Jefferson's Wall | Church and State
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Religious freedom has been a cornerstone of America since it was founded. But the idea has changed slightly through the centuries and may continue to change under this new President. Let's examine it's past and possible future.
Website ► knowingbetter.tv
Store ► standard.tv/kno...
Patreon ► / knowingbetter
Paypal ► paypal.me/knowi...
Twitter ► / knowingbetteryt
Twitch ► / knowingbetteryt
Facebook ► / knowingbetteryt
Instagram ► / knowingbetteryt
Reddit ► / knowingbetter
---
Understanding Trump's Executive Order on Immigration - vlogbrothers - • Understanding Trump's ...
www.washington...
www.whitehouse...
www.snopes.com/...
www.vox.com/pol...
Film Credits -
The Sum of All Fears. Dir. Phil Alden Robinson. Paramount Pictures, 2002.
Giuliani "When He First Announced It He Said MUSLIM BAN Then He Said Show Me How To Do This Legally" - 45th President Donald Trump. Latest News - • Video
Donald Trump "Ban Muslims" Rant at NC. Rally 12/7/15 - LIVE SATELLITE NEWS - • Video
Kellyanne Conway's false "Bowling Green massacre" claim - CBS This Morning - • Kellyanne Conway's fal...
Brody File Exclusive: President Trump Says Persecuted Christians Will Be Given Priority As Refugees - CBN News - • Brody File Exclusive: ...
Music Credits -
"Furious Freak" and "Daily Beetle (Edited)" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
---
Hashtags: #trump #alternativefacts #bowlinggreen #bowlinggreenmassacre #neverremember #muslimban #nobannowall #resist #church #islam #religion #weaccept #firstamendment #americafirst #politics
This is by far and away my favorite UA-cam channel. I am still baffled that this channel is not huge.
Eric Regina I agree completely... guess we just need to keep sharing his content as best we can, get his videos out there.
Stumbled across this channel today and watched a couple of videos. He is great, but he will never succeed unless he starts shouting and insulting everyone randomly, I am afraid...
its not huge because its not polarized. Those on the right thing he's unhinged far left, and those on the left think he's too conservative. Quite frankly, us moderates need to make our voices heard so the fringes aren't so prominent
Eric Regina he just grew 100k subscribers in only a couple weeks! He’s definitely growing now:D
same here
And I thought when Kennedy was elected people were complaining he would get orders from the pope since he was an Irish Catholic?
That was a concern at the time.
@@richardalderman2752 *astriturfing
It's not like catholic nations had a hot line to the Vatican at the time, nor has there been much since the Faschists acknowledged the Vatican independent from an unified Italy and Nazi sympathisers (Hitler didn't get his positions from Rome and was disproved of by many cardinals).
@@fionafiona1146 What you speak of happened in 1929, before the Nazis won the 1932 election. The agreement was that the Vatican would be an independent state and the Pope would receive financial compensation for the loss of his territory the previous century, and in exchange the Pope would recognize Italy. There's nothing more to the story.
fiona fiona truth doesn’t always matter when it comes to fear
@@koohikoo
Fear is much stronger acting than truth but needn't apply if there is education available (and data on a subject) the USA never offering better education than Bismarck required is depressing.
"E Pluribus Unum" is a decent motto, but unfortunately it was never officially adopted. It was widely considered the unofficial motto and appeared and continues to appear on lots of currency, but it was always just one of those phrases associated with the U.S., never technically legally recognized like the current atrocity.
make murica gr8 against
@Jason Street Who else is going to fight those Godless commies?
What do you mean, it a great motto!
As a motto it is also quite meaningless, especially now. Political polarization is just one indicator; the United States is way too large (in terms of population size), spread out &, yes, diverse (in whatever meaning you want to give it) to be "united" in anything more than a superficial way. We should just face facts & dismantle the US into smaller countries...let each religious/political/ethnic community or tribe have its turf & govern itself.
@@schechter01
Stop lying.
Can we bring back the old motto? It was actually really cool.
It never went away. E pluribus unum was never officially adopted, and it still appears in places like currency.
@@snbeast9545 E pluribus unum means one out of many as you know
@@Sezon_Stilalt POV You: 🤓
As a non US citizen, I really like how this channel explains most basic facts along more obscure issues... mostly from an US perspective. I say mostly because much of the material also appeals to anybody, regardless of origin. Again, high praise to you channel! By the way, did you know the only country I know of that specifically separate religion from the state in their constitution is France! Maybe a subject to another video! Cheers!
Fun fact: if you want to argue that we’re a “Christian nation,” perhaps the best single piece of evidence is the separation of church and state. Theologically, we call it the “two kingdoms.” As Jesus said, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
That and many Christian founders belonged to different Churches. They didnt want government to sponsor Baptism or Catholicism or any other Church. To believe that the founders who expressed openly that only a moral and faithful people would remain free were somehow detached from their faith when writing the Constitution is this channel just being inept
That and his incorrect legal statements. You CAN use the bias of the author of a law as evidence in court. The whole idea of Originalism in legal practice is centered around the idea that Law is concrete and its definitions cannot change with the times under any circumstances. Whereas people like this guy (people who are illiterate) will actively preach the Constitution is a living and changing document along with most Law.
In other words, the definitions of words in legal documents change or don't change depending on what your legal philosophy is. Judges vary in legal opinion.
I'm not a lawyer and even I know this. This guy in just 2min gives me no reason to believe what he has to say.
