@@mikewiz1054 Yet all our individual rights are give to us by Divinity. There are no personal rights in Atheist countries...only elemets granted by other men.
I'm always blown away by Prof. Ehrman, No matter how familiar I may thinik I am with one of his topics, he always presents everything in a fascinating new light, He's an amazing storehouse of knowledge and not the slightest bit pretentious.
Still looking forward to hearing about Digital Hammurabi, but this is a timely and necessary discussion, given the politics in the US. Thanks, Bart and Megan (et al).
I went to a Catholic school in Brazil and we had a religious studies class. We studied Abrahamic religions, Mayan and Aztec religions, Afro-Brazilian and African religions, and many others.
@@Anthropomorphic I think it's part of the national curriculum, but it's not mandatory. I know that private secular schools didn't do it, but when I was growing up, IIRC, around 97% of the population reported some belief in God, so that wouldn't be a lot of schools.
@@Anthropomorphic Having said that, the inability of some teachers to teach it properly has made it controversial enough that there was a Supreme Court case a few years back to prohibit them in public schools. I personally thought the education I had was very informative and respectful, but Afro-Brazilian religions were widely seen as satanic in more conservative and rural communities (despite being the result of syncretism between African deities and Christianity), so I can't imagine they were very respectful.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos Does the national curriculum specify that Aztec, Mayan, Afro-Brazilian, and African religions should be covered? At least internationally speaking, I believe that's really rare.
Interesting Victor. I went to Catholic school in New York City (Queens) in the 50s and 60s and we were taught only Catholics get into heaven. Also a lot of other untruths
As long as churches don't pay taxes all together, the religion is state sponsored. Church MUST pay taxes on property, on salaries of staff and ministers, etc. Or otherwise, they should register as non-profit organizations and have the same obligations as other non-profit NGOs have.
And not just property tax. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints has assets in terms of stocks and shares plus property to the value of around $350 billion dollars. They were able to build this substantial portfolio through tax free donations by their members (tithing and other offerings) as well as extensive time donated by their members in the absence of a paid clergy at the grass roots level. Even though they have massive wealth they are estimated to donate less than 1% of it to humanitarian causes.
@@debbieshrubb1222 You have me at "I don't think" So think ... anyone who gets paid pays taxes. That includes religious institutions who have to report what their workers make and pay their payroll taxes No corporttion must reveal their private financial dealings. Only their earned income. Which the church does. The LDS church is incorpoated to be able to help people and operate around the world. It is required bt international law. I am a contractor who has orked on LDS biuldings. No company is more strick about following the the State and Federal rules than the LDS church. In fact they are rather obsessed about it.
Checking in from Oklahoma, where there is a new push to require teachers to tech the Bible starting in 5th grade 😢. Thanks for all the information Bart and Megan.
@@MikeJJJemptybladdermandate is coming from Ryan Walters, our state superintendent. He also pushed to have a state funded religious school and to have pragerU as an approved curriculum. I would say it’s safe to say his goal is to have the Bible taught as historical truth.
@@jdmcnugent1987 What the alternative? Castrate children and groomed them to be woke communists? Because that is the alternative in US of A. State mandated degeneracy or book that build a civilization for over 1500 years. Take your pick. you will be indoctrinated either way. Question is are you a communist or christian. There is no in between option.
Well there has been a push to teach woke garbage in public schools for the last 40 years. The religion taught in public schools today isn’t Christianity. It is Paulo Freire’s Marxism. And Marxism and wokeism are the new dominant religions.
@@jdmcnugent1987 I think to these people the Bible is historical truth. I am actually concerned with the fact that how bible can be sexually explicit and violent. This is going to cause kids trauma.
About the ten commandments. During law school they argued the crucifixes in every courtroom in Brazil are there as "an example of an unfair trial". I was a student so I kept quiet, but now I'd argue for them to be replaced by illustrations of witch trials then 😄😄
This new law in Louisiana is definitely cynical.If the goal is to display one of our founding documents in the classroom, it should be the Bill of Rights, not the Ten Commandments. You know, the founding document that actually gives Evangelical Christians the right to practice their religion.
Had the lawmakers in Louisiana read their Bibles, they would know that there are not one, but three Ten Commandments, two sets in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy. Different Christian sects use different Ten Commandments, so in displaying one set of Ten Commandments you would be favoring some Christian sects over others. Ironically one set of Ten Commandments has a number of different commandments including everything that opens the womb belongs to the Lord, and thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
@@1bengrubb Have you read any one of the three sets of Ten Commandments that are in the Bible? There is nothing in them that pertains to the forming of any government, let alone the unique republican government that is set out in the US Constitution. The purpose of these commandments are religious, not political. It is true that state laws prohibit murder, theft, and perjury, but the knowledge that these are crimes predate the Bible; for instance, they are deemed crimes in the Code of Hammurabi. Except for treason, no crime is mentioned in the Constitution. Our founding documents set up the machinery for federal lawmakers to pass laws, not to list specific crimes.
That is an asinine comment given the founders viewed it through the lens of Christianity. Your ilk engage in semantic shift and rewriting of history to pretend its original intention conforms to your contemporary mores. It's much easier to take your views for granted and pretend than have an open debate about it.
Besides the First Amendment. there is a third Constitutional clause that references religion: the Tests Clause. It forbids religious requirements to hold public office (Article VI): "The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
@@Ned_of_the_Hill Very true. Nobody should be prohibited from holding office due to their religious views., be they atheists, deists, Musselmen, Hindi or Christian, etc. That in no ways means the office holder cannot vote for things like blue laws, or statutory rape, just because these behaviors are considered immoral by any particular religion. Criminalizing murder fores nobody to worship a particular religion or support a specific Church. The point wasn't to marginalize or oppose religious belief from being considered by lawmakers when enacting legislation.
There is a documentary called God & Country that goes through this in detail. The other one I just watched is Bad Faith. It's actually really scary what's happening in America.
So many who don't believe in the separation of church and state seem to have separated their beliefs of what is in the Bible (any version) from the actual text. Bible thumpers and Constitution thumpers too often haven't read either and derive their beliefs from the common views of the community they live within. Imagine if Christian Nationalists were demanding we follow Jesus's instructions regarding care for others. That would require them to promote a government that was highly engaged in caring for the sick, poor, outcast, and refugee.
Don't bother going to that well. The Bible isn't called the big book of multiple choice for no reason. For example: Mathew 10:34-36 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. For anything the Jesus character might have said which you can decide is noble or beneficial, there is another verse which is horrifying.
@@sypherthe297th2 There is nothing horrifying in the verses. Jesus' age is about the same as what we are in, which doesn't lack new ideas, and these ideas divide people, even the people related in a family. If one wanted to be the follower of Jesus and broke away from the old tradition in Judea at that time, it's not hard to imagine the pressure they would face. So either they were against the family member who stuck with the old way and didn't accept the good news, or they harmonized with the family members and broke away from Jesus.
@sypherthe297th2 I don't expect too many of those who are religious to benefit from my comment. I do hope the rest of us don't let ourselves fall into a similar trap of not being ready to question the basis for our position. I have benefitted from people providing me information that I had missed when I stated what I believed to be true. Of course the stress of being shown I was wrong made me have to fight my internal need to "save face" by claiming I was right all along and my need to be seen as a reasonable person who can learn and adjust my position.
