ArticlesBlog

Jefferson’s Wall: Church and State

Jefferson’s Wall: Church and State


While the phrase never appears in the constitution
– it’s interpreted from two clauses in the first amendment. Separation of Church and State. It actually comes from a letter written by
Thomas Jefferson where he describes a metaphorical wall between the two. So let’s talk about what it was, what it
became, and what some people want it to become. So let’s first talk about what it was originally. Let me start with a simple fact: The United
States is not a Christian Nation. We never were and, according to the Constitution,
never should be. The word god – capital G – Jesus, Christ,
Christianity, or anything like that never appear in the Constitution. The rights given to you are in fact, from
the Constitution. That’s just how it is. When people try to say that their rights are
given to them by god, what they’re usually referring to is this line from the Declaration
of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” First off, let me be absolutely clear: the
Declaration of Independence is not law. It’s not part of the Constitution, and it
cannot be used as an argument in the Supreme Court. Second, it says that people are endowed by
their creator – capital C – whoever that may be to the individual. It is not “clearly” meant to refer to
the Christian god. And lastly, there are three rights given to
you by your creator: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. There’s no free speech here, no protection
from cruel and unusual punishment. Those rights are given to you by the Constitution. The Constitution was written intentionally
to be secular. Of course, some of the founding fathers were
avid Christians – and some of them were staunch atheists. So you can pick and choose from the Federalist
Papers (which likewise cannot be used as evidence or an argument in the Supreme Court) to say
that this guy said it was intended to mean this while this guy says it was intended to
be that. The end result is the Constitution being the
way it is. So, what’s in the Constitution. There is only one reference to religion in
the Constitution-proper. Article 6 section 3 states that “no religious
test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States.” Meaning that you cannot be excluded from holding
office because of your religious views. Many voters might take your religion into
account while voting, which is fine, but when it comes to government qualifications, your
religion does not matter. That was it until the Bill of Rights. If you watched my videos on the Bill of Rights,
you’ll remember that the First Amendment has five freedoms. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, Petition,
and Assembly. The freedom of religion has two parts however. “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first part, Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, is referred to as the Establishment Clause. This means that under the Constitution, the
United States is not allowed to declare themselves as a Christian nation – or any other religion
for that matter. I said this before, but this is why we are
under no threat of Sharia Law. We are allowed to pull ideas from religion
and make them into laws. You know, not all religious ideas are bad…
no murder, no stealing, stuff like that. But in doing that, you’re not allowed to
say that this is a religious law. Christian, Islamic, or otherwise. This also means that the United States is
not able to favor one religion over another. If you want to talk about original intent,
this interpretation was originally meant to mean that you could not favor Anglicans over
Episcopalians, or Catholics over Jews. Because individual states WERE allowed to
have an official state religion – it was the federal government was not allowed to
have a national religion or to treat any of the various religions in the United States
differently. State religions have obviously been abolished,
but I’ll get to that. The establishment clause is often referred
to as “freedom FROM religion.” As in, the government is not allowed to impose
a religion upon you, favor one religion over another – effectively trying to get to convert
to that religion in order to receive the same benefit, or declare themselves to be a Christian
nation or any other religious nation. The federal government of the United States
is a secular government. The second part of religious freedom is the
free exercise clause, that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. This means they cannot write any laws that
stop you from BEING any religion you want. It does not mean that you are free to do anything
that is part of your religion. For example, if part of your religion is to
kill non-believers (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 Qur’an 8:12) , homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13 Qur’an
7:80-84), or cheating wives (Leviticus 20:10 Sahih Bukhari (6:60:79) – Islamic Hadith)…
you cannot do that in the United States. But generally, as long as what you’re doing
does not cause harm to a person or animal or impose your religion on others, you’re
pretty free to do as you please. The government saying that your local courthouse
cannot have a monument to the ten commandments is not the government prohibiting the free
exercise of your religion. It is the government not respecting the establishment
of a religion. You are allowed to have a nativity scene on
your lawn – unless it’s so large, obstructive, or noisy that breaks some other sort of law. But your city hall cannot, because that would
be the establishment of a religion. You’re allowed to say Merry Christmas all
you want – there’s never been a rule against that. Unless you work for a company that wants you
to be inclusive and say Happy Holidays instead. That’s not the government infringing on
your free exercise, and that’s not the company infringing on your free speech. It’s inclusive rather than exclusive. That and as I discussed in my Free Speech