That and he says the Constitution only mentions religion once. Except for the First Amendment stating you have a right to exercise your faith freely and it specifically used the word "religion"
And then under his breath he said, by the way caesar, you're his too.
"Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" is in the context of this:
Matthew 22:15-17
"Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?"
Jesus said:
Matthew 22:18-21
"But Jesus, knowing their evil intent said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them "Whose image is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "So give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
In fact, the separation of Church and state is exactly what makes America a non-Christian nation, as it goes against the Ten Commandments to allow freedom of religion.
cobainzlady that’s demonstrably wrong have you seen what happens when one religion takes control it becomes an oppressive state i point to all the crusades.
we don’t need a “god” to tell us that killing is wrong which is subjective btw. The reason we are divided is because we didn’t listen to Washington when he said political parties would do us no good and here we are
Bro start making more videos lol I’ve legit watched all of them already
Hah, I'm working on my next one right now actually.
@@KnowingBetter I just stumbled on your videos the other day and subscribed after the first one. Your content is so logical, thought-out and insightful. You definitely deserve a lot more subs.
To argue that the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence cannot be used as evidence in front of the Supreme Court is not entirely correct. It is true that they do not have legal standing in the same way as the constitution (nothing in either document is legally binding), but the federalist papers and to a lesser extent the declaration can be part of ones argument to the court. The documents- especially the Federalist Papers- are often extremely important in the judicial opinion. In these settings, the documents serve as Historical reference and interpretation. Reference to constitutional intent is essential in preventing the organic development of language from corrupting the judicial process. For your claim to be correct, it would require the arguing parties to cite the FPs or the DOI as legal documents (which they are not) rather than supporting documents (which they frequently are).
I enjoy your content and hope you continue to make more in the future.
good correction
You might know also, but we're any of the founding fathers atheists? I thought they were all either christians or deist.
I don't think it's important in the discussion
@@robertgroves5630 Technically none were admitted atheists but a good number were Deists, which is essentially atheism without actually being atheist. They believed that there's a god who made the world but since making the world, he doesn't do anything. There are no miracles or prophets, and Jesus was just a guy who had a few good ideas.
Some of the thinkers and leaders of the time were even more vocal about their dislike of religion, notably Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Even George Washington, later in the 1810s-20s during an upswing in Christian fervor called the "Second Great Awakening", was criticized for not participating in church services enthusiastically.
@@TheDarthbinky only one was deist, Franklin. The rest were all admitted and practicing Christians
Aren't the Federalist Papers often cited in Supreme Court Decisions not as law but rather as evidence of the way certain concepts in the constitution were understood by the founding fathers?
Yeah the federalist papers are used all the time to determine what the intent of the framers were. I assume he meant that the federalist papers aren't law which they aren't. Just an explanation of the constitution
You can use just about anything as evidence in a court of law, depending on the circumatances. I think the point was that the Federalist Papers and the Declaration carry no force of law in American jurisprudence.
Yes, they are used frequently because Originalists have to defend the original text of the law from the "living document" philosophy from trying to reimagine the law to fit their needs.
This guy has not said a single credible thing this entire video aside from the actual quotes. Other than that he manages to completely misunderstand everything.
@@CasshernSinz1613 Originalism is what you claim they're defending the constitution from
Anglicans and Episcopalians are the same in the United States. The Episcopal Chuch is the name that the Anglican Church goes by in the United States.
Here's what I don't get, though. Why do Episcopalian Churches still use a St. George's cross?
St. George killed a dragon. Why wouldn't they want to use his cross?
@@jliller My point was that they changed their name from Anglican to Episcopalian in the United States to avoid association with England after the Revolution, only to use the flag that represents England. If they are going to use the flag, why not keep the name?
Actually, the Episcopal and Anglican churches are two different denominations. Their doctrines are almost identical. However, the Anglican church is the more conservative church.
The Anglican Church recognizes the monarch of England as it's head. The Episcopal Church does not. To further compound this issue, the Episcopal Church (at least in the U.S.) split back in 2008 into what I'll call liberal and conservative halves (I think it was over same sex marriage.) So now there's the Anglican Church and at least two different versions of the Episcopal church.
I generally like your videos but I have a nit to pick with you here. the federalist and Madison papers can absolutely be used as an argument in court. even before the supreme court. Madison 5 is frequently used In court. It is not law but the purpose of these papers is to inform the intent of law. Thus depending on your target audience. (Scalia before his death for example whom was an "Origionalist" arguments citing Madison or Jefferson's writings often did show up in Supreme court cases
I picked up on this too, but in a roundabout way after it was mentioned in a podcast on Alexander Hamilton. Supposedly, the Federalist Papers are THE single most cited documents in constitutional law after the Constitution itself.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed this. Not only CAN the Federalist Papers (and the Declaration of Independence) be cited in an argument before the Supreme Court, they very often in fact are. The Federalist Papers and other statements of founders and authors of he Constitution are also frequently cited by the justices themselves in opinions.
The statements on these matters in the video are so far from being correct as to be preposterous.
The Declaration of Independence is cited in not fewer than 100 Supreme Court opinions.
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the Court stated:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
scorpioneldar Given that Supreme Court cases deal with laws that have some kind of question of constitutionality, I believe it would stand to reason to guess that these documents which are not law are cited in order to help determine the mindset of the framers and of those who helped shape the actual governing documents of this country.