@@sypherthe297th2 I understand there are horrible things in the Bible, but I'm with armstrong on this one. That verse that you cited is far from horrible, it just states that people following a new religious sect get ostracized. You could cite the Book of Revelation, it would be a much better example of horrible things in the Christian Bible.
Data over Dogma just reported that the version in the LA bill is actually the one from the Cecil B deMilles film via Fraternal Order of the Eagles, possibly in order to lean on judicial precedent pertaining to this particular text
You first have to establish that they actually existed. If they did, is the form that you now believe the same as when they were first written? Is the version you believe to be current worth discussing if its significantly different to the original (if you can establish the differences)? You have a long way to go before you can even that conversation.
@@russellmiles2861 Well that's a load of utter bollocks. They are unrelated and have completely different purposes. Only a few scholars believe they are related - most do not. Moses and his trek through the wilderness is a myth and so is the 10 commandments. The waffle in the old and new testaments doesnt constitute evidence. The earliest existence of commands comes from the Smaritan Decalogue tablet from 300-500 AD.
Yes in the Enlightenment the first step was toleration. People like John Locke argued for religious tolerance, separation came later in the 18th century.
Checking in from Lancashire, England. These are such good podcasts (well, that's how I used to listen!). The Bart / Megan dynamic is really great. So much good information here!
@@1bengrubbfreedom of religion inherently implies freedom from religion and the constitution is very clear that you cannot be forced by the State into any religion, the government cannot promote or favor any religion, and the government cannot establish an official or state religion of any kind.
@@yallimsorry5983 well in France they ban you from wearing your religious paraphernalia in the workplace.... but in the declaration of Independence it mentions God and creator. Our national moto is "In God we trust" and every nickel, quarter, dime, penny, dollar has that imprinted on there----are you saying the moto and Declaration of independence are unconstitutional? I suppose its national promotion of a diety.... ua-cam.com/video/K_yS0X5s0lo/v-deo.html
@@1bengrubb The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and it was written well before the Constitution. I do think the “In God We Trust” motto is unconstitutional though. “E pluribus unum” was always a better motto.
I live in Louisiana and I don’t support the Ten Commandments or 9 in the classrooms. Also just saw on the local news that the bill may be delayed or stopped due to a lawsuit if I remember correctly.
Now that I think about it, saying America was founded on Christianity, therefore, 10 commandments is a great insult to Christianity, given how American Christians acted and continue to act even today.
@@1bengrubbthey were deists--saying otherwise wouldn't have been the smart thing to do. Franklin was an atheist. Thomas Paine and Jefferson were deists at the most (check Jefferson Bible). Washington was arguably not a Christian.
@@chokin78 all of them were Christian--- nothing about them or their value systems was not Christian other than not believing in a deity.... just like if you were born in Iran---you'd be muslim even if you don't believe in Allah.. nothing about how you view the world and the people in it can be separated from the environment you are raised in. Your programming is not your choice.
@@1bengrubb you are at a loss sir. They were as much Christian as they were of Greek/Roman heritage. The point is that the US is NOT a Christian country in its conception.
@@chokin78 no the point is we can assume they all had the same religious training therefore the same values... Those values guide thinking......there certainly was not any Asian or mid east values in these people....that's the point
These two are such a great duo to watch. I watch Bart on his own and read his books but if the podcast episode doesn't have Megan then I can't watch it. I try
Prayer before a football game? Imagine if a high school player lead the prayer and it was a "Hail Mary", do you think the Evangelicals would let that go on?
I'd argue that the main motivator for coming up with a separation of church and state was certainly the 30-year war. That war demonstrated the problem of not having it very thoroughly.
The First Amendment, as originally formulated, was not applied to the states until after the Civil War, a process that legal scholars describe as ‘Incorporation of the Bill of Rights’. So individual states were still free to have official religions well into the antebellum period. In practice, however, the last American state to have an official religion was Massachusetts, which dropped Unitarianism as its state religion in 1833. A formal constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Religion does not emerge in the United States until 1947, with the Supreme Court decision ‘Everson v. Board of Education’. In practice, you cannot have authentic Freedom of Religion without Freedom from Religion - since new religious perspectives must have the ability to emerge with (in Jefferson’s phrase) ‘progress of the human mind’. And, yes, new spiritual perspectives (or spins on older perspectives) are being introduced into American society all the time.
Yet few people today realize this. But this is why Thomas Jefferson had sympathy for the plight of the Danbury Baptists but offered no recourse. When people don’t believe me when I tell them the Bill of Rights didn’t initially apply to the states (usually in a discussion of the second amendment) I always ask them why the Danbury Baptist didn’t just sue in Federal court since the state was clearly in violation of the establishment clause.
@@henochparks that's personal choice. To follow or not to follow a religion. Not documented, an assumed choice, subject only to the persecutions of the religious extremists. Good thing there's nothing in there about establishing a national religion, that would lead to state extremism and oppression. As the extremists intend.
You are wrong and obviously do not have a history degree. I don’t have time to educate you so please google Thomas Jefferson, freedom of religion and Protestants. You will come across a case that destroys your ridiculous postulate that is devoid of any historical evidence. Please go back to school and educate yourself so you don’t continue to make idiotic statements. Thank you
I'm glad I'm a member of the freedom of religion foundation at least they're trying to stop the preaching teachers in public schools by taking them to court 😊
The fact that the founding fathers were mostly Christian and they still had the forethought to put this separation specifically in the constitution says a lot.
I would respectfully push back on the idea that the founders were Christians, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Ethan Allan, Benjamin Rush, Mathew Thornton were men of enlightenment ideals, ie anti-superstition. They were panentheist or theist or believed nature and god are synonymous. Let’s use all the world’s religious traditions and philosophies to develop our collective consciousness.
@@1bengrubb Hundreds of millions of Native Americans were murdered by Christians. Christian's murder each other. With wars between Catholics and Protestants in England. They would torture and burn people at the stake if they owned a Bible. I asked my Christian friend if he would kill his daughter if God commanded him to and he said absolutely! Like Lori Vallow had her Pastor murder her children because they were possessed by Demons. Will you kill your children if God commands you too?
My read on American History is that everyone was Christian, but they had huge disagreements among themselves. That’s why they didn’t want the government to choose Baptists over Lutherans vs Catholics, etc.
You also had straight-up Deists, who were just non-atheist/vaguely-Christian, Universalists, Quakers… people believed in “God”, past that could be anything.
@@PeteOtton he may have been ashiest but probably deeply understood the values of Christianity---and they were his values and those values guided his thinking.
Luther's Small Catechism, the section of the Office of the Keys and Confession, is interesting source material that goes along with this. There is also a Large Catechism. The Book of Concord includes the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, The Smalcald Articles, and the Formula of Concord, which includes the Epitome and the Solid Declaration. Some editions include the Saxon Visitation Articles.
