they’re two different answers to the very same question how did life arise on planet Earth well that that makes so much sense and and it sounds to me like people who are trying to just find any loophole to get around the answer that seems to be so obvious um I think of forensics I think of of uh basic things that we can’t prove with the Historical Method because we can’t observe those things today uh was uh Nero uh really in charge of Rome well we we can’t go back and find that out through the the the scientific method but we can use other things to demonstrate that that’s the most U reasonable explanation for all the evidence that we find yeah that’s a well chosen phrase because the U the method that is used in the historical Sciences is sometimes called the method of inference to the best explanation there are good explan historical explanations and there are bad historical explanations and it really depends on their the how well they are able to account for the data that we have uh that’s left over from the past and uh let me give you another example that illustrates why this objection intelligent design isn’t science is really missing the missing the point if I walked into the uh British museum or any your viewers walk in and they they encounter that beautiful display with the Rosetta Stone um and asked and looked at it for a few minutes they’d very quickly realized that they were looking at an artifact that had been produced by an intelligent agent because there before us lies three different sets of inscriptions um and and they’re obviously linguistic and when the scientists cracked the different codes and understood that they had the same message written in three different languages they realized that there must have been intelligent scribes behind that artifact it wasn’t something that was produced by wind and erosion so they but they didn’t violate any laws of reasoning or laws of science to do that they were just using good thinking to infer the best explanation and when people insist that to be a scientist you must limit yourself to strictly materialistic explanations well there actually um many many branches of science that already don’t do that because they are encountering evidence that is best explained by the activity of an intelligence so we think that the best approach when we’re looking at the origin of life or similar questions is to follow the evidence where it most naturally leads and and posit the explanation that based on our uniform and repeated experience is best capable of explaining the the evidence that we have at hand and if you have information the best explanation is in mind whenever we see information whether it’s in in a hieroglyphic inscription or a paragraph in a book or in a in a section of software in a computer or in or if it’s embedded in a radio signal whenever we see information and trace it back to its ultimate source we always come to a mind not a material process that’s what we know from our experience and therefore when we find information embedded in even the simplest living cells in the DNA molecule the best explanation is again the activity of a prior designing intelligence and we shouldn’t let our definitions of science prevent us from seeing that reality boy the more that you talk it becomes clearer and clearer uh even with a simple example of I look at a painting of the Mona Lisa what evidence do I have that there was ever a painter well I would have I would have to have had a labotomy to think that paintings like that just paint themselves or perhaps I would have an ulterior motive and then go to a real living breathing human being uh and and then to say that there wasn’t a designer behind that is even more preposterous in my estimation well that’s the thing that’s so magnificent in our modern era in our ERA this contemporary period in biology is it isn’t just that we have digital code in cells it’s that the digital code stored in the DNA is part of an intricate information storage transmission and processing system and the processing of that information is is uh accomplished by Exquisite Nano machines and so you have youve got miniature machine you’ve got digital code you’ve got an information processing system there’s a kind of circuitry that’s involved in coordinating the uh the the expression of genetic information during animal development the complexity of living systems is absolutely mindboggling but it’s not complexity in the sense of a random array of of of junk it’s an integrated and functional complexity that’s absolutely necessary to to sustaining life and so there is we’re in a new day in biology when Darwin was writing in 1859 one of his contemporaries Thomas Henry Huxley described the cell as a simple homogeneous globule of undifferentiated protoplasm the idea was it was just a bunch of simple Jello or goo well when that’s what we thought life was made of it was easy to imagine that a few simple chemical reactions could have produced it but now when we see that life is complex on the order of a a a factory run by by digital code like one of our modern uh CAD cam systems uh and Beyond uh the the the idea that undirected chemistry could produce the first life is implausible in the extreme so and instead what we’re seeing in every in every realm of biology are Hallmarks or distinctive features of life that in all other in all other Realms of experience also indicate the activity of a designing intelligence when you see circuitry you know that there was an engineer involved when you see when you see Machinery rotary engines for example you know you know there must have been an engineer when you see digital code you know there must have been a programmer so the the 19th century view of life I think is no longer plausible

Truly Right View: Advocating for Free Speech in the Age of Political Censorship

Introduction: What is Free Speech Today?