Paul Blue Exactly. Obviously the “originality” judges care a lot about such things, but establishing legislative intent is a common practice in any case where a judge is interpreting law. They all do this, and things like the Federalist Papers, the ratifying conventions’ statements, and even these guys’ personal correspondence are often cited by both lawyers and judges.
you're almost always right on everything. But the supreme court often does use the federalist papers in their efforts to interpret the constitution when making decisions.
Just look at any of the opinions written by Scalia.
Opinions are commentary, Scalia Refrences KJ too so isn't the best example in a secular manner.
@@fgdvdszedsa
Maybe don't talk about chemistry going forward because subatomic particles tend to be on the physics side and fusion requires people like Angela Merkel to notate chemically (her formal education straddling that line).
If the US Constitution or it's interpretation were more rigorous, I might feel less inclined to comment on the word choices of fellow UA-cam Users.
Given I had forgotten about this comment and it referred to something different than your rebuke assumed it's quite amusing to look at it again
Ps. KJ/KJB is in reference to the bible version a decidedly none secular document
I absolutely love how you present things, and that you continue to do so, and about such relatively un-mentioned things, you cover. Thank you.
I agree
Here is my issue and my challenge to this video.
America wasn't a Christian Nation? Then how was it the population was 96% to 99% Christian for the longest time of America's History? Just because it's not exactly a hundred percent in the government or writing it doesn't make America a non-Christian Nation, that's retarded! The people is what makes the country and if the people were Christian for such a long time and led by the codes, teachings, philosophies, morality, and celebrate the same holidays from Christendom, then that makes the U.S. a very Christian country by default.
It's like how ancient Rome was supposedly secular but people referred pre-Christian Rome as Pagan Rome not secular Rome because it was overwhelming largely pagan; they worship different gods mostly the ones from the Greeks.
Besides most government documents & some philosophies that came out of Christendom during the Renaissance in Middle Ages would read pretty secular just because they don't mention God all the time or barely do. It doesn't mean it wasn't Christian. Another example have you read about common law in the Middle Ages that we use today! It reads very secular but that's influence by Christianity!
It's a pretty bad argument his making.
Can someone send this to SCOTUS and congress they need a refresher
When the text message reply of K at the start had me laughing so hard
Every official version of the pledge that i can find, has the word 'god' capitalized. This would mean that it is a proper noun and not just the word 'god' and that it would be referring to entity named "God" in the English translation of the Bible and thus is directly naming the Christian god.
That was added in 1954. It’s not the original pledge.
i realize that it was added in 1954 due to the red scare. I'm not saying its original to the pledge. I'm saying that with the leading letter capitalized that means its a proper noun. This means it refers specifically to the Judeo Christian god.
Aren't Episcopalians the American version of Anglicans?
Eyup
I go to a Episcopalian church and I've been reading the what angelican's believe and yeah that seems about right. Episcopalians keep a lot of rituals from the roman catholic church but they mostly focus on the love thy neighbor part of Christianity.
It's a bit weird if you ever been to a protestant church.
@TheRenaissanceman65 alright. Wont lie though wish they cut some fat from their services.
@TheRenaissanceman65 too many hymns
Their beliefs are very, very similar (except for the monarch of England being in charge of one but not the other) and the Episcopal church itself split in two over same-sex marriage.
What youre doing and have been doing with these videos you produce is so important and valuable. I am so impressed with your research and the way you break things down for everyone else to understand. Being able to discuss these topics with others is absolutely necessary to be able to help change minds and therefore impact policy. I absolutely love your channel. The straight forward, calm, educated and simple way in which you present everything is amazing. Thank you. Keep doing what you do!! 😘
So I am a Mormon and I firmly stand against removing the separation of church and state. Meaning if you don't understand that above I am all for 100% the separation of church and state.. and before people make crazy claims against me I'm not one of those Mormons who just votes Republican because it's what we always do. I weigh both candidates out before making my choice.
"IGWT" first appeared on coins (the 2 cent piece) in 1864 not 1865.
There is nothing to stop Churches from politicking, even with the Johnson Amendment (which was nibbled at but didn't go down...yet) The caveat is that they are no longer tax exempt entities.
I was gonna say the coin thing too. Although it usually just looks like “In God Trust”
Religion likes to justify wars. And it just keeps getting better....
Also, private schools would be able to openly support a candidate.
with the 501(c)(3)
Constitution FTW.
I absolutely love this channel, especially when I am experiencing mania. When that happens, I cannot help myself but take in as much information as possible, and then scrutinizing in my head. Sadly, I suck with words so attempting to express it is extremely difficult.
From the things I've heard it looks like separation of state and church is viewed differently from country to country. I might be wrong but I feel in the USA, they want religion free from state intervention while in France and in Québec we are more concerned about having a state free of religious influences. Well, of course separation of church and state end up doing both but I those views are influenced by the experience each country had with religion.
The United States is far from united on the religion question. Those of us who are not religious hold the same views as France and Quebec. We want a state free of religious influence. On the flip side, those who are religious want religion which supersedes law and government.
@@mercedesholmes7878 Good luck on that! Your entire civilization is influenced by religion. You morality, ethics, laws and government are already soaked wet with religious influence. You yourself, aware of it or or not, have your ethics inherited from religious influence. Name anything you think is positive in an ethic or moral way and I can trace the religious influence on it, and you can do the same if you give yourself time for thought. The very concept of separation of state and church was an accomplishment of the protestant reformation.
a) You have no idea what religions people want.
b) You are just a spoiled brat.
@@mrgsudo
Confucius. Plato. Pythagoras. Siddhartha.
"Confucianism revolves around the pursuit of the unity of the individual self and the God of Heaven (Tiān 天), or, otherwise said, around the relationship between humanity and Heaven. The principle of Heaven (Lǐ 理 or Dào 道), is the order of the creation and the source of divine authority, monistic in its structure."Confucianism - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Confucianism"
Unite man and God is literally the definition of religion (from the latin "religare" or "reattach".
To Plato, God is transcendent-the highest and most perfect being-and one who uses eternal forms, or archetypes, to fashion a universe that is eternal and uncreated. The order and purpose he gives the universe is limited by the imperfections inherent in material. God, Western Concepts of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophywww.iep.utm.edu › page › god-west
Plato entire system is based in the idea that the Heavens are not only real, but the "arche" "beginning of the things on Earth.
Pythagoras of Samos[a] (c. 570 - c. 495 BC)[b] was an ancient Ionian Greek philosopher and the eponymous founder of Pythagoreanism. His political and religious teachings were well known in Magna Graecia and influenced the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and, through them, Western philosophy.
Pythagoras: Considered the "First Theologian"
Siddhartha: Founder of Buddhism, his teachings are highly religious in content and literally started a world religion.
Man, seriously, this information was so obvious and easy to research that I don't know if you are agreeing with my point and trying to reinforce it or trying to dispute it and failing spectacularly. Either way, all the best to you.
Thank you for pointing out that Trump's bill targeted countries that don't sponsor terrorists.
0:32 two things:
1. Counter Arguments did a video on that statement, and in some ways (but not others), we are a Christian nation (if you mean only legally, then you’re right).
2. We also aren’t an atheist nation
No but we are a secular nation
@cobainzlady Yes, we have a lot of religious people. That does not make us a religious nation. We also have a lot of assholes. But we are not an asshole nation either. Black's Law Dictionary definition has two definitions. As we are referring here to the law of the land, we are definitely referring to the STATE;
Nation, n. (14c) 1. A large group of people having a common origin, language, and tradition and usually constituting a political entity. • When a nation is coincident with a state, the term nation-state is often used....
2. A community of people inhabiting a defined territory and organized under an independent government; a sovereign political state...
So, by definition, we are absolutely a secular nation-state. Ps. There is no such thing as a 'faux' court decision. Court decisions are very real, not fake. Whether you agree with them or not is another matter altogether. Kind regards,
@@christopher6460 no one can agree what secular means so you're either mostly right or extremely wrong.
actully you can sacrifice animals as long as you meet safety standards for restaurants and slaughterhouses.
I feel like the word “Creator” in the declaration was chosen deliberately. Everybody has a creator. If you want to interpret that as God you can, and if you’re an atheist you’re parents are technically your creators.
pretty funny to me, Middle Eastern Christians good, Mexican/South American Christians bad
To be fair, Latin American peasant Christianity is an unorthodox mess.
Chester Belloc
Why did you say that?
Eh, better than southern Christianity.
Uneducated Catholics seem to put big emphasis on Mary and saints of various sorts. My Grandmother for example is French Canadian and prays exclusively to Mother Theresa. Conservative Christians in America are mostly Protestant and put a big emphasis on a direct relationship with God and reading your Bible...religiously. Of course Orthodox Christians are more similar to Catholics than Protestants, but that's not what the news tells people when they're being persecuted. When the average Southern Baptist is told Middle Eastern Christians are being persecuted, he's thinking of the little white church down the street, not some Byzantine dome.
Its not about good or bad. Middle Eastern Christians are persecuted by the Muslim majority, they are regularly attacked and have their churches burnt down. Mexican Christians are not persecuted by anybody, but millions have entered the country illegally.
I know it has been 19 months since you made this video, but I am curious:
Where did you come up with the statement that the Federalist Papers cannot be used as a valid argument in the Supreme Court?
The Federalist Papers are the most utilized documents for Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court.
He's a lefty talking out of his ass. I'm all for a 100% secular government, but I don't appreciate this kind of wankery.
Bro... why is your house so empty/clean... (says the father of 3)
I had been watching the most recent content first, so I didn't know the intro wasn't always animated. the real fork going towards the outlet got me 😭😭😭
You are a good teacher.
Terrible
Here is my issue and my challenge to this video.
America wasn't a Christian Nation? Then how was it the population was 96% to 99% Christian for the longest time of America's History? Just because it's not exactly a hundred percent in the government or writing it doesn't make America a non-Christian Nation, that's retarded! The people is what makes the country and if the people were Christian for such a long time and led by the codes, teachings, philosophies, morality, and celebrate the same holidays from Christendom, then that makes the U.S. a very Christian country by default.
It's like how ancient Rome was supposedly secular but people referred pre-Christian Rome as Pagan Rome not secular Rome because it was overwhelming largely pagan; they worship different gods mostly the ones from the Greeks.
Besides most government documents & some philosophies that came out of Christendom during the Renaissance in Middle Ages would read pretty secular just because they don't mention God all the time or barely do. It doesn't mean it wasn't Christian. Another example have you read about common law in the Middle Ages that we use today! It reads very secular but that's influence by Christianity!
It's a pretty bad argument his making.
Even thought your videos are up to 20 minutes long they feel like they go by so fast and time just melts away
You CAN take religion into account when taking in refugees if their religion is precisely the reason they are fleeing persecution.
EXACTLY
Only to the extent that they are persecuted. You cannot, as KB meant, choose refugees on the basis of religion. A Muslim persecuted for unorthodoc beliefs in Syria may not be treated differently than a Christian under the same curcumstances.
Milo Cohen of course you can, tons of countries do it all the time
@@feastguy101 If what you said were true, then doing so would be against international law. I am not so naive as to claim that this therefore means it does not happen, but it is rather rare and frowned upon.
Also, I'd love an example of a country which does so, I suspect few are known abiders of the various tenets of international law and human rights.
Milo Cohen international law is a fiction. And of course you don’t say that’s what you’re doing, you give some other excuse. Most of the Middle East did this to the syrians, not to mention the myriad religious minorities in the area. Both the us and Canada also do this on a regular basis, and, of course, Europe.
Had to downvote. Not a single one of the founders was an atheist. The closest they came to that was deism (Jefferson and Franklin), but most were Christian (Washington, Adams, Hamilton, etc.)
You need to update this video now that there's a "Religious Task Force."
Wow you learn something new everyday even months after I'm not in the states but I had to search if it was real.
That my friend, was a proposal with no follow up...so far.
What the hell is that?
The inquisition has returned
Oh, yeah!
I appreciate your point of view. I don't agree with all of it but you present it well and its thought-provoking. Thanks.
Amazing video. The only point I had a problem with was when you said that the Constitution gave rights, it didn't. It merely limits the government. The rights are already belonging to the person whether it was from a God or your own self
The Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence are quoted and used all the time in Supreme Court arguments.
J D - the justices on the Supreme Court can use any argument they want in reaching a decision. They can quote the Bible if they want to. Some of the more progressive judges have made a habit of using foreign law even. They can do whatever they want, they can’t be over turned, except by a future SC.
Now, to be fair, I think there’s a big difference between Congress declaring a state religion and a city council voting to erect a religious statue. And honestly, I think the wording of the establishment clause makes it pretty clear that the latter isn’t the intended issue
In the age of citizens United v. Fec, is the church not being able to support a specific candidate still true? I feel like that is debatable when corporations are considered people.
I haven't looked into it, but reading between the lines of this video and the outside knowledge I do have, it sounds like they absolutely can support a specific candidate -- but they would lose their tax exempt status (that is, they would have to convert to a proper corporate entity rather than remain a non-profit.) Since churches tend to either be so small that the tax burden would kill them, or so large that they tend to become money-grubbing, losing that tax exempt status would be a pretty big deal breaker in most cases. Hence the attempt to remove that specific limitation.
At the end of the day, its just another gambit by the Republicans to try and skew the system in their favor. Its no big secret that the excessively religious tend to lean hard right, so allowing churches to participate in the election process would be an undeniable boost for the Republican party, and they're perfectly happy to undermine the spirit of (and occasionally the letter of) the constitution in order to retain power for themselves. (And the worst part is, the Republican party mostly stands for everything Jesus fought against.. hard-right Christians seem to be really, really bad at understanding Jesus' teachings. I suppose that's why its so easy for them to follow a party that's really, really bad at understanding the constitution.)
You have made this error on more than one occasion, and it’s driving me nuts:
The Declaration of Independence doesn’t say or even imply that the “Creator” gives us three, and only three rights. It says “certain [...] rights, among these are [...]” which clearly implies that these three named rights are AMONG other unnamed rights similarly endowed by the “Creator.” Otherwise, the Declaration would say “certain [...] rights, which are [...]”
Not 'the Creator", it's "their Creator." The use of 'their' is deliberate and intentional as the Founding Fathers actively worked on setting up our system as a secular state. This wording supports each person's personal understanding and particularly avoids any kind reference to supernatural beings. It's not an accident that 'the' wasn't used. My creator exists in the form of my mother/father. Of course, you're free to personally refer to your Creator as something different.
My creators didnt endow me with any rights but their creators totally hooked me up.
I'm referring to my grandparents, naturally.
it doesn't matter here because the guy in this video said that the constitution gives rights like freedom of speech...………………………………………………………...................…….freedom of speech falls under liberty....................................................the declaration said '''among these'''' inherent rights are life , liberty and pursuit of happiness...........................................................among these means that there are more than these three that we are born with
@Jay Bingham No, your parents didn't "create" you. When we speak of people creating something, it means they used the creative faculty of their minds to visualize that thing, and then used their hands, etc. to bring that vision into reality. The only "Creator" of people is God (in some form).
@@bxdanny You completely missed the point. Nothing "created" us, following your wording here. We, as our current selves, were born from our parents. They were born from theirs, and them from theirs, and so on.
When Jay said "My creator exists in the form of my mother/father", it wasn't implying that it was an inherently creative act. That should have been obvious. It's how people commonly word such things, and in no way should have lead to a point of contention.
Yeah we need this more than ever.
Two points it would be great to clarify: does the Constitution apply to non-citizens? I hope it does, but interested in the legal framework around it. Next, what do you think of the Christian Baker case in light of the freedom to practice your religion in a private capacity?
It (along with all US law) applies to everyone that's within the jurisdiction of the United States. That's pretty common for all countries of course -- anyone within their borders is subject to their laws. If anything, most countries tend to apply their laws even more strictly to non-citizens.
US law also applies to American citizens who are living or travelling outside of the United States. That one is a little less universal (that is, there are some countries that will overlook crimes their citizens commit in other countries, especially if the act is not illegal in the country in question.) Likewise, the US probably won't persecute you for crimes you commit abroad unless they happen to also be crimes under US law. Of course, if the country you commit a crime in has an extradition treaty with the US and they decide you're worth making a request, the US _will_ still ship you back, and will expect the same in return should a foreign national commit a crime in the US before leaving the country. Not all countries have extradition treaties with the US however, and there are a few somewhat well-known "hideout" countries (many of which came to light a decade or so ago when The Pirate Bay was making headlines, and again when Edward Snowden took flight after his massive NSA whistleblowing.)
Also note that there are plenty of international laws that citizens of all signatory countries are subject to, through the UN and its various suborganizations. Many of those laws mirror American laws due to the US' disproportionate influence over most international organizations after WW2. Of particular note is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes basically everything from the US' Bill of Rights (and then some.) Unfortunately, also like the US' Bill of Rights, the UDHR is not considered legally binding and is just a declaration. But for as far as that goes, you generally can trust yourself to have similar, if not the same, rights as an American citizen while living in America, with the obvious exception of citizen-specific things like voting rights. And you can also expect to be subject to all of the same laws and restrictions of an American citizen (or more, if your country is one of those that presumes you obey their laws even when outside their borders.)
@@altrag the Bill of Rights literally is legally binding...it's in the Constitution, the literal beginning of it.
@@CasshernSinz1613 Not the beginning, its the first 10 amendments (just looked it up).
Though that raises the question, what the hell was I actually referring to all that time ago? I know there's one of the commonly-cited documents that people often think are part of the constitution but isn't actually in there. Oh well, guess I've got some Googling to do to fix my memory (and appease my pedantry!)
It is quite an oddity that we should have to evidence Trump's intent after having heard the recording of him voicing his intent. We are still doing this with Trump, handling him like the little whiny baby that he genuinely is. Meanwhile, we toss better men in prison with nothing more to show than a forced false confession all the time.
I knew that the national anthem had 4 verses because we always sang it in church around the 4th of July every year
Here we are now, on the verge of a Cristofascist theocracy in America.
Ahwm... "Angilcans over Episcopalians..." Episcopalians ARE Anglicans. All Episcopalians are Anglicans; not all Anglicans are Episcopalians. (But the only Anglican sect recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury that exists in the United States is The Episcopal Church.)
Those politics are the reason why Protestants moved to the New World...
Brandon
Not really.
@TheRenaissanceman65 You're thinking of the Puritans who were just one specific group of Protestants as opposed to Protestants in general.
@cobainzlady all Anglicans outside the UK certainly aren't in any way under the authority of the queen or the archbishop of Canterbury
Makes me proud to be an atheist living in a country with an established religion (England), headed by the sovereign (Charles, and recently his mum), with a government led by a Hindu (who's politics I disagree with), and not having ever made a pledge
Our town hall has a Christmas tree and hannukia during the holidays.
@cobainzlady to be honest, nobody really gives much of a shit.
sounds like they have a better understanding of what establishing a religion means.
Your town just hasn't been caught
@@superbeltman6197 caught having them?
We had a festivus pole a year back.
So long as no group is barred from putting up a display its legally kosher. I wish that none were put up period. All it does is invite controversy.
It‘s time to acknowledge that separation of church and state is no more and no less than a means to an end: the freedom of religion.
This means that neither religions can claim that they are above the law even in their core affairs, nor can atheists demand that all references to religion shall automatically be banned whenever the state gets involved. It’s far more complicated than that.
Well said! It's a shame that this isn't fully understood by so many people in the US.
This holds up over time.
Interesting that you referenced Jefferson's Wall in the title, but didn't actually mention the letter that it comes from in the video. Still, very clear and concise breakdown.
But it doesn't specify that it's only 3 rights given to you by your Creator. It says "...endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; THAT AMONG THESE are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". It doesn't say those are the only three.
In other words, we have several, many, various God (or whatever you choose to call your creator, I guess) given rights, some of which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Also, it may not be law, but it most certainly can be used in a court of law. If nothing else, as a tool of persuasion. Just saying.
Too bad it didn't specify the right to be recognized as human by the gov't.
Deists*, not atheists
martin martinez Wait, what part of the video are you correcting?
@@thegoosh6469 In the beginning where he says many of the founding fathers were Atheists
Probably the founding father who was closest in his belief to our modern perception of Atheism was Thomas Paine
@@MrGuyJacks he had Common Sense
Make that obvious point...Anglicans and Episcopalians are the same thing.
Also, as regards foreign policy the President has been given wide latitude by the Courts, as in the case of refugees. It is also inaccurate to say they Christians,
Yazidi, and other religious minorities have been under represented in refugee acceptance compared to Muslims by Obama, Bush and Trump. Some of they had to do with the resources provided to refugees by their co-religionists to advocate for their refugee status. So it is accurate to say that Muslims have been favored by the American refugee program. The reason why though is not as simple as President Trump has conveyed. But oversimplification isn't a Republican or Trump, or even recent issue. It's universal to political debate.
Good channel! Well researched and informative. Kudos!
If I could make a request, could/would you make a reprisal of this video in the way you do your videos currently? I feel like it would benefit from the updated format. I only make this request due to noticing a lot of missed opportunities that may not have been noticed at the time.
Here post death of the Roe verdict…. Uh ohhhhhh
I know you don't like doing Trump videos BUT we need you to educate and fight back on this craziness🥴
Yea except people still try to force it on you and say its a Christian nation...its funny but tiresome
Counter Arguments did a video on that, and whether or not we are a Christian nation depends on what you mean (legally, culturally, etc.).