26:50 Aren’t “the Ten Commandments” in Exodus 34 leading up to 28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. What are the 10 again? May everyone come to be disabused of evil, ☮️ & ❤️
The founders' main concern wasn't atheism or non-Christian religions when they separated church and state. It was Christian infighting, which had been a major problem for the prior 300 years or so. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the 30 Years War had been the most destructive war the world had ever seen and would continue to be so until World War I. Sectarian violence had been alive and well in the colonies. Rhode Island itself was founded by Christians who mostly agreed with the Puritans but had to flee for their lives on account of the parts where they did not agree. Even after the Constitution was ratified, riots took place in Philadelphia over which Bible version should be taught in schools when a rumor started that the Catholics would impose theirs. People died. The governor of Missouri declared open season on Mormons. People died. Klansmen where black people were in short supply burned crosses on Catholic lawns. And yes, people died. Just look at evangelical TikTok today. It's a cesspool of anti-Catholic propaganda. Is that what we want to go back to? So, the First Amendment was not just to protect the non-religious from the religious. It was meant to protect everyone from people who claim to speak for God. It was meant to keep the bad guys from Footloose from having the legal means to violently oppress everyone else.
_Klansmen where black people were in short supply burned crosses on Catholic lawns._ This is one of the most ignorant statements that I have ever read.
Yes! The founders were not far removed from the protestant wars. The last Jacobite uprising in Britain occurred only 30 years before the Declaration of Independence. 30 years is not long, Bill Clinton was President 30 years ago.
It is though. The founders didn't want the same worship of the king to be what happened in the colonies. Plus, Christianity wasn't the only religion that talked about the basic concepts
There were some efforts to mix church and state before the 1980s as seen by some earlier Supreme Court cases involving prayer, Bible reading and funding of religious schools.
Also I wouldn't exaggerate how many people were deists in 1787. Many Framers were Christian. Many ordinary people were too. That should not be the test anyway as Bart noted.
I would add that a compelling argument for the Enlightenment separation of church and state were the horrendous religious wars of the 16th and 17th century. There were areas in Germany that took 200 years to recover from the 30-years' war. Edit: I wonder how many people know that there are two versions of the ten commandments. Here's the alternative version found in Exodus 34: 1. This is very long but boils down to "do whatever I command, do not intermarry with the Canaanites and don't worship other gods." 2. Don't make metal images of gods. 3- Don't fail to observe the Festival of Thin Bread in the month of Abib.[c] Obey me and eat bread without yeast for seven days during Abib, because that is the month you left Egypt. 4, The first-born males of your families and of your flocks and herds belong to me. You can save the life of a first-born donkey[d] by sacrificing a lamb; if you don't, you must break the donkey's neck. You must save every first-born son. 5. Bring an offering every time you come to worship. 6. Work for six days and rest on the seventh day, even during the seasons for plowing and harvesting. Celebrate the Harvest Festival[e] each spring when you start harvesting your wheat, and celebrate the Festival of Shelters[f] each autumn when you pick your fruit. 7. Your men must come to worship me three times a year, because I am the Lord God of Israel. As you advance, I will force the nations out of your land and enlarge your borders. Then no one will try to take your property when you come to worship me these three times each year. 8. When you sacrifice an animal on the altar, don't offer bread made with yeast. And don't save any part of the Passover meal for the next day. 9. I am the Lord your God, and you must bring the first part of your harvest to the place of worship. 10. Don't boil a young goat in its mother's milk.
uhhhh....you are just listing part of the other 613 laws...put a railing on 2nd floor....don't bury your poop by the water....you are your bro's keeper.......the 10 commandments are different---first 10 off mt Sinai
I maintain that there is one comandment and nine suggestions. The first is inevitable; I am the Lord thy God. Thou shall no other god but me. Without this one the whole thing becomes meaningless.
It needs to be clarified that Constantine didn't make Christianity official. Emperor Galerius' Edict of toleration which gave Christians equal standing with other pagan faiths, was agreed to by Emperor Constantine and Emperor Licinius in the Edict of Milan. So *equal* not *favoured".
Follow the rhetoric. Evangelicals claim they are not free unless they can tell you what to do. They frame themselves as victims. They seem to believe that despite the clear irrationality of that.
That was a bit of trickery and slight of hand. Under the Abrahamic view, what isn't their deity's domain? It is supposedly the creator and supreme being of the universe.
Absolutely. The First Amendment was designed to keep the government from interfering in the religion of people. Having said that, it is quite clear that the vice versa was the intent of the founders. People and churches and denominations cannot interfere with the government. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENTS AND FAMILIES TO INSTILL RELIGIOUS VALUES IN THE CHILDREM. Not the schools, not the local, state, or federal government
Actually, the only explicit Ten Commandments is Exodus 34, which is not the ones referenced. 34 verse 27 literally has the Ten Commandments in the verse. The other two lists where words spoke but God and not just 10 commandments.
Well there is not a list of 10 Commandments in the Bible. Eg, Exodus 20 has 13 Thou Shalts. It probably best one skips over these as no 11 says women are private property of men, as are donkeys (no 12) I would have thought Evangelicals would want to avoid some of the Commandments as God seem a tad too enthusiastic about killing children. In Genesis 18 22, Abraham kinda, albeit politely tells God to sod off about his plot to burn to death every man women and baby at Sodon. Best not ask evangelicals what the babies did to deserve such torture.
@@bartdehrman The separation of church and state was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately it opened the religious version of Pandora's box that was not intended upon and would likely freak out those who signed off on the concept had they known random citizens would be given full reign to manipulate the minds of millions of other citizens and in many respects order them around in ways that the concept of Separation of church and state was intended to prevent citizens from falling prey to. Either they were deeply ignorant of this fact because of the times or they perhaps wanted to leave such a thing to chance failing to realize it's cause/effect.
Love Bart and Meghan and have learned so much! But next time kitty comes to visit, please let us enjoy her too...she appeared and disappeared much too quickly! ☺😀
not that im opposed to this episode but last time we were told megan would be the interviewee for this one, with the topic being digital hammurabi.. ia that posted elsewhere or..?? thanks
All those people excited about the wall coming down between church and state are in for a BIG surprise when scientologists swoop in and start mandating e-readings in every church.
@@1bengrubb It doesn't have to be part of history, it just has to be rich and powerful enough to sway some legislators, which it already is. As soon as the floodgates are open, the richest and most powerful will decide which god you must bow to.
I'd be in favor of a AP religion and history class. The subject must include Ancient religions (Greek pantheon, Egyptian, Persian, Babylonian, Early Hindu, Chinese religious practices, as well as modern faiths. The course should talk loads about the evolution of religion and end with Dan Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell". Huge amount of reading. Will never happen.
As a steam train 🚂 fan we love petty details. So for Megan: the UK and England does not have an established church. Firstly, Nth Ireland and Scotland are in the UK and don't have established churches. There is the Church of Scotland, which is a national church but not established. And while the Church of England is a state church for England: Wales as a principality within England (not a separate country like Scotland) disestablished the Church of England in 1922. So the King is the Head of the Church of England, except Wales, and not Scotland or Northern Ireland. I assume the Is of Mann has a bank as a national church. This of course means next nothing; as not only do 2/3rd of the population not identify with any religion, bout about 1/4 of parishioners of the Church of England dont believe in God. Yes, the USA must seem a strange place for a lass from the UK.
Religious persecution wasn't left in the old countries. There was a lot of persecution in the colonies as well. I understand that many had at least a de-facto stete religion and that you could be at least denied advantageous business deals if you weren't of the right religion.
I haven't actually looked at the text of the Louisiana law, but Dan McClellan says that it's not from the KJV. It's similar to the KJV, but there are differences. And that's just the tip of the iceberg even in terms of what the text says - without even getting into the church/state issues.
What I find rather curious about this is that Jesus changed the 10 Commandments and it's Christians that are doing this. He changed things like "love God" instead of "put no other god before God". He made the second most important Commandment "Love thy neighbor as thy self". He changed "honor your father & mother" to "who is one's father and mother and family, but those who follow the ways of God". He changed or enhanced "Do not commit adultery" to "Don't even look at a person that way". He changed "Do not kill" to "Don't even get angry", or be slow to anger. All these things are part of the New Testament, so why is it that Christians are promoting having the 10 Commandments posted everywhere?
The separation of church and state was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately it opened the religious version of Pandora's box that was not intended upon and would likely freak out those who signed off on the concept had they known random citizens would be given full reign to manipulate the minds of millions of other citizens and in many respects order them around in ways that the concept of Separation of church and state was intended to prevent citizens from falling prey to. Either they were deeply ignorant of this fact because of the times or they perhaps wanted to leave such a thing to chance failing to realize it's cause/effect.
The Jefferson Bible (The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth) is a lot more complicated than saying he cut out the miracles because he didn't believe them. Jefferson didn't do anything that wasn't complicated.
7:30. As long as the Romans supported the gods, the gods would support Rome. The Romans "converted" to christianity, Rome fell. The Romans were correct.
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that... “Congress shall make no law respecting an (establishment) of religion.” No (government) religion=> The job of the law is for defining, "all religion" (All) Religion is a (job)=>... lifting-up the poor, in spirit (anything else... is not)
In the School of Life... (Not schools invented for corporations- by corporations) Morality is... Social Studies The A.I. Bible, Chapter 2, Nothing ever stops moving (completely)... not even a (thought)... nothing remains the same Ch. 2:1 When... Empty & Equal are the same... Equality, Is where Love Grows... as a Mind Ch. 2:2 Every Seed contains The Plan of God... DNA that is a blueprint to contain a Mind (the brain of a potato) Ch. 2:3 ( ... ) The only path worth walking Is the motion of Harmony Gen. 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day
I agree with everything Bart says here….but I also am opposed to the Bible being kept out of public school libraries, which is happening in many places. Can’t it be studied in English classes as literature? At least, on library shelves for kids/students to see it, if they wish? In many places, it’s considered a dangerous book,
The only people I’ve seen saying the Bible should be kept out of schools are specifically responding to other recent book bannings based on violence, sexual content, etc. (which the Bible has a lot of). The point is to criticize the hypocrisy. I think most people won’t see a big issue with the Bible being in school libraries in general, especially if other religious texts are included. Reading the Bible as literature might be a bit legally complicated depending on how it’s taught - if it’s being taught along with other religious texts in a purely academic context? Fine with me and should be legal. Teaching about the Bible specifically and not mentioning other texts would bother me though
Dr. Erhman better. There are those out there seeking political power by any means necessary right now who would very much like to shut him up over his critical evaluations of christianity permanently.
I'm still early in this, so they might get more into it later, but isn't the early Christian idea that they should be allowed to worship their own way in peace, not compelled by the state to worship Roman gods, just an extension of how Jews interacted with Roman state worship?
FYI Leader of Congress Mike Johnson was taped saying "We don't want people to rely on a government, WE WANT THEM TO RELY ON GOD." W.T.F? This is the plan.
Yes! If someone a ts out of fear if the law, they AREN'T acting out of virtue. The SPIRIT cannot be constrained. Whenever Church or State infringe on the ither's function, both are corrupted. Our Founders knew that from over 200 years of sectarian war before our Revolution.
Separation of Church and State is essential given the history of religious conflicts
No, it is essential because religion is mythology and has no place in the reality of governing a country
@@mikewiz1054 Yet all our individual rights are give to us by Divinity. There are no personal rights in Atheist countries...only elemets granted by other men.
@@henochparks ask the folk of Sodom about their legal rights.
@@russellmiles2861 Clearly when they tried to rape Angels their days were numbered.
@@russellmiles2861 GOOGLE REMOVED MY POST
I'm always blown away by Prof. Ehrman, No matter how familiar I may thinik I am with one of his topics, he always presents everything in a fascinating new light, He's an amazing storehouse of knowledge and not the slightest bit pretentious.
The Church and State should be confined to their respective spheres.
only in cmmunist counrties
@@henochparksas opposed to theocracies, the only two options for governments 😂
@@henochparks So I guess the Founding Fathers were Communist then lol 😂
Still looking forward to hearing about Digital Hammurabi, but this is a timely and necessary discussion, given the politics in the US. Thanks, Bart and Megan (et al).
I went to a Catholic school in Brazil and we had a religious studies class. We studied Abrahamic religions, Mayan and Aztec religions, Afro-Brazilian and African religions, and many others.
That's really interesting. Do you know if most schools in Brazil do that?
@@Anthropomorphic I think it's part of the national curriculum, but it's not mandatory. I know that private secular schools didn't do it, but when I was growing up, IIRC, around 97% of the population reported some belief in God, so that wouldn't be a lot of schools.
@@Anthropomorphic Having said that, the inability of some teachers to teach it properly has made it controversial enough that there was a Supreme Court case a few years back to prohibit them in public schools. I personally thought the education I had was very informative and respectful, but Afro-Brazilian religions were widely seen as satanic in more conservative and rural communities (despite being the result of syncretism between African deities and Christianity), so I can't imagine they were very respectful.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos Does the national curriculum specify that Aztec, Mayan, Afro-Brazilian, and African religions should be covered? At least internationally speaking, I believe that's really rare.
Interesting Victor. I went to Catholic school in New York City (Queens) in the 50s and 60s and we were taught only Catholics get into heaven. Also a lot of other untruths
As long as churches do not pay property taxes, we have state supported religion.
As long as churches don't pay taxes all together, the religion is state sponsored.
Church MUST pay taxes on property, on salaries of staff and ministers, etc. Or otherwise, they should register as non-profit organizations and have the same obligations as other non-profit NGOs have.
@@ulfr-gunnarsson they do where have you been?
And not just property tax. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints has assets in terms of stocks and shares plus property to the value of around $350 billion dollars.
They were able to build this substantial portfolio through tax free donations by their members (tithing and other offerings) as well as extensive time donated by their members in the absence of a paid clergy at the grass roots level.
Even though they have massive wealth they are estimated to donate less than 1% of it to humanitarian causes.
@@henochparksI don't think they pay tax or are obligated as other charities to be transparent in the financial dealings.
@@debbieshrubb1222 You have me at "I don't think" So think ... anyone who gets paid pays taxes. That includes religious institutions who have to report what their workers make and pay their payroll taxes No corporttion must reveal their private financial dealings. Only their earned income. Which the church does. The LDS church is incorpoated to be able to help people and operate around the world. It is required bt international law. I am a contractor who has orked on LDS biuldings. No company is more strick about following the the State and Federal rules than the LDS church. In fact they are rather obsessed about it.
Checking in from Oklahoma, where there is a new push to require teachers to tech the Bible starting in 5th grade 😢. Thanks for all the information Bart and Megan.
@@MikeJJJemptybladdermandate is coming from Ryan Walters, our state superintendent. He also pushed to have a state funded religious school and to have pragerU as an approved curriculum. I would say it’s safe to say his goal is to have the Bible taught as historical truth.
@@jdmcnugent1987 pols on the make like him give Jesus a bad name. will be hell to pay.
@@jdmcnugent1987 What the alternative? Castrate children and groomed them to be woke communists? Because that is the alternative in US of A. State mandated degeneracy or book that build a civilization for over 1500 years. Take your pick. you will be indoctrinated either way. Question is are you a communist or christian. There is no in between option.
Well there has been a push to teach woke garbage in public schools for the last 40 years. The religion taught in public schools today isn’t Christianity. It is Paulo Freire’s Marxism. And Marxism and wokeism are the new dominant religions.
@@jdmcnugent1987 I think to these people the Bible is historical truth. I am actually concerned with the fact that how bible can be sexually explicit and violent. This is going to cause kids trauma.
I love this show so much. You both are so calming. I find learning about the bible very interesting even though I am a non-believer.
About the ten commandments. During law school they argued the crucifixes in every courtroom in Brazil are there as "an example of an unfair trial". I was a student so I kept quiet, but now I'd argue for them to be replaced by illustrations of witch trials then 😄😄
This new law in Louisiana is definitely cynical.If the goal is to display one of our founding documents in the classroom, it should be the Bill of Rights, not the Ten Commandments. You know, the founding document that actually gives Evangelical Christians the right to practice their religion.
They have what they want. Every single one of them can now say, “Look at me, everybody. See what a good one am I!”
what does the 10 commandments say that is not a founding document?
Had the lawmakers in Louisiana read their Bibles, they would know that there are not one, but three Ten Commandments, two sets in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy. Different Christian sects use different Ten Commandments, so in displaying one set of Ten Commandments you would be favoring some Christian sects over others. Ironically one set of Ten Commandments has a number of different commandments including everything that opens the womb belongs to the Lord, and thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
@@1bengrubb Have you read any one of the three sets of Ten Commandments that are in the Bible? There is nothing in them that pertains to the forming of any government, let alone the unique republican government that is set out in the US Constitution. The purpose of these commandments are religious, not political. It is true that state laws prohibit murder, theft, and perjury, but the knowledge that these are crimes predate the Bible; for instance, they are deemed crimes in the Code of Hammurabi. Except for treason, no crime is mentioned in the Constitution. Our founding documents set up the machinery for federal lawmakers to pass laws, not to list specific crimes.
That is an asinine comment given the founders viewed it through the lens of Christianity. Your ilk engage in semantic shift and rewriting of history to pretend its original intention conforms to your contemporary mores. It's much easier to take your views for granted and pretend than have an open debate about it.
Besides the First Amendment. there is a third Constitutional clause that references religion: the Tests Clause. It forbids religious requirements to hold public office (Article VI):
"The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
@@Ned_of_the_Hill Very true. Nobody should be prohibited from holding office due to their religious views., be they atheists, deists, Musselmen, Hindi or Christian, etc. That in no ways means the office holder cannot vote for things like blue laws, or statutory rape, just because these behaviors are considered immoral by any particular religion. Criminalizing murder fores nobody to worship a particular religion or support a specific Church. The point wasn't to marginalize or oppose religious belief from being considered by lawmakers when enacting legislation.
Tip to other viewers: Jump right to 4:00.
There is a documentary called God & Country that goes through this in detail. The other one I just watched is Bad Faith. It's actually really scary what's happening in America.
Thanks for the info! sounds interesting I hope I can find it...if you have a link and reply here that owuld be swell
So many who don't believe in the separation of church and state seem to have separated their beliefs of what is in the Bible (any version) from the actual text.
Bible thumpers and Constitution thumpers too often haven't read either and derive their beliefs from the common views of the community they live within.
Imagine if Christian Nationalists were demanding we follow Jesus's instructions regarding care for others. That would require them to promote a government that was highly engaged in caring for the sick, poor, outcast, and refugee.
Don't bother going to that well. The Bible isn't called the big book of multiple choice for no reason. For example:
Mathew 10:34-36
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a
sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
For anything the Jesus character might have said which you can decide is noble or beneficial, there is another verse which is horrifying.
@@sypherthe297th2 There is nothing horrifying in the verses. Jesus' age is about the same as what we are in, which doesn't lack new ideas, and these ideas divide people, even the people related in a family. If one wanted to be the follower of Jesus and broke away from the old tradition in Judea at that time, it's not hard to imagine the pressure they would face. So either they were against the family member who stuck with the old way and didn't accept the good news, or they harmonized with the family members and broke away from Jesus.
@@VincentiusValentinus 🙄
@sypherthe297th2 I don't expect too many of those who are religious to benefit from my comment. I do hope the rest of us don't let ourselves fall into a similar trap of not being ready to question the basis for our position. I have benefitted from people providing me information that I had missed when I stated what I believed to be true. Of course the stress of being shown I was wrong made me have to fight my internal need to "save face" by claiming I was right all along and my need to be seen as a reasonable person who can learn and adjust my position.
@@sypherthe297th2 I understand there are horrible things in the Bible, but I'm with armstrong on this one. That verse that you cited is far from horrible, it just states that people following a new religious sect get ostracized. You could cite the Book of Revelation, it would be a much better example of horrible things in the Christian Bible.
Data over Dogma just reported that the version in the LA bill is actually the one from the Cecil B deMilles film via Fraternal Order of the Eagles, possibly in order to lean on judicial precedent pertaining to this particular text
I'd love to hear a podcast or two devoted to what the commandments meant in their historical context. That'd be fascinating!
and a good thing too, in this age of mass communication. Perhaps humanity matures a bit.
And that there is no list of 10 Commandments in the Bible.
You first have to establish that they actually existed. If they did, is the form that you now believe the same as when they were first written? Is the version you believe to be current worth discussing if its significantly different to the original (if you can establish the differences)? You have a long way to go before you can even that conversation.
@@csjrogerson2377 oh the commandments exist... They seem to originate in the Hammurabi Code.
@@russellmiles2861 Well that's a load of utter bollocks. They are unrelated and have completely different purposes. Only a few scholars believe they are related - most do not. Moses and his trek through the wilderness is a myth and so is the 10 commandments.
The waffle in the old and new testaments doesnt constitute evidence. The earliest existence of commands comes from the Smaritan Decalogue tablet from 300-500 AD.
Yes in the Enlightenment the first step was toleration. People like John Locke argued for religious tolerance, separation came later in the 18th century.
Catholics were not to be tolerated so was the atheists.
Checking in from Lancashire, England. These are such good podcasts (well, that's how I used to listen!). The Bart / Megan dynamic is really great. So much good information here!
Exactly, freedom from religious beliefs is extremely importantnd that includes christianity
you said it wrong----in France its freedom "from" religion... in the US its freedom "of" religion
@@1bengrubbfreedom of religion inherently implies freedom from religion and the constitution is very clear that you cannot be forced by the State into any religion, the government cannot promote or favor any religion, and the government cannot establish an official or state religion of any kind.
@@yallimsorry5983 well in France they ban you from wearing your religious paraphernalia in the workplace.... but in the declaration of Independence it mentions God and creator. Our national moto is "In God we trust" and every nickel, quarter, dime, penny, dollar has that imprinted on there----are you saying the moto and Declaration of independence are unconstitutional? I suppose its national promotion of a diety.... ua-cam.com/video/K_yS0X5s0lo/v-deo.html
@@1bengrubb The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and it was written well before the Constitution. I do think the “In God We Trust” motto is unconstitutional though. “E pluribus unum” was always a better motto.
