What Does Separation of Church and State Mean? | 5 Minute Video
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 тра 2020
- Nearly every American knows the phrase “separation of church and state.” Do you know where it's from? Here’s a hint: it’s not in the Constitution. John Eastman, professor of law at Chapman University, explains how and why this famous phrase has played such an outsized role in American life and law.
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: 👉 / prageru
Twitter: 👉 / prageru
Instagram: 👉 / prageru
SUBSCRIBE so you never miss a new video! 👉www.prageru.com/join/
To view the script, sources, quiz, visit www.prageru.com/video/what-do...
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
SHOP!
Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! shop.prageru.com/
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: l.prageru.com/2aozfkP
JOIN our Educators Network! l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9
Script:
Almost everyone has heard of the doctrine of the "separation of church and state." Most Americans believe that it's in the United States Constitution.
But there is no such phrase in the Constitution.
And there never was-for a simple reason: The Founding Fathers never intended for church and state to be completely separate. They saw religion-specifically, religions based on the Bible-as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating.
So where does that phrase come from? It comes from one brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.
At the end of a very long sentence in which Jefferson affirms his conviction that religious belief should be a private matter, and that the government should not interfere with such matters, he uses the phrase, “building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
And that’s where the phrase lived, undisturbed-lost in Jefferson’s voluminous correspondence-for almost 150 years. But more on that in a moment.
First, let’s discuss what the Constitution actually does say about religion and its role in public life. The answer is found in the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It’s plain what those words mean. The federal government could not establish a national religion, the common practice in Europe. The United States was going to be different. Americans would be free to follow the religion of their choice.
When James Madison first proposed what eventually became the First Amendment, his original wording was that "no religion shall be established" by Congress. But that language was later modified after it was pointed out that this might be taken to mean that the government, including the state governments, had no interest in religion at all. The Founders did not want this.
As George Washington said in his Farewell Address, "Religion and morality are indispensable supports of our political prosperity." Washington’s view remained the nation’s view throughout the 19th century and into the twentieth. But that changed in 1947.
In that year, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that under the First Amendment, neither a state nor the federal government could "pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."
For the first time in American history, the First Amendment was not only about the prohibition of establishing a national religion, it was also about not giving any encouragement to any religion.
The modern “strict separation” view was born. And where did the five justices look for support for their argument? Not the Constitution-because there was nothing in the Constitution to help them, but to that one phrase Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802.
How ironic that the author of the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the proposition that human beings have inalienable rights from their “Creator,” and not from government, was now being used to separate religion from the public square.
For Jefferson and the other Founders, religion was central to the entire American project. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are just two of countless examples where the government acknowledges its debt to God.
As the famously liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in the case of Zorach v. Clausen just five years after the Everson decision, "We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."
For the complete script, visit www.prageru.com/video/what-do...
Here's PragerU's argument: The Constitution doesn't say separation of church and state, it's just an outside statement by a founding father. Now, to prove the Constitution wants religion in government, here are a bunch of outside statements by founding fathers.
Got it! The Founding Fathers can't have it both ways.
also Jefferson wa snot the onyl one, as far as I know John Addams also wanted separation of church and state
@@1996koke You're exactly right. The statement "the founding fathers wanted" is a mostly meaningless statement because there was such wide disagreement among them. Paine, Jefferson, and Adams wanted a hard-line separation, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, and Franklin advocated for a sort of "cultural" separation, and virtually no one said the government should be heavily involved in religious affairs.
Unashamedly propagandist.
You've made my day, thx
Here's another part of PragerU's argument: The country used to be one way. Now it's another. And that's bad.
Yeah they do that shit all the time, “it’s worse now because god”
Whats your point? If you cant see how democrats are degrading society then you are blind. You clearly dont know yourself very well. OPEN YOUR EYES AND TAKE OFF YOUR VEIL THATS HAS BLINDED YOU.
@@TheRussianMaster lol chill out man.the man who made that comment is just making an observation on the backbone of pragerU's argument. Its a very simplistic argument that they make and is very dumb simply because society changes and sumthing existing in the past dosent equal good.
@@TheRussianMaster come on man, stop using democrats as a scapegoat. The issues in this country run far deeper than the arbitrary boundaries set by the two party system and to solely blame things on one half is to deny progress. You can't change what needs to be fixed if you're too stubborn to realize you need to change as well, and both parties have to realize that if we want to progress as a society. There is not one group to blame for our country's faults, rather it is the culmination of each groups faults that has formed what our country is today.
That’s like half there videos arguments tho.
I like how on multiple occasions, this video is like "let's see what someone wrote on a personal level and use that as evidence" when it agrees with them and other occasions "we shouldn't go by the personal letter" when it disagrees with them.
Considering Jefferson used federal funds to give Bible's to the kaskaskia Indians for evangelical purposes, his intent on the entire separation argument becomes clear.
@@bobd687 Considering the Natives were already baptized by Catholic missionaries and had requested the bibles as part of a payment for land sold to the federal government.....
@@bobd687 Considering that even more of Jefferson's letters make it quite clear that he was willing to sell anything to the natives at a lower price than any traders in order to create a monopoly so that the natives would be dependent on the federal government for anything and everything....
@@LordNinja109 so we signed a treaty, ratified by the senate, that specifically used federal funds to buy and disseminate Christian BIBLES, and you're saying this has no inference on Thomas Jefferson's purported views on the state's role in religion? The revisionist history and lack of logic here is remarkable.
@@bobd687 "We signed a treaty, ratified by the Senate, that specifically used federal funds to buy and disseminate bibles" Correct, this was the federal government upholding their end of the bargain as well as a move to undermine local traders in order to have better leverage over the tribe when it would be time to take the land. Here is a quote from Jefferson himself on the matter. "If we could furnish goods enough to supply all their wants, and sell them goods so cheap that no private trader could enter into competition with us, we should thus get rid of those traders who are the principal fomenters of the uneasiness of the Indians: and by being so essentially useful to the Indians we should of course become objects of affection to them. There is perhaps no method more irresistible of obtaining lands from them than by letting them get in debt, which when too heavy to be paid, they are always willing to lop off by a cession of land."
Guys, we need SOURCES and graphs with DATA. Scary phases like 'crime rates increased dramatically" accompanied by the graph bar tripling in size means nothing without reference points, and it makes you look as bad as CNN. Well maybe not that bad... but get it together!
I agree. I can get behind most of their content, but this one makes such broad, sweeping generalizations without providing the data to back it up. Just because a state or government acknowledges religious principles doesn't necessarily mean those who are governed under it will will have any more moral authority than societies without it. Like the presenter acknowledged, Europe was governed under a religious (Catholic) authority, yet they engaged in multiple wars, were xenephonic, and abused those who didn't think the way it did, which is why the Pilgrims left in the first place and settled in America.
Also, there assuming a correlation equals causation. there a million other reasons why crime goes up.
They cannot use sources or data because there is none that supports their brain dead claim
Yeh, it's almost as if they completely made it up or something...
@@leoblue6134 You can get behind most of their content? You do realise literally 90% of PragerU's videos are misleading in much the same way as this one: Overly broad, sweeping generalizations, cherry picking data, lack of actual sourcing for arguments, Extensively confusing correlation and causality, taking other people or data out of context and presenting conclusions that simply don't follow from what they are saying.
I've not seen a single PragerU video, in over a year, that doesn't fail on at least 2 or 3 of these areas to the point of being completely misleading. - I strongly recommend you put in a lot more effort to review what they are actually telling you in their other videos. It's easy to fall into confirmation bias because you already (partially) agree with some things being said (Which is what this channel feeds on) but that doesn't make their videos any less misleading and faulty.
It means that the state has no place telling churches/religion what to do, and religion/churches have no place telling the state what to do. Not that difficult to understand.
Tell that to the Dominionists.
Don’t get me started with churches raising money for politicians.
yeah. That logic explains why chatolic priests can rape young boys with out getting in trouble.
Look at gay marriage. Should it be legal or no? That can be someting that I think is connected with this
sdry tell me about this strange chatolic religion, never heard of it myself. But I hope they remember that EVERY religion/unaffiliated has had pedophiles that got away with that shit
It means I don’t want the state to endorse one religion or denomination over another and persecute other churches.
Precisely. The minute you begin to endorse or support, you approach a point wherein the state has a de facto appointed religion. In order to NOT appoint a state religion, you must EXPLICITLY avoid supporting ALL religions.
And that prayer IS explicitly religious and specific to Christianity for this manner of prayer is explicitly Christian in nature. Other religions rarely pray in this manner. Also it precludes those without faith and any whose concept of god does not fit with monotheism. Ergo, this is the height of ignorance with consideration to the greater community of faith. And that comes from an atheist who would rather we dispense with the matter. I see the utility in practice of religion for the masses, but I have more than a few things to say about how it relates to reality. At the very least, this video is crap.