I'm a Christian and I have to admit it bugs the shit out of me too
@@jwil4286 legally and culturally we are not christian
It's sometimes fun how Americans forget Catholics are Christians so the general level of education/information might be to blame.
What do you mean some founding fathers were staunch atheists!? From my knowledge it was deism that was popular at the time and atheism would have been really out of place at the time
What’s deism?
Deism, as it is commonly understood, is the idea that God (generally though of in terms of the Judeo-Christian) created the universe, but does not interfere directly with His creation. The strong (or cold) form is stated above (and was the only one I knew of prior to researching this further); the weak (or warm) form of deism posits that God does interfere with the universe/mankind in minor ways, but both generally agree with each other on most points. Being evangelical, I don't subscribe to deism in any form, but as the above poster points out, a sizeable percentage of the American 'Founding Fathers' would be classified as deist - a very small minority were full-blown atheists.
tl;dr It's kind of halfway between theism and agnosticism...
Many were so critical of mainstream religion that they almost certainly would have been atheists if alive in the 20th century or later.
No they probably would have been agnostic since that's very similar to deism.
I feel like we can't label these people - atheism/deism/agnosticism is something that I feel MUST be self-administered as a label, because it would ideally come with the personal context and insight into the reasons specific to them as an individual for why they'd go with that specific label - if any label at all. I think the rational of looking back and retrospectively tagging someone with the 'Atheist' label, or whatever have you, is inherently flawed.
Last comment. It's interesting how you insist on the Declaration's lack of legal force, but your video's title is taken from a phrase used in a letter Jefferson wrote to some Danbury, CT Baptists in 1802. This is not law.
However, this letter, much like the Declaration, has been cited in SCOTUS decisions. :)
This is not a Christian nation. This is a religiously diverse nation full of both Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Methiodists, Baptists, Quakers, Hindus, Jewish people, and Muslims all of whom should continue to have the right to freely practice their religious beliefs.
I think the point of that line in the Declaration was that these rights are so self evident that no man can give or take them away. The law defines which rights it protects, but was not viewed as the original source of said rights in the declaration.
Bowling Green resident here. :-)
These rights aren't given by the government, they are ment to be protected by the government we have these rights, natural rights government or not my rights dont go away because government went away
You’re literally the most reasonable person I’ve ever seen and I seriously want this channel to grow
Small correction, Episcopalians are a part of the Anglican Communion. So technically they are the US branch that is a part of the Anglican Church.
Actually, _technically_ , all national Anglican churches are independent of each other and the Church of England. The form a communion, not a single entity.
@cobainzlady even the Anglicans in the UK aren't really under the authority of the queen in any real sense
Love the video. One minor point: The Federalist Papers are referenced in the Supreme Court all the time. They are not law, but are often used as a commentary when the law laid out in the constitution is unclear.
Similarly, the Declaration of Independence is not law, but contains a set of values the country aspires to (or is at least supposed to).
FACTUAL ERROR ALERT. No founding fathers (and certainly not "some") were "staunch atheists". The closest you could come would maybe be Thomas Paine, whose religious beliefs are unclear and who's more of a B-list founder anyway.
Also, on the Establishment Clause: it isn't violated by choosing to allow one religious group in over another. Using a non-citizen's religion as a determination for their permission to enter the country is NOT the same as "establishing a religion".
You probably won’t see this comment but I really truly enjoy your content so much and it’s helped me through some really tough times. Thank you for your work ❤️
I'm curious why you quoted the punishment for sin verses, relating to the stoning outside the city gate, yet didn't bring up the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone' bit
And slightly tip-toed over the whole thorough investigation bit that's part of that quote
Gobo Kinje That second line is from the New Testament, the Leviticus and Deuteronomy quotes were from the Torah.
The basic rights stated by the Declaration of Independence _should not need stating_ in an actual legal document because they are basic human rights. That is, they are assumed to be universal, and need no legal establishment.
The rights in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are explicitly rights _because we made them_ (We being society) because Society decided that these are things people should have the right to. And, noticeably, those rights have changed over time, because what we as a society collectively believe should be rights can also change over time.
There are about 50 Muslim majority countries. Banning 7 of them is not a Muslim ban.
. That’s like saying shooting yourself in one of your eyes for no reason is okay because hey you still got another one
Father Man that's a lie man, Saudi Arabia would be up there. They still have slavery, and have a functional oligarchy.
+1OSfan17 Are you confusing Saudi Arabia for Mauretania? I mean, I agree that Saudi Arabia is corrupt, but they don't still have slavery. Mauretania, on the other hand, has outlawed slavery but still has a problem with illegal slavery.
Thaddeus Kyle I'm referencing their Filipino slave trade. Although not technically slaves the reality of their situation says otherwise. Lots of denial of giving migrants legal documents back in order to enslave. Also they don't comply with the minimum standards for combating human trafficking, which can be interpreted as conducive for slavery or slavery like conditions.
Thaddeus Kyle from my knowledge it's a sort of blind eye, as they only abolished slavery int he 70's due to pressure from the UK.
Love the production increase you can REALLY see from his start to now with his new videos. Great job dude
Not that I agree with banning individuals from entering the country on the basis of religion, but from my understanding, the laws in the constitution are designed to protect citizens of the US. Why does US law apply to non-citizens in other countries?