In a world where political discourse is dominated by big tech, cable news, and social media influencers, free speech is constantly under threat. From censorship of conservative viewpoints to the silencing of dissent on controversial issues, we are witnessing an alarming trend of restrictions on the most fundamental rights of any citizen in our Constitutional Republic: the right to speak freely.

But what does free speech truly mean in today’s context? Are we protecting it, or are we allowing authoritarian ideologies like socialism, communism, fascism, and dictatorships to erode it?

The Constitutional Perspective: Why Free Speech is Non-Negotiable

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is crystal clear: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The Founding Fathers understood the importance of free speech in preserving a free society. Without it, the ability to challenge government, expose corruption, and advocate for truth would be crushed.

Yet today, under the guise of protecting people from “misinformation” and “hate speech,” powerful institutions are curbing our ability to express ideas that do not conform to their narratives.

Do we not see this as a slippery slope toward authoritarianism?

Shouldn’t we, as citizens, be the ones who decide what we can or cannot hear, not a centralized body or corporation?

Social Media and Cable News: Platforms or Gatekeepers?

Social media was once hailed as the bastion of free speech. It allowed ordinary individuals to share their thoughts, advocate for causes, and hold the powerful accountable. However, over the years, major platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, and YouTube have become gatekeepers rather than facilitators of free expression.

Algorithms favor certain ideologies, while alternative viewpoints—especially those with a more conservative or constitutional slant—are shadow-banned, demonetized, or outright censored.

Does this not resemble the tactics of monarchies, communistic or fascist regimes that control what their citizens can see and hear?

Shouldn’t a true democracy allow the free flow of ideas, even if those ideas challenge the status quo?

Social Media Influencers: Fighters for Freedom or Puppets of Censorship?

Many social media influencers, especially those aligned with constitutional values, have become modern-day warriors for free speech. Yet, they face intense backlash, censorship, and de-platforming for voicing opinions that challenge globalist or left-leaning narratives.

How many times have we seen influential voices banned simply for questioning government policies, election results, or health mandates?

Isn’t it concerning that only a select group of elites can decide what is “acceptable” discourse?

While some influencers fall in line with these restrictive policies, others have emerged as champions for free speech, using their platforms to resist censorship and uphold constitutional rights. The question is: Will we support these voices, or will we allow them to be drowned out by corporate and governmental censorship?

The Dangers of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism: A Threat to Free Speech

At the heart of socialism, communism, and fascism lies a common tactic—control over speech. These ideologies have historically sought to suppress dissent, limit expression, and create a monolithic narrative that favors those in power.

Look no further than authoritarian regimes past and present, where dissenters are imprisoned, media is state-controlled, and free speech is criminalized. Can we really ignore the striking similarities between these oppressive ideologies and the current state of political discourse in America?

Is the suppression of speech today not a precursor to more draconian measures tomorrow?

Should we not fight to preserve the right to freely express political, social, and economic ideas?

The Truly Right View: Defending Freedom in the Digital Age

At Truly Right View, we believe in the unwavering defense of free speech as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. We reject the encroaching influences of socialism, communism, fascism, and any form of dictatorship that seeks to undermine this fundamental right.

Our platform is dedicated to bringing you uncensored news, analysis, and commentary from a truly constitutional perspective. We provide a space where voices that have been silenced or marginalized can be heard, and where you—the citizen—can engage in the free exchange of ideas.

Join the Fight: Sign Up for Our Channel and Newsletter

Do you value free speech?

Do you believe that the right to express your thoughts, opinions, and beliefs should never be compromised, no matter how controversial they may be?

If so, we invite you to join the fight for free speech by subscribing to the Truly Right View channel and newsletter. Stay informed on the latest developments in free speech advocacy, political commentary, and constitutional rights. Together, we can stand against the creeping influence of censorship and authoritarianism.

Why wait for others to defend your rights?

Become part of a movement that fights for the truly free society envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Will You Speak Up or Stay Silent?

In the end, the future of free speech rests in our hands. We can either stand idly by as it is eroded by corporate and governmental overreach, or we can take action to protect and preserve it.

Will you speak up for your rights, or will you allow them to be taken away piece by piece?

The choice is yours.

Subscribe to the channel for Truly Right View today, and support our patriots shop together, let’s ensure that free speech remains the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic.