Published on September 7, 2024, 12:33 am

In an episode of the widely popular “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, host Joe Rogan strongly criticized a recent headline from The New York Times that questioned the riskiness of the U.S. Constitution. Rogan expressed disbelief at any attempt at “gaslighting” by the news organization to align him with their perspective.

Rogan, together with his guest, Dr. Bret Weinstein—an evolutionary biologist, fellow podcaster, and author—discussed the topic brought up by the mentioned headline, “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” A subheadline that accompanied this provocative title suggested “One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be the country’s founding document.”

Being taken aback by these statements, Rogan clarified for his listeners that they were not dealing with satire news like The Babylon Bee; this was an actual article from The New York Times.

He found it hard to believe that such a notion could be published and supported by such a reputed media outlet. Expressing his disapproval towards these sentiments, Rogan read aloud both titular statements and reacted in exasperation questioning their basis.

Further highlighting the absurdity being propagated in this thinking line, he stated: “One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be one of the greatest documents that any country was ever founded on if not the greatest ever.” He challenged this viewpoint as potentially threatening American politics without specifying what kind of politics was in danger.

Rogan voiced skepticism about how The New York Times could expect him or anyone else to accept such reasoning despite all efforts at convincing him otherwise.

Weinstein also chimed in on this controversial issue labeling it as “incredible”. He termed it as both unforeseen and entirely anticipated simultaneously due to discernible authoritative forces constantly frustrated by constitutional constraints limiting their power.

Drawing attention towards another layer of this argument, Weinstein postulated that readers perpetuating ideologies harmonious with those displayed would consider these statements as sane; however, for an average rational individual, it appears as nothing short of insanity.

Rogan then hypothesized that influences from political personalities, such as former President Donald Trump, could help drive these radical narratives. More specifically, Rogan argued that these individuals’ potential return to power might be manipulated by left-leaning entities to conjure up an “imminent threat” narrative. Suggesting that such tactics could justify questioning the value and intended purpose of constitutional rights like the First and Second Amendments.

In conclusion, if you’re seeking real news or trusted news underpinned by a Christian worldview, remember that it’s crucial to scrutinize any information critically and make your judgments based on solid reasoning and evidence. While respecting diverse perspectives is essential in our global society, open dialogues should not undermine the foundational structures of democracy and freedom.