video, private companies are allowed to fire you over what you say. Free speech only means you can’t be put
in jail for what you say. But that’s beside the point. In the United States, thanks to the free exercise
clause, you are allowed to belong to whatever religion you choose, whether it’s Lutheran,
Catholic, Wiccan, Jewish, Islam, or Pastafarian. You are allowed to practice that religion
as long as you do not break any other laws. If you remember my video on the Fourteenth
Amendment, this amendment made the federal Bill of Rights also apply to the states. Prior to the Fourteenth, many states had their
own different versions of the Bill of Rights, but now everyone was on the same page. This effectively abolished state-endorsed
religions. You could still practice whatever religion
you liked, but the state was no longer allowed to declare an official religion. Now, a lot that seemed to get muddy during
the Red Scare following World War II. We had to be as polar opposite to the Soviets
as we could be. This, not the founding of the nation, but
this, the Red Scare, is what started America on the path that caused many people today
to believe we are a Christian nation. Again, we are not. But it’s easy to understand why one might
think that today. The Soviets were atheists and secular – religion
was actively oppressed. So the United States, being the opposite,
endorsed religion, especially Christianity. Since 1782, the motto of the United States
was E Pluribus Unum, meaning, out of many, one. Signifying the unitedness of the United States. But in 1956, congress and President Eisenhower
passed a bill officially making “In God We Trust” the new motto. It started appearing on all of our paper money
the next year. In God We Trust comes from the Star Spangled
Banner’s fourth verse. I bet you didn’t even know the song HAD
four verses. And conquer we must, for our cause it is just. And this be our motto, in God is our trust. The most unbelievable part of that entire
movie is that someone is singing the FOURTH verse of the national anthem at a football
game. But anyway, originally it was In God Is Our
Trust, but was shortened to In God We Trust when it was first used on a coin in 1865. The second thing everyone who says we are
a Christian Nation points to as evidence is the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance was first written
in 1892, in the aftermath of the Civil War, and read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag
and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.” In 1923, the words “my Flag” were changed
to “the flag of the United States.” Mostly because America was experiencing and
immigrant boom from Europe, in order to stop any confusion of people thinking “my flag”
meant the flag of the country of their birth they decided to make it a little more clear. This version of the pledge was officially
adopted by Congress in 1942. During the Red Scare, in 1952, they decided
to insert the words “under god” to the pledge. Back in the 50’s people argued that this
was a breach of the Establishment Clause – as people still argue today. The counter argument to this is that it simply
says god and does not specify any particular god, so it could be any god, not just the
Christian god. But still, it is in-part, endorsing the establishment
of a religion, as opposed to no religion or perhaps a religion that has many gods or no
god. But they’ve been part of American culture
now for 60 years or so, so there are very few people who remember a time when god was
not on our money or not in our pledge. So nowadays, many people just assume it’s
always been, because at least for them, it always has been. But on the topic of now, we have a new president
who has promised to do things and has done things that many people have stated violate
religious freedom. So we’re going to talk about two of them. Firstly, something he’s done already. The Muslim Ban. At least, that’s the short-hand name for
it. On January 27th, Trump signed an executive
order that doesn’t specifically ban Muslims – but pretty much bans Muslims. Here is Rudy Giuliani… Does the ban have anything to do with religion? How did the president decide the 7 countries? I understand the permanent ban on the refugees-
Okay, I’ll tell you the whole history of it. When he first announced it he said Muslim
Ban. He called me up and said put a commission
together, show me the right way to do it legally But okay, that’s Giuliani saying it’s
a Muslim Ban, not Trump. So… here’s Trump. Donald J Trump is calling for a total and
complete shut down of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s respresentatives
can figure out what the hell is going on. A total and complete shut down of Muslims
entering the United States. In short, a Muslim Ban. Now obviously, his Executive Order did not
use those words, because that would be crazy illegal. So what did it actually do. – Bans all immigrant and non-immigrant entry
for 90 days for citizens of 7 countries. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. These are all Muslim majority countries. There is a notable absence of countries where
terrorists have come from – such as the 9/11 hijackers, who came from Saudi Arabia. And no citizens of those seven countries have
killed an American in the US. – No refugees will be allowed entry into the
US for 120 days; from any country. Refugees from Syria are banned indefinitely. The vetting process for refugees already takes
up to 2 years. And also includes banning Christians and refugees
of other faiths, and interpreters who worked with the US during the Iraq War. There are several smaller details of the ban
which John Green discusses in depth in this video which I highly recommend. But these are the two main bits. Before I move on to the religious freedom
argument, let’s get one misconception out of the way. I bet there was very little coverage, I bet