I live in Louisiana and I don’t support the Ten Commandments or 9 in the classrooms. Also just saw on the local news that the bill may be delayed or stopped due to a lawsuit if I remember correctly.
if you had a list of 10 values that all children in the US should know what would they be?
Now that I think about it, saying America was founded on Christianity, therefore, 10 commandments is a great insult to Christianity, given how American Christians acted and continue to act even today.
all the founders were religious or had Christian teaching even if they were not religious
@@1bengrubbthey were deists--saying otherwise wouldn't have been the smart thing to do. Franklin was an atheist. Thomas Paine and Jefferson were deists at the most (check Jefferson Bible). Washington was arguably not a Christian.
@@chokin78 all of them were Christian--- nothing about them or their value systems was not Christian other than not believing in a deity.... just like if you were born in Iran---you'd be muslim even if you don't believe in Allah.. nothing about how you view the world and the people in it can be separated from the environment you are raised in. Your programming is not your choice.
@@1bengrubb you are at a loss sir. They were as much Christian as they were of Greek/Roman heritage. The point is that the US is NOT a Christian country in its conception.
@@chokin78 no the point is we can assume they all had the same religious training therefore the same values... Those values guide thinking......there certainly was not any Asian or mid east values in these people....that's the point
These two are such a great duo to watch. I watch Bart on his own and read his books but if the podcast episode doesn't have Megan then I can't watch it. I try
Bart thank you for your straightforward presentations. I enjoy your scholarship. It’s refreshing.
A commonly seen bumper sticker was THE MORAL MAJORITY IS NEITHER.
Prayer before a football game? Imagine if a high school player lead the prayer and it was a "Hail Mary", do you think the Evangelicals would let that go on?
@@arthurmartinson4370 I'm sure evangelicals would cope with Hail Mary or two if it was in Maryland. I am not sure though about a Modeh Ani.
Kitty would like to discuss separation of kitty and treats, please.
These are always great, thanks so much.
I'd argue that the main motivator for coming up with a separation of church and state was certainly the 30-year war. That war demonstrated the problem of not having it very thoroughly.
The First Amendment, as originally formulated, was not applied to the states until after the Civil War, a process that legal scholars describe as ‘Incorporation of the Bill of Rights’. So individual states were still free to have official religions well into the antebellum period. In practice, however, the last American state to have an official religion was Massachusetts, which dropped Unitarianism as its state religion in 1833. A formal constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Religion does not emerge in the United States until 1947, with the Supreme Court decision ‘Everson v. Board of Education’.
In practice, you cannot have authentic Freedom of Religion without Freedom from Religion - since new religious perspectives must have the ability to emerge with (in Jefferson’s phrase) ‘progress of the human mind’. And, yes, new spiritual perspectives (or spins on older perspectives) are being introduced into American society all the time.
Yet few people today realize this. But this is why Thomas Jefferson had sympathy for the plight of the Danbury Baptists but offered no recourse. When people don’t believe me when I tell them the Bill of Rights didn’t initially apply to the states (usually in a discussion of the second amendment) I always ask them why the Danbury Baptist didn’t just sue in Federal court since the state was clearly in violation of the establishment clause.
Hah! A claim with a disclaimer. And then science had the natural effect of secularization, ergo progress.
there is no such thing as Freedom from Religion. there is no references to said concept anywhere
@@henochparks that's personal choice. To follow or not to follow a religion. Not documented, an assumed choice, subject only to the persecutions of the religious extremists. Good thing there's nothing in there about establishing a national religion, that would lead to state extremism and oppression. As the extremists intend.
You are wrong and obviously do not have a history degree. I don’t have time to educate you so please google Thomas Jefferson, freedom of religion and Protestants. You will come across a case that destroys your ridiculous postulate that is devoid of any historical evidence. Please go back to school and educate yourself so you don’t continue to make idiotic statements. Thank you
I'm glad I'm a member of the freedom of religion foundation at least they're trying to stop the preaching teachers in public schools by taking them to court 😊
The fact that the founding fathers were mostly Christian and they still had the forethought to put this separation specifically in the constitution says a lot.
I would respectfully push back on the idea that the founders were Christians, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Ethan Allan, Benjamin Rush, Mathew Thornton were men of enlightenment ideals, ie anti-superstition. They were panentheist or theist or believed nature and god are synonymous. Let’s use all the world’s religious traditions and philosophies to develop our collective consciousness.
Read European history to see why they insisted on the separation. And many of them were Diests, I think.
@@docjaramillo but...did they refer to the bible?
The US can be a Christian country as soon as all the various denominations agree on what's the right version of Christianity.
That's what Trump wants to do. Then we will lose democracy 😭
simple---Jesus died for sinners---all humans are sinners----Jesus died for all
@@1bengrubb Hundreds of millions of Native Americans were murdered by Christians. Christian's murder each other. With wars between Catholics and Protestants in England. They would torture and burn people at the stake if they owned a Bible. I asked my Christian friend if he would kill his daughter if God commanded him to and he said absolutely! Like Lori Vallow had her Pastor murder her children because they were possessed by Demons. Will you kill your children if God commands you too?
@@1bengrubb Oh you sweet summer child. You can begin by mending the rift between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
@@1bengrubb So you better sin because if you don't jesus died for nothing simple.
I absolutely believe in keeping beliefs pure by maintaining a separation of church and state.
Thanks Professor Ahrman for your educational videos
"Today, we'll be learning about the importance of safe sex. Genesis 38 is the story of a man named Onan.."
Safe sex is an abomination to God 😂😂😂
Years ago they had a stain glass window of Saint Onan in National Lampoon, lots of white smudges on the window
@sebolddaniel God killed him and you made him into a saint?
@@kalords5967 to be fair, it was sexual puritans who accidentally elevated him by associating him with the supposed sin of masturbation 😹
@aosidh How could you blame them. I mean, God killed Jesus, and Christians accidentally made Jesus into a God.
I think the idea of foraging for food is called gleaning
Dr Ehrman’s comment between approx 30:00 - 31:00 makes for a great video short
Rachel Held Evans also wrote a women's version of living biblically.
My read on American History is that everyone was Christian, but they had huge disagreements among themselves. That’s why they didn’t want the government to choose Baptists over Lutherans vs Catholics, etc.
You also had straight-up Deists, who were just non-atheist/vaguely-Christian, Universalists, Quakers… people believed in “God”, past that could be anything.
@@benniesngreen Don't forget Thomas Paine who was atheist.
Paine was arguably the leading thinker/writer of US independence but he was reviled by Christians for his atheism. Sad. @user-gl5dq2dg1j
@@PeteOtton he may have been ashiest but probably deeply understood the values of Christianity---and they were his values and those values guided his thinking.
@@PeteOtton I believe Paine was a Deist. Believed in the existence of a god but disagreed fundamentally with known churches.
What’s the kitty’s name?!? We must know!
He’s called Barley ☺️
@@DigitalHammurabi Cute!
Luther's Small Catechism, the section of the Office of the Keys and Confession, is interesting source material that goes along with this. There is also a Large Catechism. The Book of Concord includes the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, The Smalcald Articles, and the Formula of Concord, which includes the Epitome and the Solid Declaration. Some editions include the Saxon Visitation Articles.