Endorsement or rejection of certain religions by the state, is a whole different thing than persecution.
@@ActuatedGear The problem is they banned people from praying. Anyone that didn't want too, didn't have too. They actually did promote "no religion" rather than freedom of religion. Jesus is not in the prayer and every religion has a God, does it not? Even yours has a miraculous god that performs miracles. A rock. When mixed with primordial soup creates life capable of evolving all by it self into the finely tuned world we have now, where everything is dependent on everything else. And I think any rational person would agree that your religion demands a 100 times more faith than any other religion. Yet no one stops you from preaching your fairytale in schools or even indoctrinating it into the students with rigorous force and bullying. And enforcing their will and preaching they have proof there is no God. In that mostly was the actual cause of the decline of the United States.
@chuckyz2 Very well put.
chuckyz2 not all religions have a god. Buddhism certainly does not. Buddha was just a man, although an extraordinary one, but not a god. So, by affirming there is a god is monotheistic, and so specific to those religions and are exclusionary to others. By supporting one religion over the others in a diverse society it creates an exclusive environment for those that believe in a this god specifically, instead of being inclusive to all of the people present. That’s why religion should be personal and private. Nothing wrong with practicing a religion, just don’t create an environment that makes people choose to join in or opt out.
This is so bad. Separating church and state is a good idea. The state lead by the majority religion is dangerous.
"Good ideas" aren't made up of 3 words. A "good idea" is efficient and (nearly) complete in many aspects, i don't think that 3 words can be efficient/complete/nourishing.
So much for a Republic free from mob rule...
That's not what he was arguing for, at all.
He's saying that less religion in society inevitably chips away at the general goodness of people.
@Electro_blob The only people that think that morality comes from religion are religious people, which boils back into the whole Moral Argument. Morality comes from a lot of society not just religion.
@@cpfalcon51 And my point still stands. I know most religious people think our goodness come from religion, but everybody else doesn't believe that. Me included. And past trying to argue some Moral based Argument for god there isn't any proof. Even that argument is nonsensical. Imagine if they majority religion was some X religion you are not a part of and Christians really were persecuted. You wouldn't be so happy with a government approved religion. Government should not take the side of any religion. I thought we learned this when our forefathers left England.
That’s quite a Stretch to blame those 6 things on one Supreme Court decision
And to provide arbitrary graphs with no sources or reference.
They aren't even fully correct about the crime statistic. While violent crime rates today are higher than in the 60s, what has been overlooked is the fact that crime rates rose until the early 90s, and have been steadily falling since then. It is far more likely that lead pollution, which has also been on the decline recently, caused the changes in crime, rather than a single supreme court case.
Anyone with proper critical thinking skills that watches PragerU videos will quickly discover that they don't understand confounding factors and absolutely love to cherry pick their data.
@@2gt5 says a moron named zax the destroyer.
@@chuckyz2 He's a moron for correctly pointing out that Prager U often misrepresents or falsifies information? Logical arguments supporting conservative positions certainly exist, but you aren't going to find them here.
Jefferson also said,
"to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy."
That sounds wonderful. If you could point me in the right direction of that source, I would appreciate that.
@@jacklynch3333
> a source: _Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Review_
famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1030.htm
> James Madison also warned us in the Federalist Paper #51, of despotism formed not just by the court but by any given branch.
observer.com/2017/08/james-madison-was-right-about-conservatives-heres-what-he-said/
@@jacklynch3333 Gladly. founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-1540
@@jacklynch3333 take Hillsdale College's FREE course on the Constitution. It will answer every question you ever had and if it doesn't their outstanding American and World history: as it pertained to the founders, classes are well worth the time. Don't know if they still do but they used to give out diplomas for each coarse passed. It's pretty neat.
Yet Republicans literally run on stacking the courts.
Speration of church and state does not mean the separation of God from society.
Obviously. But it does mean the separation of God (or Allah, Buddha, and Krishna) from the GOVERNMENT. Society and government are not the same things.
@@seamusg617 Government establishes laws that govern our society. Society establishes government. So they are the same or at least intertwined.
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".
Exactly! Well said.
@@petehenry7878 it is obviously true that government is created by society. My basic premise is that society CAN be religious without the GOVERNMENT being religous
But God does not exist
As a professor, he should have noticed that his graph made absolutely no sense.
I don't think he really cared that it made no sense. He knows he's only preaching to the choir. They'll naively believe anything he says.
@@cyberwiz979 I agree, Prager U is one of the biggest circle jerk in all media
I understand what you said and you are right in that point of view, but that is not the point. the video is about another viewpoint. its about defining moral rules. any state or even institution needs to decide what are the parameters of what is right and wrong. choosing the judeo-christian values (ten commandments) is a very good choice and has worked out pretty well, though it defends liberty and property. If you want to remove them, you need other values to replace them, and that is dangerous. that is the main reason why fascism and socialism failed throughout the world. because they thought that religion is obsolete and useless. judo-christian values are proven to be important moral references that inspires the free constitutions. without it, governments and states tend to move towards tyranny.
@@RodrigoDelArc You do realize that you are utterly trapped by your religion, right. You will say anything to defend your religion, no matter what. Clergy can commit any number of sexual crimes, but you still sit in church and happily pretend that it doesn't happen. If an institution I was involved with had even a hint of child molestation, I would personally help in burning that institution to the ground. That's the difference between you people, and the rest of humanity.
@@Kenjiro5775 ...You do realize that you are utterly trapped by your religion of hate, atheism,, right?
This is a highly misleading video (shocking from PragerU, I know). The Supreme Court had already cited the term "separation of church and state" from Jefferson's letter (which was talking about the First Amendment anyway) in 1878, 69 years before the Everson v. Board of Ed case which this video says was the first resurrection of it. And even if the term isn't in the Constitution, it still applies since the First Amendment says no official religion can be established.
Yeah you would think that alone is separation from church and state but what do I know
Nope.
You are completely wrong.
By every single detail.
ареф нар do inform me
@@user-jv3mm6vt6e yes, please do
@@user-jv3mm6vt6e "you're wrong but I'm not telling you why."
Simple answer: We are NOT A THEOCRACY.
Free American Not having a separation between church and state does not mean your a theocracy. Take most absolutist European monarchies, or the Mughal empire. Not that I disagree with you, I just want you to get your facts right mate.
We're not an atheist nation either.
@@gabe3527 The US was founded on enlightenment philosophy.
finchborat yeah we’re not religious
Yes Man that’s because they got their power from the church. The US didn’t have a monarch system and was founded on the principle of secularism. If church and state were no longer separate and both would endorse each other, we’d be left with a pseudo theocracy.
Public school-sanctioned prayer to an "almighty god" is clearly wrong. It excludes atheists and polytheists. No libertarian should be okay with government beareaucrats telling our children how to pray, even if you happen to agree with their choice of religion.
Exactly
I love how even your supporters are saying this is a dumb take.
The video really isn’t bad at all most of the information is correct, but there’s a problem one huge problem, they were definition of separation between church and state.
I’d love the right word? What about gleeful?
This video is proposing an attack on our basic freedoms. It is proposing that the government should force religion on those who don't want it. That "generic" prayer is a creed that some in school believe, and some don't. It hurts to be forced to say a creed you don't believe in. Would you want to be forced to declare your dependency on Lord Vishnu? No, because you don't believe that. In the same way, why should others be forced to declare their dependency on a monotheistic god? Freedom for all is clearly more moral than theocracy, so why do you want to force your belief system, which is not based on evidence or facts, onto the rest of us?
Exactly. I really couldn’t have put it better myself.
And his generic prayer's usage of "Amen" directly targets the Abrahamic Religions, sure it doesn't target a specific one, but to act like it is not implied is a fallacy.
It also assumes prayer is a generic practice that can entirely be encapsulated in clapping your hands together and saying some words
But literally every believes Jesus is the one true God though
Not what I got I got we are founded on Christian principles and it is those ethics and morals that makes the USA the best country ever.
Don't you wish u were born in say Russia or China instead?
We should want marriage to be separated from Government.
This ^
@madwtube Yeah... They aren't super trustworthy to follow scripture... Gotta think, the crusades were led by Catholics, the Nazis claimed they were doing the will of God... Several cult leaders claimed this aswell, like Jim Jones and David Koresh... Why does Government get tied up with the church? Because people keep voting conservative Government... People want their politicians to look a certain way, act a certain way, dress a certain way, live a certain way, be a certain way and these superficial issues are more important to them than issues about Freedom or good intentioned dictators.