it’s brand new information people, that President Obama had a six month ban on Iraqi
refugee program after two Iraqis came over here to this country, were radicalized, and
were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green Massacre. Most people don’t know that because it didn’t
get covered. Okay let’s start with the fact that the
Bowling Green Massacre isn’t a thing. And I don’t mean that refugees didn’t
do it or that it wasn’t that bad so it shouldn’t be called a massacre, I mean she straight
up made that up out of thin air. Also, no, Obama did not institute a six-month
ban on Iraqis. What she is referring to is the six month
period where the Obama Administration significantly slowed down the refugee process by requiring
additional background checks. But refugees were permitted into our country
every single month during that six month period. If you want to equate this to a time a Democrat
did something similar, you absolutely can. FDR banned taking in Jewish refugees in the
years leading up to World War II. Not exactly our proudest moment. So you can totally draw that parallel. You just can’t do it with Obama. So anyway, Trump’s Muslim ban has already
been overturned and flipped and is in the process of being dismantled for many reasons. One of which was that this is against the
free exercise clause. Banning Muslims on the basis of their religion
is prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. Does the executive order flatly order the
banning of muslims? No, but it’s pretty clear that was his intent. He also intends to favor Christian refugees
when the refugee program is restarted. As it relates to persecuted Christians, do
you see them as a priority here? Yes. They’ve been horribly treated. If you were a Christian in Syria, it was impossible
to get into the United States. And I thought it was very, very unfair, so
we are going to help them. Favoring one religion over another is a clear
breach of the Establishment Clause. Let’s also make it clear, that prior to
Trump’s order, the religion of a refugee applicant was not taken into consideration. It was no more difficult for a Christian than
it was for a Muslim. If you take in refugees, you cannot pick and
choose people based on religion. That not only breaks US law but all sorts
of International agreements like the Geneva Conventions and you just can’t. Okay look, I don’t want to keep making Trump
videos. I had a completely different topic in mind
this week, but after seeing things unfold, I had to speak up. The separation of church and state was already
on my list of ideas, so when I saw what was going on this week, I just folded it into
a more generalized topic. Sometimes when you have a platform, you can’t
just sit around and not say anything. I’ll try to make a more concerted effort
to not do Trump videos in the future, because I just don’t want to. It’s kind of depressing to be honest. Anyway, let’s move onto the second thing
he did. During his campaign and again this week, Trump
vowed to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which is not a constitutional amendment like the
Bill of Rights, but an amendment to a tax law. Trump, Pence, and many others have argued
for repealing that amendment on the grounds that it infringes on religious freedom. But does it? The law prohibits non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations
from contributing to political campaigns to or making public statements of endorsement
of opposition of any political candidate. That’s it. If you do these things, you are at risk of
losing your tax-exempt status. This means that a church cannot openly endorse
a candidate. It’s usually pretty obvious who your priest
or pastor endorses, but that’s different. A person is allowed to express their views. But a church, in an official capacity, cannot. Churches are allowed to publicly oppose abortion
or gay marriage or any other issue all they want, but they cannot endorse a particular
candidate. So is that religious freedom? If you follow me on my Facebook page – which
you should do by the way – I wrote a paragraph or two about the repercussions of repealing
this law. So spoiler alert to any of you who read that. Repealing this law would open the door for
far more than just allowing churches to endorse a candidate without fear of losing their tax-exempt
status. This would apply to all 501(c)(3) organizations,
including churches and charitable organizations. The Trump Foundation and the Clinton Foundation
are both 501(c)(3) organizations. So repealing this law would mean that they
can also publicly endorse candidates. And thanks to Citizens United, money is also
speech. I’ll probably end up doing an entire video
on that Supreme Court case eventually, but that decision allowed corporations and SuperPACs
to openly endorse and fund political campaigns. Repealing this law would mean that all 501(c)(3)
organizations could donate unlimited funds to a political candidate. Donations to charitable organizations are
also tax-free. Just imagine the huge Pandora’s Box this
will be opening. It’s basically a whole new stream of anonymous,
unlimited campaign donations – now tax-free. Your local evangelical church could take in
hundreds of thousands of dollars, the Mormon Church, even Scientology, and donate it to
a political candidate – and openly endorse that candidate. The Trump Foundation, the Clinton Foundation,
and all other non-profits. The Johnson Amendment is not an infringement
of free speech or religious liberty. Repealing it though, is a campaign finance
nightmare. Not only because non-profits could now endorse
and fund campaigns. But because churches would now be able to
openly get involved in government. This would be a breach of the separation of
church and state. The government does not belong in the church. And the church does not belong in government. That is what the Constitution states. So as we watch things unfold in the coming
months and years, hopefully now, you know better.