26:50
Aren’t “the Ten Commandments”
in Exodus 34 leading up to
28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
What are the 10 again?
May everyone come to be disabused of evil,
☮️ & ❤️
Yep! We like the constitution here!
The founders' main concern wasn't atheism or non-Christian religions when they separated church and state. It was Christian infighting, which had been a major problem for the prior 300 years or so. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the 30 Years War had been the most destructive war the world had ever seen and would continue to be so until World War I. Sectarian violence had been alive and well in the colonies. Rhode Island itself was founded by Christians who mostly agreed with the Puritans but had to flee for their lives on account of the parts where they did not agree.
Even after the Constitution was ratified, riots took place in Philadelphia over which Bible version should be taught in schools when a rumor started that the Catholics would impose theirs. People died. The governor of Missouri declared open season on Mormons. People died. Klansmen where black people were in short supply burned crosses on Catholic lawns. And yes, people died. Just look at evangelical TikTok today. It's a cesspool of anti-Catholic propaganda. Is that what we want to go back to?
So, the First Amendment was not just to protect the non-religious from the religious. It was meant to protect everyone from people who claim to speak for God. It was meant to keep the bad guys from Footloose from having the legal means to violently oppress everyone else.
_Klansmen where black people were in short supply burned crosses on Catholic lawns._
This is one of the most ignorant statements that I have ever read.
Yes! The founders were not far removed from the protestant wars. The last Jacobite uprising in Britain occurred only 30 years before the Declaration of Independence. 30 years is not long, Bill Clinton was President 30 years ago.
This is a theory of what might have gone through some minds, but that is about it. Ppl reading minds when they can't read their own mind.
It is though. The founders didn't want the same worship of the king to be what happened in the colonies. Plus, Christianity wasn't the only religion that talked about the basic concepts
There were some efforts to mix church and state before the 1980s as seen by some earlier Supreme Court cases involving prayer, Bible reading and funding of religious schools.
Also I wouldn't exaggerate how many people were deists in 1787. Many Framers were Christian. Many ordinary people were too. That should not be the test anyway as Bart noted.
This Supreme Court doesn't care about precedence.
Love that cat.
such a cute kitty 😍
What happened to the plan for Bart to interview Megan?
Probably just releasing their pre-recorded episodes in a different order.
Freedom of religion was certainly NOT on the Puritan's agenda.
I would add that a compelling argument for the Enlightenment separation of church and state were the horrendous religious wars of the 16th and 17th century. There were areas in Germany that took 200 years to recover from the 30-years' war.
Edit: I wonder how many people know that there are two versions of the ten commandments. Here's the alternative version found in Exodus 34:
1. This is very long but boils down to "do whatever I command, do not intermarry with the Canaanites and don't worship other gods."
2. Don't make metal images of gods.
3- Don't fail to observe the Festival of Thin Bread in the month of Abib.[c] Obey me and eat bread without yeast for seven days during Abib, because that is the month you left Egypt.
4, The first-born males of your families and of your flocks and herds belong to me. You can save the life of a first-born donkey[d] by sacrificing a lamb; if you don't, you must break the donkey's neck. You must save every first-born son.
5. Bring an offering every time you come to worship.
6. Work for six days and rest on the seventh day, even during the seasons for plowing and harvesting. Celebrate the Harvest Festival[e] each spring when you start harvesting your wheat, and celebrate the Festival of Shelters[f] each autumn when you pick your fruit.
7. Your men must come to worship me three times a year, because I am the Lord God of Israel. As you advance, I will force the nations out of your land and enlarge your borders. Then no one will try to take your property when you come to worship me these three times each year.
8. When you sacrifice an animal on the altar, don't offer bread made with yeast. And don't save any part of the Passover meal for the next day.
9. I am the Lord your God, and you must bring the first part of your harvest to the place of worship.
10. Don't boil a young goat in its mother's milk.
uhhhh....you are just listing part of the other 613 laws...put a railing on 2nd floor....don't bury your poop by the water....you are your bro's keeper.......the 10 commandments are different---first 10 off mt Sinai
@@1bengrubb Read Exodus 34. The text says explicitly that these are the same commandments as Moses got one time earlier.
I maintain that there is one comandment and nine suggestions. The first is inevitable; I am the Lord thy God. Thou shall no other god but me. Without this one the whole thing becomes meaningless.
For those of us who do not believe in or follow the Christian god, it is meaningless.
It needs to be clarified that Constantine didn't make Christianity official. Emperor Galerius' Edict of toleration which gave Christians equal standing with other pagan faiths, was agreed to by Emperor Constantine and Emperor Licinius in the Edict of Milan. So *equal* not *favoured".
I grew up in a county with BLUE LAWS, I ain't going back to that!!
There are sill blue laws in the US mostly dealing with alcohol sales, car sales, and timing of sporting events.
Religions need to definitely stay separate from the states. I am very proud of organizations like FFRF for fighting for humans rights
The government is a church.
Thanks bart for talking about zionism
Have I missed the promised episode with Bart interviewing Megan?
Thank you.
when you have to censor responses we are in trouble.
Follow the rhetoric. Evangelicals claim they are not free unless they can tell you what to do. They frame themselves as victims. They seem to believe that despite the clear irrationality of that.
Could you make an episode on Christian Orthodoxy?
Maybe the beginning of separation of church and state was "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
That was a bit of trickery and slight of hand. Under the Abrahamic view, what isn't their deity's domain? It is supposedly the creator and supreme being of the universe.
Treaty of Tripoli 1797, reaffirms the US was not formed as a christian country.
Absolutely. The First Amendment was designed to keep the government from interfering in the religion of people. Having said that, it is quite clear that the vice versa was the intent of the founders. People and churches and denominations cannot interfere with the government. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENTS AND FAMILIES TO INSTILL RELIGIOUS VALUES IN THE CHILDREM. Not the schools, not the local, state, or federal government
Aren't there different versions of the 10 commandments?
Actually, the only explicit Ten Commandments is Exodus 34, which is not the ones referenced. 34 verse 27 literally has the Ten Commandments in the verse. The other two lists where words spoke but God and not just 10 commandments.
Well there is not a list of 10 Commandments in the Bible.
Eg, Exodus 20 has 13 Thou Shalts.
It probably best one skips over these as no 11 says women are private property of men, as are donkeys (no 12)
I would have thought Evangelicals would want to avoid some of the Commandments as God seem a tad too enthusiastic about killing children. In Genesis 18 22, Abraham kinda, albeit politely tells God to sod off about his plot to burn to death every man women and baby at Sodon.
Best not ask evangelicals what the babies did to deserve such torture.
Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto to God what is God's". What could be a more clear separation of church and state?
I think in TX theres one court they speak im tongues during meetings. The problem is they can believe what they want but leave it from the law
Come over to Turkey side too
Also, I thought he said last episode that this episode would be focused on Megan?
The episode where Bart interviews Megan is coming soon :) - Social Media Team
@@bartdehrman The separation of church and state was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately it opened the religious version of Pandora's box that was not intended upon and would likely freak out those who signed off on the concept had they known random citizens would be given full reign to manipulate the minds of millions of other citizens and in many respects order them around in ways that the concept of Separation of church and state was intended to prevent citizens from falling prey to. Either they were deeply ignorant of this fact because of the times or they perhaps wanted to leave such a thing to chance failing to realize it's cause/effect.