So no tax benefits? Governments recognizing family units for when they travel overseas? Courts doing ceremonies? What do you think about individuals deciding for themselves what a marriage should be, and not by a formal entity or ideology like religion or government?
madwtube not Christians charlatans did.
LovingPrinceTamayuki stooge.
Can you guys just say you want a theocracy, because you aren't subtle.
Don't think they're going *quite* that far, but yeah, let's keep religion out of civil governence
@@postconsolepeasant6538 DEUS VULT INFIDEL!!!
I think what they want is a dictatorship
NO!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Bad idea bro, bad idea there would be so much chaos it’s not even funny 😅. Btw I’m not Atheist I just know that would be bad.
Can you just say that your comment is nothing more than a strawman argument?
“One vote... One court... One sentence... One Letter...”
Minus the fact that the Everson decision referred both the first amendment and the fourteenth amendment.
There’s a little thing called the anti-establishment clause in the first amendment of the constitution. Read it.
Theres also the other half of the same amendment about how they can not stop the free exercise of religion. Maybe you should read it.
Ex. Somebody opening/closing a school football game with a word of prayer is not the Government establishing a religion, but to stop that prayer from happening is to stop the free exercise of religion. The court has done so much unconstitutionally to stop the free exercise thereof, when it had nothing to do with stopping the establishment of one specific religion.
@@tellingtruthexposinglies1435 Your example only works if the person delivering the speech is not a part of the school's staff, and even then I would argue only on a technicality. The problem is that the school is a public entity run by the government, and there is literally no way to pray that applies to all religions, even if limited to ones being actively practiced, and those that are non religious.
@@tellingtruthexposinglies1435
let me ask you.
would you be ok if the coach of the schools "football"(you carry the thing with your hands, and it's not even a ball!) team started the games with a satanic prayer?
how about a muslim prayer forcing the players to kneel on those little muslim rugs pointing to mecca?
how about a shamanic invocation by an indian?
how about a mandatory prayer to ganesha by a hindu?
i suspect you'd only be ok with the christian version of yaherh sabaoth....and that's why that separation exists. you cant impose your silly christianity on their kids and they can't impose their silly religion on your kids.
@@tellingtruthexposinglies1435 A football game hosted by a state owned school forcing a public prayer at the start of the game is literally the government forcing everyone in that field to partake in a religious ceremony. *That's directly in violation of the free exercise clause.*
If players wish to pray before a game, or those in the audience wish to pray: That is not and cannot be forbidden. That would break the free exercise clause.
Loved Bythedeer this comes into the issue of a public (state owned school) versus a private (individually owned school).
In a private school, you essentially have free reign over what your faculty teaches and what views you express. This can include your prayers at football games, which does count as free exercise.
Public schools are a lot less strict. There’s a test for it called the lemon test which is based on the establishment clause. This is where your football game prayer comes into issue - you are, by exercising your own religion, restricting others from exercising theirs. For example, let’s say a prayer for football games in Texas started with a prayer to the Hindu gods. Would this exclude Christianity? This is exactly the problem that happens when you do it.
They can stop the exercise of religion when it’s about a range of people that don’t necessarily practice said religion. Ergo, the lemon test, which is based on the establishment clause of the first amendment.
The prayer addressed in _Engel_ was not generic enough, for some; it presupposed that the speaker was an Abrahamic theist.
That then begs the question, why say that _any_ prayer is unconstitutional? Why not simply modify the prayer so it is more neutral?
@@damoclesecoe7184 Because the argument was that it presupposed belief, which means it would have to be genuinely neutral to avoid presuppositions. That becomes very unwieldy to write, let alone speak. God(s)/ess(es), just for theistic kinds. Then non-standard figures that might not fit under synonym of "God", like the Dao, or Buddha. It adds up. And by the time you start rephrasing the entire thing to be more neutral, it stops being a prayer and turns into a simple consideration for everyone's beliefs - which is probably just fine, we could use some of that, but doesn't exactly fit the original intent behind prayer.
@@damoclesecoe7184
prayers are by definition religious, and thus unconstitutional.
The song by Rammstein?
So you believe churches should pay taxes. Me too.
hUH
They are thugs
Even better, turn churches into parks.
Dont worry about who pays what in taxes. I’m sure nobody cares what you pay. /
Hey, I’m actually assuming we agree with each other on most everything else here, this video is outrageous, but the reason behind churches not paying taxes is actually the same as any other non-profit. They rely entirely on donations for their money, the same way any other organization which doesn’t produce or sell something, or provide some service does. They not only shouldn’t be taxed same as those organizations, there also isn’t a rational way to tax what they make unless we are taxing each donation they receive or the money as they spend it, which would be unique in our tax code and incredibly difficult to collect.
PrageU: Now simping for theocracy.
Gotta retain their right-wing audience somehow, right?
Notice how in the entire Video they stated how the government cant make a national religion plus John Adams also quoted: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I’m Christian but there is a reason why our Founding Fathers specifically made that a part of our constitution.
**looks at Saudi Arabia**
Look no further than Greekistan
Does separation of church and state place any limitations on religion at all?
1. Yay, you're here!
2. Mostly not.
It means that any laws that are being passed cannot be justified by religious beliefs, and that applies to any public institutions. But other than that you are free to exercise any religion you want, as long as you don't harm anyone.
Red Blaze What does it mean for a law to be “justified” by religious belief?
I mean take marriage for example even though the separation of church and state marriage is a religious ceremony you need either a pastor or priest to do a marriage ceremony and you also need a Bible doesn't the pastor or the priests have the right to not conduct a ceremony that they're can prohibit them from doing ? you can't just claim separation of church and state and then have a religious Ceremony be government-controlled because there's freedom of religion..
@@redblaze8700 I mean even though there is separation of church and state marriage is a religious ceremony you need either a pastor or priest to do a marriage ceremony and you also need a Bible doesn't the pastor or the priests have the right to not conduct a ceremony that they're can prohibit them from doing ? you can't just claim separation of church and state and then have a religious Ceremony be government-controlled because there's freedom of religion..
I like that “especially religions based on the Bible” part because they thought Muslims were nuts.
Muslims claim that the Bible is the word of Allah, but that only reveals theyre ignorance on what the bible tought xD, they are obligated to look like fools because Muhammad couldnt keep his mouth shut
Because they are nuts
America's first war was with Muslims.
The berbery war
So that means there's no place for pagans in america
The Muslim Berber Pirates would *specifically* target White Ships and sell them as SLAVES.
There is NO evidence to justify that all the statistics he randomly spewed at the end, is causes by the seperation of church and state. Even if his incredibly arbitrary “statistics” is correct, Correlation is NOT causation. This video is either incredibly lazy, or, more likely just dishonest
@@night6724 seperation of church and state has nothing to do with atheism, just religious freedom. What if you were of a diffrent religion then the state?
maybe the reason why there's less donations and charity is because the rich keep getting richer, (while never really donating their money) while the poor gets poorer, and the middle class shrinks to obsolete
@@tobismagicaltower9038 Freedom to believe whatever you want to, but other than that you are free to exercise any religion you want, as long as you don't harm anyone
I agree with you. I would argue that it is the *AHEM* FED causing some of those issues
If you don’t have separation of church and state, you eventually having the state telling us which religions matter. I can guarantee you that Christians who are in favor of breaking the separation of church and state would complain profusely if Buddhism or other non-Christian religions became a promoted religion in the United States. Let’s not kid ourselves. That’s why the separation of church and state is so important.
i normally like and agree with these videos but this one made some pretty big assumptions. Religion should not influence our day-to-day lives unless we choose to, it's our right to practice (or not practice) whatever religion we please.
I understand what you said and you are right in that point of view, but that is not the point. the video is about another viewpoint. its about defining moral rules. any state or even institution needs to decide what are the parameters of what is right and wrong. choosing the judeo-christian values (ten commandments) is a very good choice and has worked out pretty well, though it defends liberty and property. If you want to remove them, you need other values to replace them, and that is dangerous. that is the main reason why fascism and socialism failed throughout the world. because they thought that religion is obsolete and useless. judo-christian values are proven to be important moral references that inspires the free constitutions. without it, governments and states tend to move towards tyranny.
@@RodrigoDelArc 1. "any state or even institutions needs to decide what are the parameters of what is right and wrong" These parameters are chosen by the people when you're in a democracy, not by religion (although there can be overlap) or the state (this would be tyranny). Since culture changes over time, so do their values and so do the laws of a democratic nation.
2. The Ten Commandments are not the basis of the US. Otherwise it would've been illegal or considered highly immoral to believe in other gods (1), disrespect your parents (2), work on sundays (3), worship physical idols (4), take God's name in vain (5), commit adultery (7, while considered immoral it's not illegal) or covet (8). 1 and 3 are even violations of freedom of religion. While 2 and 7 can be considered bad (they can be justified) they have no basis in legislation or in the constitution.