Comments (100)

  1. I am confused on how this channel has blown up

  2. I think that when someone says that the US is a Christian nation they aren't referring to the government. They mean the people or the nation is Christian. Or at least holds Christian values.

  3. Music sounds like bobs burgers

  4. Man the moment the orange opens his mouth I get annoyed. He talks like the clichee of the dumb blonde from every party movie ever…. He's, like, so dumb, like, Suuuper dumb. Know what I mean?

  5. You make some valid points while also making a few false assumptions
    And please remember that Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists was not an establishing document. It wasn’t even written until almost 3 decades after the ratification

  6. tell this to 100% of ur Republican in the gop and house

  7. yea and its racist

  8. I knew that the national anthem had 4 verses because we always sang it in church around the 4th of July every year

  9. Another excellent video however 'In God we trust' is the official motto of the USA and appears on the one dollar bill. Most would accept that this is referring to the Judeo-Christian concept of God. I have also read that any candidate for POTUS would kill their chance of getting elected if they were to declare themselves an atheist.

  10. I grew up in a town that made the news by having a nativity scene on it's Courthouse lawn. People from the area typically see it as a non-issue. Being one of the few atheists from that region I definitely saw it as an issue.

  11. knowing better is the best channel in youtube!

  12. 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.

  13. I generally like your videos, and have watched most of them many times. The historical videos are better suited for your delivery style. You clearly have an extreme left political leaning. That's fine, I'm a conservative extremist and I consider disagreement in political ideas to be necessary to keep either side from completely changing the government infrastructure to their desires and making life permanent misery for the opposition.

    The way that you speak so confidently about the so called "Muslim Ban" being overturned is a great example for all of your viewers to realize this is an editorial channel, not educational. Glenn Beck and Alex Jones are a bit strange in the head, but you are just as editorial as them.

    The countries listed have a common link of having civil unrest during the 2016 election cycle. The temporary restrictions were to verify we were getting accurate information on on the background checks. If the goal was to ban all Muslims as you claim, many more countries would be on the list and it would be long term. That would be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court and anyone who has read the Constitution agreed with President Trump. I will agree he is not the most elegant public speaker, but actions matter, not the spoken words. Obama was a fantastic speaker, but unfortunately he ruled as though he was a cross between Stalin and Mao. Unfortunately our grandchildren's grandchildren will suffer for Obama's actions.