Seems like it would be a country's prerogative to ebb and flow its immigration from various parts of the world if those parts of the world are unstable and/or hostile to that country.
Eh, you do know Refugee and Asylum Seekers can be denied right? And the moment you apply to either of those you are subject to the laws of the US.
Americans get very touchy when the discussion of immigration comes around given the history of the nation. Or really when you do anything to remind them of the reality of their circumstances.
The Constitution does not only apply to citizens. It applies to people under US jurisdiction. Being that you applied for asylum in the US, you are under US jurisdiction, if I'm not mistaken.
If our congress makes a national policy banning Muslims from entering the country, then they have enacted a law that directly violates the prohibition of the establishment of a relegion. This makes Trumps attempted muslim ban that much allarming. He was told he couldn't ban muslims so he instructed his staff to write the order so it would pass constitutional scruitiny. According to reports.
@@theblackherald Merely applying for asylum doesn't put you under U.S. jurisdiction. You have to be granted asylum.
on the topic of the pledge of allegiance: it's totally a violation of the establishment clause, also the whole concept seems really dystopian to me.
doesn't liberty include free speech?
I am all for a a wall of separation but to say the constitution does not in any way reference the Christian faith is not 100% correct there is this one reference. To be fair it changes nothing, just posting it for completeness: the Reference is IN THE YEAR OUR LORD
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
Who's here after Roe was overturned?
We really are living in the worst possible timeline.
It actually says unalienable rights in the declaration, not inalienable. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson debated which was the proper grammar. Congress sided with Jefferson to stay with inalienable, but Adams knew the printer so unalienable won out.
Cool
Tax the religions too many tax dodgers among them.
So thankful we here in Ireland don't have a pledge.
And you were also smart enough to change the wording of your second amendment. We should do the same and for very similar reasons.
My sister and I used to think we were the baddest kids on the block because in high school we would say, "under satan," instead of, "under God," and everyone would start screaming at us.
"An establishment" (noun) does not mean "the establishment" (verb). "Respecting the establishment" would make no sense. "Respecting" here means "regarding". It's saying not to make laws about religious institutions. Which does imply not establishing any state religion, but that's an implication, not the sole explicit meaning.
Also, the Constitution explicitly does not GRANT rights but PROTECTS them, them being presumed to already exist, their source unspecified. c.f. amendments 9 and 10.
Why were so many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence leaders in their Christian churches? Wasn't it like 52 out of 55, or near this?
Watched a few of your videos - great stuff! Subscribed. Greetings from Croatia!
Umm... Why are you playing things out of chronological order?
He called for a Muslim ban when he first entered but used the countries Obama chose. Those countries were already restricted under Obama.
So how is it a Muslim ban when the most populous Muslim countries aren't even banned.
I'm from one of those populous Muslim countries and I'm in America. I'm not a Muslim.
I’d have to disagree when he says rights are given by the constitution. The idea in the Declaration that says “endowed by their Creator” is that rights pre-exist government (that’s why they are called “God-given rights”), and that it’s the governments job simply to protect them. The idea that rights are “given” by government also implies that government can take them away. This is not an American idea. The idea behind the American constitution is that rights simply exist, period. That’s why the Declaration appeals to a Creator, not to the government as the authority that gives rights.
Anglicans and Episcopals are essentially the same church.
This aged like fine wine
This is great content and I like this guy...
but I have a feeling the people he's talking to don't make in a minute into any of his videos
It's hard to when within 1min he spouts pure misinformation. Such as the Declaration and Federalist Papers not being used in Courts even though they have been used and still are used to this day. Also he claimed there were atheists among the founders but I can't think of any reference to even ONE framer being an atheist.
Rights can't be given, they can only be denied.
The wild man has the right to do whatever he pleases, but he suspends some of those rights to live in a society.
I don't agree that some founders were "staunch atheists."
Maybe like 1 of them secretly, but almost all were Christian and some agnostic
Question, what does staunch mean
@@superbeltman6197 definite and obvious, a staunch atheist would be someone who without doubt, was atheist. None of them were "Staunch atheist" but many were deist, or someone who has a vague understanding that a spiritual creator does exist, but doesn't actively pray towards this figure. It is a subset of agnosticism. Thomas Paine wrote many documents in which he called religious institutions basically stupid and how he didn't like them very much.
@@mazzmarymaria eh, I don't think it necessarily leads to nihilism, that's like saying Christianity leads to bloodshed, very often the cause but correlation does not equal causation. I trust the scientific consensus so if its looking like the Bible it it's present form was wrong on many things, maybe it shouldn't be an accepted document accounting real events.
Many were in private. Their writings confirm that. Most of them practiced Deism. Other than Franklin, they rarely publicly cited that as it wasn't popular.
Separation of church and state. The thing both Trump and Betsy DeVos cannot stand
Quick question...logical basis for banning immigrants from 6 Muslim majority nations is a Muslim ban if there are 50 Muslim majority nations? I just need the logical argument not the political one, please.
Yes, since they were already highly restricted for travel here anyway. So... geez, maybe to block mayors of sanctuary cities who said they would take in Syrian refugees and do whatever they felt like prior to Trump creating this order. Might be one reason.
Those nations have mass terrorists cells, that hate usa. Their laws and customs are directly opposed to ours
10:17 Some of the 9/11 hijackers were Egyptian too, and Egypt wasn't included in Donald Trump's ban...
Shhhhh Egypt likes Israel so it’s fine