3. While communism in the SU was an atheist state, Italian and German fascism was closely tied to catholic religion. Also there are many European countries today that are pretty irreligious with sometimes the majority being atheists (the most religious countries are around the Mediterranean Sea, in Eastern Europe and Ireland)
4. Judeo-Christian values aren't constants. The values of christians 1000 years ago were much different than they are today and even now there are denominations with hugely different values. Also many atrocities were commited in name of religion and many monarchies found their basis in religion (where the King said they ruled in name of God)
@CrazyReii according to the declaration of independence they are.
@@pebblessyou religion and God are not the same in any way what so ever.
There can only be one truth..
People with common sense like the founders know this.
@@pebblessyou The bible is consistent people's beliefs based on the traditions of men,that just happen to throw a scripture around here or there are not.
TLDR; America is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy, and it needs to stay that way.
@Daddypap362 You just proved my point
Before primeire: *comment section explaining separation of church and state*
PragerU after primeire: “it doesn’t exist”
“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
- John Adams
Ah, yes, that explains why all the other founding fathers were diests
@@mhmyup3952 Ikr, people often don't understand that deism is a rejection of any established religion. They believe in a creator but not one that interacts with the world. It amazes me that people whole-heartedly believe the founding fathers had put any Christian influence into the constitution.
@@saiyanc137 It amazes you that...
Hmm
Politics flows from people and their personal ideas of right and wrong; many of those who wrote the Constitution, believed in God; a person's faith is what they are, not just something they do. Yes, the Consttution was influenced by the Bible.
Also John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
@@dorcasmcleod9439 Not according to the man that wrote most of it. I suggest you read "Memorial and Remonstrance," by Madison. I would link it but true to his normal habits it is quite wordy. However he outlines his concept of religion and Government and the influence each has on the other.
I don't mind schools making a prayer time, but I do mind when it is mandatory or prohibited. It should be optional.
Agreed!
Me too.
Does this count for Islam?
Dhruva Shah that's what the moment of silence is for in schools
Dhruva Shah If everyone at the school is christian or atheist, that works fine but if there’s other faiths at the school it creates a can of worms and probably should be done away with.
"the First Amendment was not only about the prohibition of establishing a national religion, it was also about not giving any encouragement to any religion." Which can only be done through separating religion from the state where officials can enact policies.
******about encouraging any one religion over the other, in terms of civilian mandate by a government. That is how the 13 Colonies came to be, escape from religious persecution and that is what the FF were protecting. They were absolutely not advocating the abolishment of religion, and to think so is to live in your own soundboard, devoid of wanting to acknowledge the truth.
@@nicholasrusso9740 - Please tell me where I said religion should be abolished? Separation of religion and state doesn't mean abolishing religion, it means that religion should not dictate laws and policies of the state.
This guy thinks that separation of church and state means seperation of church and public life
So, if we consider the preyer “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen”.
How would it include religions with many gods (e.g. Hinduism) or with no god (e.g. Buddhism)?
exactly or your just an atheist.
and what about the amen? Buddhist, Hindus, and everyone else except for Christians use amen when praying
Is it that much of a stretch to allow the individual students to replace 'God' with 'Gods', 'Buddha', 'Spirits', or whatever else is relevant to that student's beliefs?
The thing is that the speaker is saying that the preyer is not about any specific religion. But it is.
_A_ : wow you should look into your information cause Christians do say amen when finishing a prayer
Oh come on, really? This is a country of freedom, so why try to forcibly impose things that have a religious undertone? If people aren't religious, don't force them to be, and if people are religious, they can be religious in areas that are not governentally run. You guys sound ridiculous.
I agree! If religious people would share and play nice with the other kids, I wouldn't be an active atheist.
The catholic faith teaches not to force our religion onto others, just to spread the good word of god.
Andy, I understand what you said and you are right in that point of view, but that is not the point. the video is about another viewpoint. its about defining moral rules. any state or even institution needs to decide what are the parameters of what is right and wrong. choosing the judeo-christian values (ten commandments) is a very good choice and has worked out pretty well, though it defends liberty and property. If you want to remove them, you need other values to replace them, and that is dangerous. that is the main reason why fascism and socialism failed throughout the world. because they thought that religion is obsolete and useless. judo-christian values are proven to be important moral references that inspires the free constitutions. without it, governments and states tend to move towards tyranny.
@@RodrigoDelArc Stop copy pasting this crap everywhere.
The reason you have freedom is because it’s founded on the bible.
"Hard cases make bad law." Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't care.
@Dileon 1927 Buck v. Bell (the so-called eugenics decision)
1944 Korematsu v. United States (upholding FDR's lock up Japanese and German Americans during WWII.
1973 Roe v. Wade (the infamous abortion law case)
2005 Kelo v. City of New London (using the 'takings clause' to take private property and give it to a private business)
The first amendment clearly defends separation of church and state
@majorsupton but it’s not an argument for separation of God and government.
@@jmo1375 Yes it does. It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" There must be a separation to ensure all religions are free to be exercised., and as a Christian myself, i want the government to stay away from the church.
@@majorsupton Believing in God is different than a religion. Culture, traditions and rules make up a religion.
@@ghostsniperable353 Okay, and?
@@CustardCup Someone who doesn't belong to a church or religion can still promote God in government without breaking this "rule", which isn't a real law.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” - John Adams
PragerU: no they never said that
Notice how in the entire Video they stated how the government cant make a national religion plus John Adams also quoted: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
As soon as church and state get mixed, is when you have only one sect of Christianity being endorsed and the others shunned, just like the church of England and contholicism and other similar incidents
Dalton That doesn’t necessarily mean a religious person in politics, expressing and advocating there worldview is a bad thing. The reason we think it’s a bad thing is because it’s almost always gets forced, and that happened in America for example against Irish Catholics.
"Separation of Church and State: There is no such phrase in the constitution."
Uhm yeah but it became established in our Bill of Rights' First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." If we're gonna be pedantic, you know what other word isn't in the Constitution? "God" or "Allah" or "Yahweh"
"The founding Fathers never intended for Church and State to be separate."
Well as we'll get into later, at least one of them believed that to be the case. Thomas Jefferson. But even if they didn't, who cares? Why are you deifying people as those whose words can never be questioned? Most of the founding fathers were also slavers! Should we not have questioned them on that either and not ratified the 14th Amendment?
"They saw religion, specifically religions based on the bible as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating."
Citation needed.
"It comes from one brief letter... at the end of a very long sentence."
Pfft.
"...building a wall of separation between church and state."
Oh don't worry I'll complete this quote for you: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not options, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Man it sure sounds like Jefferson, a founding father, pretty conclusively believed in separation of church and state. Though I am in the admittedly poor position of taking him at his word rather than trying to twist them.
"And that's where it lay undisturbed..."
Until they lifted almost those exact words in Thomas Jefferson's letter to pen the First Amendment in *checks notes* 14 years earlier! So it seems like his letter to this Danbury Baptist Association was to describe what the intent was with the First Amendment. Man why is it that when anyone does even the smallest bit of research into your claims, it turns out you're lying liars who lie.
"When James Madison first proposed what eventually became the first Amendment, the original wording was 'No Religion shall be established by Congress.'" But that language was later modified when it was pointed out that this might be taken to mean that the government, including the state government had no interest in religion at all."
Ah yes, that problem was solved with the alternative wording, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." You can just feel the interest government has in religion radiating from this. And while it's true that originally this only applied to Congress, that all changed with the 14th Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
"The Founders did not want this."
At least one of the founders wanted this. But hey there I go just going off what he LITERALLY SAID instead of putting words in their dead mouths like some kind of necromantic puppeteer.
"George Washington said in his farewell address 'Religion and Morality are indispensable supports of our political prosperity."
This does not that the government therefore 'ought' to support religions with taxpayers money.
"Washington's view remained the nations view throughout the 19th century and into the 20th."
Citation needed.
"For the first time in American History, the First Amendment was not only about not prohibition of establishing a national religion, it was also about not giving any encouragement to any religion."
Yeah for the first time.... except for when the 14th Amendment got passed, upon which the Everson case was based. 1868 to 1947, man legislation at the speed of government.
"The modern strict separation view was born."
No it was born in Thomas Jefferson's letter in 1802 and arguably in the bill of rights in 1789.
"Where did the 5 justices look for support for their argument? Not the constitution, because there was nothing in the constitution to help them."
Except for the 1st and 14th Amendment you liars!
"How ironic that the author of the declaration of independence, which recognizes the proposition that human beings have inalienable rights from their creator and not from government was now being used to separate religion from the public square."