  14. I have watched this video a few times now, I watched it a few months back, and three times today. For the most part, I agree with this video, I can see you have done a lot of research for it. There are a few things I would like to point out.

    The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not meant to "grant" rights to anyone. The way these documents were written suggest that you have these rights inherently, and these documents forbid the government they were attempting to establish from preventing your access to these rights. You do not have a right to choose your religion or no religion at all just because it was written down in the bill of rights, you have that right because you are a human being. This paper just says the government is not allowed to stop you from exercising that right. When these documents were written the authors had just finished a long war against a tyrannical governmental entity, so these papers were their way of protecting these rights they believed existed already from being stripped away by the government they were replacing it with.

    You are right that the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers are NOT law, however, they are referenced quite often because they give some context on what the founders meant by the way they framed the Constitution. Languages evolve over time, and after more than 200 years the English language has definitely changed quite a bit. Just over the past 25 years since I was a child we have added, stopped using, and changed the meaning of several common colloquial words used often. Looking at supporting documents helps to draw clearer meaning and understanding of legal documents written at the same time.

    I know I am just being a little nit-picky, but I felt the need to point it out. I liked this video otherwise, Keep it up.

  15. You are clearly a liar. You must know the reality of Jefferson's letter. So, I am led to believe that you do not misunderstand the rest either. You are lying about it all. One of the first things that the post independence congress did was to commission a Bible in contemporary American English to be used in schools throughout the country. You are simply pushing the domination of your own religion of Secularism.

  16. I wish that this guy would run for something.

  17. You contradicted urself within one sentence. U claimed it's definitely muslim ban yet at the same sentence u said saudi nationals who are muslim arent ban. So is it muslim ban or not? It it was muslim ban as u claim saudi people would have been included without exception. Make up ur mind.

  18. A lot of the "founding fathers" of the United States like many presidents and politicians today were Freemasons. According to the Masonic Association of North America website its members are "required to believe in "God", masons believe in one "God", and they are not indifferent to religion and actually support religion." No surprise as Free masons draw most of, if not all of their inspiration of symbolism and rituals from ancient religions. Even the back of dollars say "in God we trust" but over a pyramid strangely. Makes you wonder what is their "God"? I dont believe they believe in "Jesus" or particularly like christianity. Anyways, remember Blue laws? No? Thats ok because Im sure you remember the "pledge of allegiance" and that line about "God". Or what about when people are sworn in court for testimony?

  19. What is the outro tune?

  20. Great video, but I think you made one mistake:

    If you were arguing the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of a law, it probably would be okay to bring in the Federalist papers to talk about original intent. You might not win the argument that way, but cases before the Supreme Court have hinged on the intent of the framers.

  21. While we aren’t a Christian nation, we also aren’t an atheist nation.

  22. About the whole “you can’t practice your religion in ways that break laws” thing: do you know that Muhammad Ali was exempt from the draft because of his religious beliefs (after a drawn out court battle)?

  23. How is a preacher telling their congregation who to vote for somehow not getting involved in politics?

  24. The constitution doesn't give people rights. That opening statement misses the entire point of what the constitution is and does. That statement is actually completely backwards from what the framers intended and the understanding they all had about the nature of moral/legitimate government.

    Rights and political power (sovereignty), regardless of whether you think God exists, are by default invested in the individual people. And only by consent do they surrender some of those rights and powers to a government.

    The constitution doesn't give people rights. It actually assumes people already HAVE all the rights to do anything they want at any time. That's the whole point of creating a government and writing a constitution: you surrender certain rights/powers to do whatever you want and you write those specific things down so that hopefully the government can't then turn around and do whatever it wants.

    I know this sounds like a nit-pick to most people. But it really isn't.

  25. We are a Christian BASED nation. This does not mean that the nation as a whole is Christian but it does mean that most of our original laws are based on Judeo Christian values. Many of the rights in the Constitution are not GIVEN by the government, they are PROTECTED by the government. Human rights aren't things given to us by the government much to the LEFT's dismay.