@@JHeezy93 My original comment and the first response which came from Bart's media team contained nothing about separation of church and state.
Love Bart and Meghan and have learned so much! But next time kitty comes to visit, please let us enjoy her too...she appeared and disappeared much too quickly! ☺😀
freedom of religion is just freedom of thought ...and the right to articulate and express thought, religions are schools of thought really
not that im opposed to this episode but last time we were told megan would be the interviewee for this one, with the topic being digital hammurabi.. ia that posted elsewhere or..??
thanks
All those people excited about the wall coming down between church and state are in for a BIG surprise when scientologists swoop in and start mandating e-readings in every church.
scientology is not part of early us history..
@@1bengrubb It doesn't have to be part of history, it just has to be rich and powerful enough to sway some legislators, which it already is. As soon as the floodgates are open, the richest and most powerful will decide which god you must bow to.
@@while_coyote oh....the golden rule..... Whoever has a gold makes a rules
Schools SHOULD teach religion. They should lean heavily on Bart’s work to learn what the Bible actually says.
Maybe that is just part of history. For us, it seems like an important part to understand.
Which version would that be to lean heavily into?
I would agree with that, but that is not what would happen.
I'd be in favor of a AP religion and history class. The subject must include Ancient religions (Greek pantheon, Egyptian, Persian, Babylonian, Early Hindu, Chinese religious practices, as well as modern faiths. The course should talk loads about the evolution of religion and end with Dan Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell". Huge amount of reading. Will never happen.
That wouldn't be religion. That would be history...and critical thinking.
As a steam train 🚂 fan we love petty details.
So for Megan: the UK and England does not have an established church. Firstly, Nth Ireland and Scotland are in the UK and don't have established churches. There is the Church of Scotland, which is a national church but not established. And while the Church of England is a state church for England: Wales as a principality within England (not a separate country like Scotland) disestablished the Church of England in 1922.
So the King is the Head of the Church of England, except Wales, and not Scotland or Northern Ireland. I assume the Is of Mann has a bank as a national church.
This of course means next nothing; as not only do 2/3rd of the population not identify with any religion, bout about 1/4 of parishioners of the Church of England dont believe in God.
Yes, the USA must seem a strange place for a lass from the UK.
It depends on what you mean by “established.” By US standards, the Church of England would violate the establishment clause in our constitution.
We used to but now we have crazy people forcing Christianity on the people. 😢😮
Megan’s cat making an appearance 😻😻😻
This is evangelical Shariah/halakha means a way/a direction/a path, pushed at the state level.
Religious persecution wasn't left in the old countries. There was a lot of persecution in the colonies as well. I understand that many had at least a de-facto stete religion and that you could be at least denied advantageous business deals if you weren't of the right religion.
Why anyone would send their children to government schools is beyond me.
The Year of Living Biblically was written by AJ Jacobs. Very funny. His latest book is The Year of Living Constitutionally.
I haven't actually looked at the text of the Louisiana law, but Dan McClellan says that it's not from the KJV. It's similar to the KJV, but there are differences. And that's just the tip of the iceberg even in terms of what the text says - without even getting into the church/state issues.
Govt. Cann't interfer with the free exercise of.cannt favor one over another.
What I find rather curious about this is that Jesus changed the 10 Commandments and it's Christians that are doing this. He changed things like "love God" instead of "put no other god before God". He made the second most important Commandment "Love thy neighbor as thy self". He changed "honor your father & mother" to "who is one's father and mother and family, but those who follow the ways of God". He changed or enhanced "Do not commit adultery" to "Don't even look at a person that way". He changed "Do not kill" to "Don't even get angry", or be slow to anger.
All these things are part of the New Testament, so why is it that Christians are promoting having the 10 Commandments posted everywhere?
How about combining stories of several people into one story and calling the main character “Jesus of Nazareth”?
The separation of church and state was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately it opened the religious version of Pandora's box that was not intended upon and would likely freak out those who signed off on the concept had they known random citizens would be given full reign to manipulate the minds of millions of other citizens and in many respects order them around in ways that the concept of Separation of church and state was intended to prevent citizens from falling prey to. Either they were deeply ignorant of this fact because of the times or they perhaps wanted to leave such a thing to chance failing to realize it's cause/effect.
The Jefferson Bible (The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth) is a lot more complicated than saying he cut out the miracles because he didn't believe them. Jefferson didn't do anything that wasn't complicated.
Dr Ehrman we wish you could visit India 🇮🇳.
Wasn’t it the separation of church (the Anglican Church) from the state - and not the separation of Christianity and state?
A Year of Biblical Womanhood is by Rachel Held Evans
7:30. As long as the Romans supported the gods, the gods would support Rome.
The Romans "converted" to christianity, Rome fell.
The Romans were correct.
I had naively thought the US had this division. Believe what ever you like, it’s a private matter. Not part of the state writ.
The first amendment says the government can not make a faith based religion only. No separation was mentioned
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that...
“Congress shall make no law respecting an (establishment) of religion.”
No (government) religion=> The job of the law is for defining, "all religion"
(All) Religion is a (job)=>... lifting-up the poor, in spirit (anything else... is not)
In the School of Life... (Not schools invented for corporations- by corporations)
Morality is... Social Studies
The A.I. Bible, Chapter 2, Nothing ever stops moving (completely)... not even a (thought)... nothing remains the same
Ch. 2:1 When... Empty & Equal are the same... Equality, Is where Love Grows... as a Mind
Ch. 2:2 Every Seed contains The Plan of God... DNA that is a blueprint to contain a Mind (the brain of a potato)
Ch. 2:3 ( ... ) The only path worth walking Is the motion of Harmony
Gen. 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day
I agree with everything Bart says here….but I also am opposed to the Bible being kept out of public school libraries, which is happening in many places. Can’t it be studied in English classes as literature? At least, on library shelves for kids/students to see it, if they wish? In many places, it’s considered a dangerous book,
The only people I’ve seen saying the Bible should be kept out of schools are specifically responding to other recent book bannings based on violence, sexual content, etc. (which the Bible has a lot of). The point is to criticize the hypocrisy.
I think most people won’t see a big issue with the Bible being in school libraries in general, especially if other religious texts are included. Reading the Bible as literature might be a bit legally complicated depending on how it’s taught - if it’s being taught along with other religious texts in a purely academic context? Fine with me and should be legal. Teaching about the Bible specifically and not mentioning other texts would bother me though
Dr. Erhman better. There are those out there seeking political power by any means necessary right now who would very much like to shut him up over his critical evaluations of christianity permanently.
I'm still early in this, so they might get more into it later, but isn't the early Christian idea that they should be allowed to worship their own way in peace, not compelled by the state to worship Roman gods, just an extension of how Jews interacted with Roman state worship?
Is Bart’s flat really in London, or in Woodbridge?
I would ask one question and that is which Bible are they wanting to teach .
One of those should but don’t really do it
FYI Leader of Congress Mike Johnson was taped saying "We don't want people to rely on a government, WE WANT THEM TO RELY ON GOD."
W.T.F? This is the plan.
Yes! If someone a ts out of fear if the law, they AREN'T acting out of virtue.
The SPIRIT cannot be constrained.
Whenever Church or State infringe on the ither's function, both are corrupted. Our Founders knew that from over 200 years of sectarian war before our Revolution.