Yeah if you don't know what irony, creator, or public square means you could say all those things. Thomas Jefferson wasn't used, it was the 1st and 14th Amendment. You'll also notice it says endowed by "their creator" not any specific God. That was specifically worded so that no religion was left out. (I mean it still leaves out non-deistic religion but whatever) How does the verse go, give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Give to God what is God's. Church gets as much worship and faith as it can stand but it'll never see one red cent of taxpayers money in this country and that's how it's going to stay. Lastly, it wasn't separating it from the public square, it was separating it from government!
"For Jefferson and the other founders, religion was central to the entire American Project."
If by American Project, you mean the government, then no Jefferson didn't believe that according to his own words!
"The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are just two examples where government acknowledges its debt to God."
By never ONCE mentioning him.
"William O. Douglas quote."
I don't care you've probably taken him out of context anyway. But to presuppose a supreme being does not then mean the government should support the worship of any specific one.
"A generic school prayer violated the courts -new- definition of the first Amendment."
Good! Keep your religion out of our schools, you creep. If I want to send my hypothetical children to school I want to make sure they're not being indoctrinated by being coerced into a morning prayer. Keep religion in your churches.
"The prayer was not specific to Christianity..."
Except it mentions God so no Buddhism, and it says Amen so no Islam. I call bullcrap.
"Are we a better society for it (separating church and state)?"
No because we're not enforcing it. I had to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school. So great job. It didn't stick. But if we were, then yeah we would be. No dogma. No injecting of confusion in children. No terrifying of children because they can't seem to escape religion wherever they go. Less deification of the founding fathers. I could go on.
"It's hard to argue that we are."
Oh yes those examples off the top of my head were very hard to come up with.
"Almost every cultural and ethical indicator."
Marriage and birth rates is an ethical/cultural indicator? In what universe are you living? Well hey you know what else is down? Divorce rates! I don't look at that as an ethical indicator but your religion sure does. But you don't mention it because it doesn't support your claim that "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK! PANIC! PANIC! PANIC!" Get out of here.
And have ya maybe considered that giving to charity has gone down because the rich took all the money and now we're just vying for scraps here! We have more Americans living at or below the poverty line than at any other time in History meanwhile people like Bill and Melinda gates have like $35 billion and are like we haven't physically disturbed the poor enough, so let's go ahead and take that Oxford vaccine that was going to be given out for free and coerce them to sell the rights to it to AstraZeneca who have no compunctions of making it free. But hey it's just human lives right? How's that for an ethical indicator.
"Children without fathers..."
Many of whom are forced away from their families because of the religious right's "war on drugs."
"Behavioral problems in schools..."
Which have gone up because on average a teacher is charged with more students because we're not funding our schools properly.
"Crime..."
Nope. That one's just a lie. Though our coverage of every crime that happens has gone up thanks to the cancerous 24 news cycle.
"And all because of..."
THE CONSTITUTION!
"I'm John Eastman a..."
clown. You're a clown, and a propagandist.
PragerU moment
@Nobody how ad hominem of you
@@jmo1375 Mmmh yes quite! I'm also quite the straws man!
This comment is pure gold. America needs more critical thinkers like yourself.
Pov: you think critically…
You can separate State from Church, but not the People of their Faith.
It depends what religion
That's just a re-wording of the Establishment Clause.
Famous Kat
No, it doesn’t.
PragerU: We stand against opression and for the the freedom!
Also pragerU:
Just wanted to say Happy Memorial Day to everyone! 🇺🇸
Happy memorial day from italy
You too!
This is gonna be interesting
It has been interesting. It is the ultimate fight of good and evil. One side is freedom and the other is tyranny.
Robert Tombs
Which is good and which is evil?
Everything on Prager U is interesting and at the same time informative and educational to give those who watch true historical facts that others never learned in school. Especially today.
Robert Tombs Haha I’d love to hear you explain which of your freedoms have been violated and how you’re a righteous defender of our freedom . Christians who think they are being persecuted need to open their eyes to what goes on in this country and the world. Hahaha you’re a funny dude bob.
@@joe3205 fact is that in the world today, Christians are the most persecuted group, not Muslims, not atheist, not gays. Now we in the the US are not so much persecuted as demeaned and disrespected and Oh how the world system tries to divide us, by denominations, color and sex but Christ Church will always be here even if religion dies.
In all of mankind's history. There has never been more damage done than by one person who thought they were doing the right thing.
Exactly. That is why so many horrible atrocities happened because 'God told me to do it!'
In land of thou shall not kill is War
Now its eye for an eye and more
With religion time to settle a score
Now more important than before
Religion shall not control our core
Religion is a private matter. That the state should not be involved in at all
Even more important to remember is, that this sentiment goes both ways. Religion as a private matter should not be involved in state matters.
Tomer, I understand what you said and you are right in that point of view, but that is not the point. the video is about another viewpoint. its about defining moral rules. any state or even institution needs to decide what are the parameters of what is right and wrong. choosing the judeo-christian values (ten commandments) is a very good choice and has worked out pretty well, though it defends liberty and property. If you want to remove them, you need other values to replace them, and that is dangerous. that is the main reason why fascism and socialism failed throughout the world. because they thought that religion is obsolete and useless. judo-christian values are proven to be important moral references that inspires the free constitutions. without it, governments and states tend to move towards tyranny.
"The United States was going to be different. Americans would be free to follow the religion of their choice." And that is protected through government officials not having bias towards a given religion, which would directly impact their policies.
Most countries have freedom of religion nowadays despite having an official national religion.
That makes no sense. Especially when you not only consider the video, but also the fact that such an idea hurts religion as well. You are creating a paradox of fallacy that in the end is inherently unfair and fundamentally unjust and illogical. While the government is prohibited from recognizing a national religion, thus protecting all religious groups, that does not mean it can't recognize religious principles. Such principles were used to give you your rights that you hold now. Period.
The statement of bias is both accusatory and a slippery slope that ultimately gets no one anywhere.
...And look at the degradation of morality as Americans move away from religion. I think religion has a purpose in society as a way of maintaining morality . Without religion people are becoming lost in immorality, sin, and greed. Take for example the increase in shootings. Liberals are quick to blame it on guns instead of the lack of morality in the shooters.
@@noway6633 I agree. Governments can base their actions on religious beliefs, but they can't interfere with or be interfered with religious institutions. In order to do anything, the government must act on some sort of philosophical or religious system, otherwise their decisions become arbitrary, incoherent and meaningless.
Shame we can't build a wall of separation between the State and economics. It's just as essential and moral.
To be a step more specific, the separation of...
- Big Business and State: laws should not disproportionally harm small businesses
- Central Banking and State: government should not 'socialize risk (while privatizing profits)'
dragonhold4 So basically the entity of the dollar (or any traditional coin like the pound £ or euro €) would cease to exist? Now that would be interesting.
Separation of Bank and State.
Ayn Rand is cringe
I personally believe in seperation of Business and State in the means of:
Business/companies should have no involvement in politics and politics should have no involvement in Companies.
End the separation of church and state so the state can put restrictions on your religion,got it.Way to be “small government” Prager U
@Totus way to be ad hominem
Shows how little you know what "small government" means.
Did PragerU even read George Washington’s Farewell Address?
So professor, please explain the reasons for our moral and ethical dilemmas (i.e. organized crime, alcohol abuse, slavery, explotation of the poor, etc.) that occurred before this court case in 1962? 🤔🤔🤔
Men representing God is decking.
Men act like woman. “Emotional” instead of “Logical”.
When men are emotional the house they are in is hell.
Raising a child in hell makes them blind from truth. Write becomes wrong. Forgiveness turns to vindictive behavior. Feelings out way logic.
It’s that simple
@@doniyel ah yes good ol' men aren't allowed to be have emotions
decostrs Straw Man question. He never implied utopia before the court decision. Remember the graph, showing desirable things decreasing and undesirable things increasing? The undesirable didn't start at zero.
@@66gtb Since you can see my use of a fallacy hopefully you can see the professors use of fallacies as well. He has created a False Dilemma and Appealed To Public Ignorance to support his arguement. He is trying to put forth a romantic notion of America's moral and ethical compass, which is unsound when you look at our history in its entirety.
"They saw religion-specifically religions based on the Bible-as indispensable to the moral foundation of the nation they were creating." Except the Bill of Rights introduced freedom of religion to the Constitution, which is supposed to be insured through the government not giving any religions heightened treatment.
Sadly, they could never have imagined the crazy sects that would arise in the future and now operate under "religious freedom". It opened the floodgates for insane people as well as those who saw a religion as a way to gain power and wealth for themselves.
@@Cissy2cute - You do realize this has been a problem throughout human history right?
@@Sylvertaco Then sadly those who created this country did not learn enough from the past. I'm sure they never envisioned a religion that beheaded people or allowed for multiple wives. Things have gotten progressively worse because "anything goes" as long as people can hide under the umbrella of religious freedom.
@@Cissy2cute - Are you not aware of the atrocities committed before the US existed? The Inquisition, the majority of the Crusades, individuals burned alive for being heretics (Joan of Arc being one of the most famous cases). Vile acts are not distinct to any given religion, instead based on people who use those beliefs to justify actions done to others.
Also, polygamy is not a new concept.
Sylvertaco, your argument falls apart when you use examples from hundreds of years ago to compare to things happening today.
oh man.. keep having to dislike the videos when you try to involve more religion in rational governmental issues.. Forcing god and/or prayers on everyone and including beliefs into rational decisions is the first step backwards. I mean everyone CAN pray for and believe in whatever they want but there are very obvious reasons why state and religion are and should be seperated (just look over to your mentioned europe in the 1600s and earlier)
Besides not believing in the same thing as everyone else doesn't make you loose morality! Or at least I have never found any evidence saying otherwise..
O yes so true .# ATHEIST FOR TRUMP
So why should society favour Godlessness over Godliness. They are encouraging atheism. I.e choosing one form of view over another.
I hate it when people lie about their intentions. They are not doing it so as to not favor one religion over the other, they are doing it because they hate religion.
I live in a country with the population split 50 50 between Christianity and islam. So the government recognizes both religions and gives them their place. During legislation, prayer are held either from a christian or Islamic stand point. And during prayers whether Christian or Islamic, everyone bows their head in respect to the beliefs of others.
@@Chuby_ubesie I mean, there are practical issues even just with prayer during legislature.
If it were just Christianity and Islam, sure, it's doable to give space to each rite in legislation. But North America has, well, _quite_ a diverse set of belief systems even including different Christian sects, and if time was given to each of them, either the time would be really short for each, or it would be a lot of time going through and acknowledging all of them fairly. And that's assuming you didn't accidentally forget someone!
And then, if we were to agree that skipping over prayers is how to show favour to atheism, there's the question of how you show respect to both other beliefs and atheism at the same time. If you wanted to show respect to atheism in that way so that it's equal, you'd have to skip over prayers. But...you can't skip over prayers without placing atheism above others. Does that mean atheism has to get the short stick? But why should society favour godliness over godlessness?
(That's all super simplified, given atheism is a singular lack of belief in gods and could incorporate other non-theistic spiritual beliefs)
Not to mention other belief systems without prayer-beliefs, non-theistic or theistic. What happens about them? Should they not get some kind of space or time too? And if so, what is it filled with?
I'm sure you can see how complicated things can get if you really try to acknowledge every belief system. Silence is a way to acknowledge every belief system fairly without having to count heads.
And that's just in regular, pre-legislature prayer. I don't think it gets any easier when actually getting down to business!
@@Chuby_ubesie Atheism isn't a form of view. That is like saying not believing in Santa Claus is the same as a religion.
@@Chuby_ubesie Atheism is a worldview like off is a television channel. Come on; accusing others of lying after that disingenuous assumption? Not allowing religion in government is not promoting anything! It is, or should be, common sense, given the Undeniable fact that government involvement in religion, or vice versa always results, almost automatically, in human rights violations. Your own example exemplifies that; you only mentioned the two recognized religions there, and behaved as if those were the only religious positions available. No, they're just the only ones officially sanctioned. I guarantee there are plenty of people who hold several other positions. They're mercilessly persecuted and oppressed.
You can almost see his disdain for atheist/agnostic culture. I thought this was gonna turn into a sermon about halfway through. People are entitled to their beliefs no matter what they are. And say what you want about government, but in this country you are allowed to believe in anything
Lol, after reading the comments, I have to ask: who is ‘liking’ this video?
There is only two possibilities
1. The paid "likers"
2. Conservatives (remember, Conservatives is much tech-savvy than Leftists) but those Conservatives won't spend hours of commenting here
It’s easier to pay people in Third World countries to like a video that it is to pay people with proper English to write a comment
I'll be damned if someone murders my family and we go to court and some pastor lets him walk free because he repented, got baptized and exorcised his demon... Throw his ass in JAIL. This is the silly type shit that comes along with church running the government
" On such things , do nations and history turn ". I repeated that last sentence remembering how small things changed the face of history , how deep it was.
In land of thou shall not kill is War
Now its eye for an eye and more
With religion time to settle a score
Now more important than before
Religion shall not control our core
Separation of church and state demands a secular government and a secular society to support it.
I almost named my channel “seau laïque” as a joke... because Beverly Hills teens trying to speak French always inadvertently realize that they’re saying “secular bucket” whenever they pause to say “so, like” while speaking French.
Ohh, that's actually really clever! Translingual puns are fun.
This is more interesting than this video
This is going to be another controversial one
Yep, that is controversial between christians, too
Yes because for some reason we should have religion in schools. At least I assume what this’ll be about
@The Icon of Sin why not both?
@@hodor9851 not everyone is Christian or Jewish. It's easy to preach "Judeo Christian" values if you were born into a family that just happens to practice those religions but for others, invoking religion just doesn't resonate with them. Focus on policy more than organized religion.
@@hodor9851 They must be separate there is things in the Bible violate other people's rights.
"Separation of church and state" is in the First Amendment. It's right there next to "religious liberty."
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don’t see it but sure sport.
@@Sick_Boy. Yes, “no law respecting an establishment of religion” = “wall of separation of church and state.” “No law prohibiting” does not mean “religious liberty.”
@@jonmeador8637 😆 Interpreting that part into what YOU think it means. 🤦♂️
@@Sick_Boy. Find a dictionary. Look it up.
Factually inaccurate
Its so funny when people on the right who got there with rational nihalism, and independent thinking get preached to about religion 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
"Almighty God" implies there is only one God, therefore ruling out polytheic religions
The 1st Amendment does not require inclusivity, but rather the "free exercise" of religion. Prohibiting prayer is objectively a roadblock to said free exercise. Given that most religions are inherently exlcusive anyway, a public prayer being applicable to all or even most religions is literally an impossible standard. Also, school prayers and whatnot tend to be local matters, and thus only need to suit the needs of small, relatively culturally homogenous portions of the population.
Charles Riley the 1st amendment requires inclusivity from the government it can’t favor one above another and since the school prayer got brought to court I think someone might have disagreed with it
@@feybrundige2003 No sorry that's just not true. The 1st commands the government to respect the free exercise of religion, not to pay equal respect to all religions or any respect to any religion really. As I explained in my previous comment, religion is often inherently exclusive, therefore full inclusivity and the free exercise of religion are mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that school officials or anybody else should have the right to force others into prayer or any other religious activity, but to say that a prayer is unconstitutional specifically because it's not tailored to fit every religion, is to misstate the 1st Amendmentt's explicit command of respecting free exercise and to set a literally impossible standard of compliance.
Charles Riley the first amendment mainly talks about how the government shall not promote any one religion - this is promoting secularity. You are free to practice your religion under secularity, you just have to respect the fact that others practice something different. You praying at school is very different from forcing everyone to pray to one specific deity at school.
But no, religion isn’t often inherently exclusive. A lot of religion is based around self practice - Christianity and Catholicism being one of them. Sure, there are churches that essentially group you together with likeminded people, but how you practice Christianity is very much up to the person practicing it. Secularity allows for people to practice whatever religion they want, just that the state will not endorse any one religion (which it has a history of doing).
Charles Riley dude your argument is ass backwards. No one is saying you cannot pray in a school. People do it all the time. You just can’t be forced to
So many people don’t understand what separation of church and state mean. They think it means that government officials should pray or having the Ten Commandments at courts
it doesn't matter, the church and state should be separated anyway
Notice how in the entire Video they stated how the government cant make a national religion plus John Adams also quoted: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I love that the comments are more in touch with reality than PragerU
Not the first time PragerU got called out on their BS by the comments.
Their "course" on the British Empire was the kind of trainwreck that had to be seen to be believed.
not an argument
Dear Prof. John Eastman/Prager University,
I recognize that you are trying to prove a point, however, there were a few things I want to point out and questions to ask.
For instance there was your statement were you claimed that without an all powerful and omi deity present deity social order would collapse when you said, “Almost every cultural and ethical indicator-marriage rates, birthrates, the number of Americans giving to charity-has declined since God and religion have faded from American life. Meanwhile, children without fathers in their lives, behavioral problems in schools, and crime have gone up dramatically.” (Eastman)
First your I want to take a look statement about the relations of crime rates and a lack of (religious faith). I have found that faith is not a determining factor in the good and helpful behavior of the person. For instance, according to the Conversion.com, In a classical experiment known as the “Good Samaritan Study,” researchers monitored who would stop to help an injured person lying in an alley. They found that religiosity played no role in helping behavior, even when participants were on their way to deliver a talk on the parable of the good Samaritan.” (Xygalatas)
This means in you have an equal chance of being helped by someone with no religious affliction and someone who does.
To top it all off the article also stated that, “Although statistics show that atheists commit fewer crimes than average.” (Xygalatas)
Second, I want to take another look at your statement about less Americans giving to charity because of having no religious or spiritual affiliation. Turns out there are multiple factors that goes into why people are willing to donate to charity and not just the faith of the person. Where according to Psychology Today, the factors include trust in the organization, altruism (expressing the importance of helping others), Social (giving because of someone you know and care about), Taxes (because donations are tax deductible), Egoism (expectation of something in return) and how much can the individual afford to give money to a charity.
I also have a few questions what are your statistics that say that having no beliefs in the existence of a higher/lower power or not praying to such deity is linked to increase behavioral problems at school?
How is not believing in god(s) or not praying to god(s) linked to increases number of children growing up without a father?
I also want to take a look at your statement about the School Prayer when you said, “Listen to the words of that school prayer: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen. The prayer was not specific to Christianity or any religion.” (Eastman)
I found the reasoning behind the Supreme Court decision to end School Prayer according to constitution center.org, “ The reasoning in Engel was also applied in Schempp, in which the Court struck down a Pennsylvania policy that required all students to read 10 Bible verses and say the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each day. While a student could get an exemption with a parent’s note, the Warren Court decided that this still amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of a particular religious tradition.”
Sincerely,
Connor Compton
Sources used for research.
Stahl, Jonathan. “10 important Supreme Court cases about education” Constitution Center.org, Constitution Daily, 30th of October, 2015, constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-important-supreme-court-cases-about-education/.
Konrath, Sara. “Six Reasons Why People Give Their Money Away, or Not.” Psychology Today.com, Psychology Today, 26th of November, 2017, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-empathy-gap/201711/six-reasons-why-people-give-their-money-away-or-not.
Dimitris, Xygalatas. “Are religious people more moral?” The Conversation.com, The Conversation US Inc, 23rd of October, 2017, theconversation.com/are-religious-people-more-moral-84560.
Bias Check of Sources used for research.
Van Zandt, Dave. “The Conversation” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 10th of July, 2016, mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/.
Van Zandt, Dave. “Psychology Today” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 2nd of December, 2016, mediabiasfactcheck.com/psychology-today/.
Van Zandt, Dave. “Constitution Daily” Media Bias Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, LLC, 13th of April, 2018, mediabiasfactcheck.com/constitution-daily/.
Source found with Right-Wing Bias with low factual reporting.
Van Zandt, Dave. “PragerU.” Media Bias/Fact Check, Media Bias Fact Check, March, 21st 2019, mediabiasfactcheck.com/prageru/.
incredibly based analysis, i wish PragerU were half as accurate as you with their facts and sources.
Thanks for taking the time to post and research these basic questions. I wonder when these experts are trotted out with a particular view why they seem to miss such elementary inconsistencies.
Wow, really good analysis and research! I also liked that you added sources.
Dear Leonard Blue,
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Connor Compton
Connor, I understand what you said and you are right in that point of view, but that is not the point. the video is about another viewpoint. its about defining moral rules. any state or even institution needs to decide what are the parameters of what is right and wrong. choosing the judeo-christian values (ten commandments) is a very good choice and has worked out pretty well, though it defends liberty and property. If you want to remove them, you need other values to replace them, and that is dangerous. that is the main reason why fascism and socialism failed throughout the world. because they thought that religion is obsolete and useless. judo-christian values are proven to be important moral references that inspires the free constitutions. without it, governments and states tend to move towards tyranny.
The phrase "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't just mean congress won't establish a state church but means congress shall make "NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION". The text is pretty clear " no law". You can't favor one religion over another. And yes forcing kids to say a prayer in school is also a violation of the first amendment.
Also a good deal of the founding fathers were deists (who believed in a prime mover who started the universe but played no part in it once it was going) and atheists.
Right but it’s the morals that the fathers focused on to build their society. It doesn’t make much sense to separate the morals from the actual practice, but it just shows that even the fathers weren’t perfect.
@@Ben-hn4nw The morals that the founding fathers had came from a number of things, from Greek philosophers to developments in English History to Enlightenment thought. Saying "IT'S ALL CHRISTIANITY!" is false.
@@ImperatorZor How do you know??? Most of them were christians
@ Because I've actually studied the period and the motives of the founding fathers at a university level. And the claim that "Most of them" were Christians was false. Some of them were, but most of them were deists who thought of Jesus as just being a man.
And even the Christians in their ranks were motivated by other things such as those I've listed and most definitely did not want to create a Theocracy.
ImperatorZor I definitely seem to recall learning that the majority of them were specifically against a theocracy because of the enlightenment.
Is it generic since the g is capital implying monotheism? My understanding was always that no laws can be made favoring one religion over another and that holy texts like the Bible cannot be used in a legal standing or rather you can't go "you can't do this, the bible says so". In regards to school, the problem was from my understanding that public schools and the employees cannot display religious verses as it makes it look like the school is endorsing a religion. A student is well within their right to pray but a teacher cannot make students pray. Also, does the generic prayer work for deeply religious families? Would the best answer be to not just have one?
And as someone else pointed out:
"All of the Framers understood that “no establishment” meant no national church and no government involvement in religion. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that without separating church from state, there could be no real religious freedom.
The first use of the “wall of separation” metaphor was by Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island in 1635. He said an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Any government involvement in the church, he believed, corrupts the church.
Then in 1802, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, wrote: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
The Supreme Court has cited Jefferson’s letter in key cases, beginning with a polygamy case in the 19th century. In the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, the Court cited a direct link between Jefferson’s “wall of separation” concept and the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
The phrase is not in the constitution."
Religion should never be associated with the state
It's seperation of church and state not seperation of public life and religion
One of the counter-argument to Everson case is that, some states had established state religions well after the Constitution was adopted. The last one was New Hampshire, whose state religion was Congregational Church and it ends in 1877. For almost a century, this was not challenged at all.
"The Prayer was not specific to any religion." "Amen" is literally only used in Abrahamic religions.
Abrahamic religions are the only ones founded on truth
@@arturorangel62 Buddhism and Sikhism are just 2 non abrahamic religions established by people we know for a fact existed but sure
My take-away is...that separation of church and state is a "thing" to protect churches and religions from government control. But, it's not meant to keep religion out of government.
Religion's influence on the government is still limited by the Constitution. The Ten Commandments may be a fine moral code, but passing laws to enforce them is unconstitutional. I can bow before any graven image of any God I like, on whatever day I want, and no law can prevent me because the First Amendment guarantees my free exercise.
The "wall of separation" appears in many more places than Jefferson's letter. Roger Williams first said it some 160 years earlier. Article 6 of the Constitition bars any religious qualifications for public office. The Federalist Papers consistently emphasize the need for neutrality, and James Madison later described it as "complete separation between religion and government (c. 1816).
Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) cited Jefferson's letter as the definitive interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
And the US Treaty with the Barbary States (1797), ratified unanimously in the Senate, expressly states that the US "is in no way founded on the Christian religion."
I like many of Prager U's videos, but this one really misses the mark.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The first Amendment of the US constitution
It means that government cannot force religion or lack thereof down your throat or any encouragement of any religion.
If only my coach was allowed to sacrifice a pig to Jupiter.
Didn't know PragerU wanted to live in Iran.
You'd think the founders would have not literally explicitly written to build a wall between church and state if their view was what PragerU attributes to them. Talk about putting words in people's mouth.
Thomas Jefferson "Erecting a wall of separation of between church and state is absolutely essential in a free society."
Did they just link demographic change, just to separation of church and state, like nothing else changed along the way?
It's fascinating seeing men and women who don't necessarily believe in any religion, to support it. I'm so used to the opposite from the internet. It's great that so many people can identify that even if you don't believe in a higher power, you can believe in the religion's teachings to be a good person.
All of the Framers understood that “no establishment” meant no national church and no government involvement in religion. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that without separating church from state, there could be no real religious freedom.
The first use of the “wall of separation” metaphor was by Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island in 1635. He said an authentic Christian church would be possible only if there was “a wall or hedge of separation” between the “wilderness of the world” and “the garden of the church.” Any government involvement in the church, he believed, corrupts the church.
Then in 1802, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, wrote: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
The Supreme Court has cited Jefferson’s letter in key cases, beginning with a polygamy case in the 19th century. In the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, the Court cited a direct link between Jefferson’s “wall of separation” concept and the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
The phrase is not in the constitution. 😁
Yea that is such a low standard. I do not think that they truly give that video much weight. How can such a blatant lie be allowed to be disseminated with the hope of winning a larger size of followers.
Yeah cause Prager is lying about the separation of church and state. The man that wrote the letter to the Danbury Bapist church is also the same man that started the church in the United States capital building.
Thomas Jefferson was a coward who did not fight the war but wormed his way through misleading people with plagiarized quotes.
Americans always fall for that one.
I'm sorry what? Acknowledging one's debt to god? I don't owe god shit.
The Two-Penny Act, The Parsons’ Cause in Virginia, and the Mathew-Anthrop controversy in Massachusetts were the seminal events in our history that served in large part as the ideological basis for not having an established religion in our Constitution.
It is really surprising the same PragerU that talks about so many sensible things such as Free Market Capitalism with such fantastic logic and data also professes the most non-sensical and stupid ideas like religion and judeo-christianity. When christianity and church dominated state affairs and reigned over people's lives in medieval times, Europe was in dark ages, inquisitions were burning dissendants alive and most of western population lived in abject poverty. It was only post renaissance, when people moved away from Bible and searched for truth in laboratories, scientific growth came about paving way to industrial revolution. And morality is the farthest thing when it comes to Bible. There are countless verses in both Old and New Testament which are not just immoral but despicable by any standards of human sensitivity. God of the book has nothing to do with the god of the nature.
just ignore the ones that bring up religion thoes seem to be the only ones where they seem not understand reality on.
It's not surprising at all. You're just biased to see some of their stupidity as not stupid.
Free market capitalism is a ghost 👻 of the past. What ever we have now is not capitalism; specially when China is beating us at our own game and changing it to social capitalism. PPP Loans, student debt forgiveness,Bail outs, we might even see negative interest rates in the future.
there are still questions that religion answer more sensibly such as “life begins at conception period. And others.
"We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." But you represent a nation that seeks to allow individuals to freely follow their beliefs, regardless of if they are your own.
Talk to an Evangelist lately?
"Supreme being" is not declared - it can mean neojudaic god like Allah or Jahve, but can also be Atena, Flying Spaggetti Monster or science/nature itself.
@@juleksz.5785 - Most people would disagree with your interpretation of the term "Supreme Being" regardless of their faith.
The term "being" is not usually used to represent a quality of nature or a law of physics. The term also typically means a singular entity, making pantheons or lack of higher authority beliefs not use the term.
"Supreme Being" is almost exclusively used for monotheistic religions, which in the case of Europe and the United States means in most cases Christianity. So using the term in the state leads to most individuals associating that with Christianity, placing it on a pedestal above other religions through government.
@Firefly fly - And a clear preference leads to preferential treatment.
It is like if the document had clear preference for Caucasians instead of other races, but it "allows" other races fair treatment. That would not be considered appropriate right?
That doesn't mean they still don't want to serve God
Jefferson was paraphrasing "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which does come directly from the Constitution. So, when PragerU states in this very video that the founding father's saw religions "specifically based on the bible" as being indispensable to the fabric of America, you know they're completely full of it. Let's not forget that America was founded specifically for the purposes of the right to worship (or not worship) as one sees fit. Creating a state based on 1 religion is the exact OPPOSITE of why people left England in the first place!
While the constitution does not explicitly contain the phrase “separation of church and state”, the spirit of it is embodied in the Establishment clause, which is literally the 1st clause of the 1st amendment, before the freedom of religion and freedom of speech is ever mentioned. Any sane legal scholar (particularly those that deal with constitutional law) would point out that the wording of the establishment clause “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion” explicitly forbids the government (specifically congress, the law making arm of the government from which all other policy is derived) from favoring any religion over another, and thus the government must remain entirely neutral and secular. With the passage of the 14th amendment, all of the bill of rights applied equally not just to Congress, but to the states as well.
So basically they're arguing against separation of church and state but don't have the balls to say it clearly.
They want a wall but also they want to have it working one-way only.
No they just don't want the government making arbitrary decisions about communities they know nothing about. Like sue remove civil war memorials that are crosses or having a nativity scene in the middle of town square.
@@shirleygeer5376 how about placing some satanic verses on the City Hall? Would that be acceptable?
@@shirleygeer5376 Well yeah, a nativity scene in a pulicly owned space would be establishing a religion (Christianity), wich is pretty clearly unconstitutional and just plain wrong
Yeah. They “feel” like we would be better with more religion in government. They “feel” like the Supreme Court interpretation of the first amendment was wrong.
When is PragerU going to stop making videos with weakly formed arguments where the vast majority of the evidence is just the presenter telling you that its true. When are you going to stop using bogus useless graphs with no citation or any relevant information (such as labels?! Numbers? I mean, please take some remedial 5th grade classes on how to make a graph). Is this really the best you can do in arguing for a point? These things are why PragerU is not respected as a reliable source of information and is recognized as the propaganda machine that it is.
Heres some examples (non exhaustive) of how this video is weak in its argument:
-Fails to recognize any counter arguments
-Merely states that the supreme courts decision wasn’t based on the amendment instead of providing evidence for that being the case
-Assumes the passing of these laws led to a decrease in religion
-Assumes a decrease in religion is the cause for a decrease in morality
-Uses an extremely problematic method for determining morality
-“morality” graph has no numbers, no source, and no dates, making it essentially useless
The way morality is determined especially riles me up, as some of the things listed either have nothing to do with morality, or have more than one cause than just morality. In what way are marriage rates and decreased birth rates tied to morality?! Are people with five kids more moral than people with two kids? Plus decreasing birthrates is more tied to a post-industrial society, this is well known. The inclusion of marriage rates and birth rates is an inherently religion centric view of morality. This overly simplistic view also ignores key events such as the civil rights movement, which I would say is much more important for morality than how many times a woman gets pregnant and has a child.
I feel deeply sorry for any child whose parents make them watch this drivel, their critical thinking skills will be worse off for it.
I'd Love to See the Separation of Church And State Everywhere in the World
There is a lot wrong with this video but let's talk about the end part of this video:
1. Religion has not faded from American Life: A literal supermajority of the US population is religious. The amount if irreligious people did increase by quite a bit though.
2. Birth rates did not drop segnificantly because of religion. It is not in the primary reasons the amount of kids the average perosn has dropped so dramatically.
3. Giving to Charity in the US well over doubled since 1989. Not sure what PragerU is talking about with that one. That is inflation adjusted and per capita. - The same timeframe till now where religiousity has dropped most drastically so far. I am not saying the drop in religiousity is the cause: But it certainly shows how misleading PragerU gets about their claims.
4. The reason the amount of children in families with unmarried women increased so much is not because of people being less religious. Various socio-economic factors play into this.
5. Behavioural problems in school did not increase, rather diagnosis of problems increased.
6. Crime rates have been dropping for about 30 years and are back at similar rates from before the 60's. What a shocker.
7. No a stricter interpretation of the seperation between church and state does not even cause religion to be segnificantly less prevalent: it also didn't tear religion from public life or from society. It did help better secure peoples freedoms including the freedom of religion.
There is no separation of church and state, otherwise, nobody who's religious could ever hold a seat in government, nor anyone working for the government could set foot inside a religious institution.
I thought it clearly meant that the government couldn't set a theocracy, which are horrible.
Not only can the government not establish a religion but they can’t do anything showing preference to one religion over another.
@@maxk2828 Which does the same thing.
separation of church and state doesn't mean separation of faith in one's private life.
4:02 "Following Everson, the nation's moral infrastructure began to crack"
Bold words, because you seem to imply that the nation was morally better before 1947.
Need I remind you that before this, Americans practiced slavery?
Need I remind you that before this, Americans forcefully took land from Native Americans?
Need I remind you that this happened before the Civil Rights movement? Which means that before this, racism was still institutionalized, segregation was still very much practiced and mixed race marriage was illegal in a lot of states?
Are you saying that America was morally superior when all these things are still in practice?
Damn. That was good.
They are not going to say it loud but yeah, that's prety much how they think
Thank you. Great argument
that's in the bible so of course they think those were better days...
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. The courts were right in making the separation. No one says a student can't pray over their own meal, privately. The separation is meant to keep football coaches from requiring students to pray at the 50 yard before a game.
my question: why does it matter if they are separate? I can believe or not believe in what I want, and you can believe or not believe in what you want. that seems fair, right?
Yeah that works for your interpersonal relationships. This is the government. It's not exactly 'hey let's agree to disagree' when the government is making laws based on religion.