    Now for the thing you and most people get wrong about the Jefferson letter. In the letter, he is talking about keeping the government out of the Church, not the other way around. But people cherry-pick that one phrase from the overall meaning. The wall he speaks of is meant for the churches protection. Sure the church has no business involving itself in government but the Judeo-Christian Values on top of Greek reasoning is an inherent part of our founding.

  26. By the way the verse in quran that you mentioned for Killing Homosexuals are actually telling the story of sadom (Islam condemns homosexuality but never put a clear punishment or reaction towards it )
    Also No verse in Quran ask to kill adulterous only in hadith which is doubtful right now (hadith is mostly 3rd person narrative of what prophet Muhammad said or done during his life which some time trurh and some lies and sometime verfied and some time taken out of cintext and time frame )

  27. The unscripted rant is funny…even two years later…that bastard is grinding us all down.

  28. The reason the church is not taxed is because if it were, the government would promote church to get money. The government would promote the most organized and biggest church. Use a little logic people. Taxing is fusing church and state.

  29. Watched a few of your videos – great stuff! Subscribed. Greetings from Croatia!

  30. Anyone else think it's a bit wrong for companies to be able to fire you for what you say?

  31. We need more random dumb intros

  32. 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?

  33. Animal secrafice is actually legal in US, as long as animal doesn't suffer…

  34. I have one serious issue with this video, everything else is great but favouring Middle Eastern Christians is not a breach of separation of Church and State, because they do not want to favour them because of their religion, but because they are a specifically targeted group by islamic terrorist, there is a reason why Middle Eastern Christians have fallen from 14 percent in the 1900, when the middle east was ruled by dynasties from the medieval era, to about 4% today, they are the most persecuted group there, even more than Atheists and Homosexuals, since those 2 have a better time hiding their identity, just because their reason for being persecuted is their religion, doesn't mean we should let them die, lying to ourselves that it separates church and state and also i think Atheists too should be favoured, because while they have a better time hiding their status, when found out the average repercussion is worse than that Christians face on average

  35. Islam doesn't actually support killing, that's a statement which, put in context, asks for the destruction of the oligarchs that wanted to destroy Islam.

  36. Wilsoooonn!! 👀

  37. The constituition doesn't give you rights. Rights can't be given only taken away.

  38. If we could get religion out of politics and our government we could solve a lot of our problems.

  39. 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

  40. Technically if a company fires you for saying "Merry Christmas" that can and probably should be considered violation of equal opportunity employer, as it is discrimination against a religious belief.

  41. Re: the US as a 'christian nation'- it suprises a lot of people (especially those that believe in the the-US-is-a-Christian-nation trope) to learn that many of the most influential founding fathers of the US would, by modern standards, not be considered even remotely Christian…

    People like Jefferson (who edited a Bible to remove any references to miracles and the divinity of JC), Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, Adams, Monroe, etc, were far from orthodox in their (nominal) Christianity…

    In fact, the MAJORITY of the founders are more accurately described as deists, unitarians, religious rationalists, or even agnostics and atheists… This WAS the age of enlightenment, after all.

    (Hence the references to 'providence', 'divinity', and 'god', instead of 'Jesus Christ' in their writings, tha founding documents, etc.

    The US was simply never intended to be Christian- the opposite is actually more accurate- that the US was explicitly NOT intended to be Christian in the modern sense of 'Christian' (Which was one of the main reasons for the first clause of the first amendment!)

  42. Fun fact- @1:25– 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'…

    The 'pursuit of happiness' was originally written as 'the pursuit of property'… But, the authors decided that wasn't quite as eloquent as the latter version. (Right? Good decision, IMO.)

  43. The first words out of his mouth turned me away from this video.

  44. I think we should do away with the pledge of allegiance. I can't think of any other democratic nation that does it

  45. The countries were marked under the ban were first marked by the Obama administration. The second revision of the executive order removed some countries but kept the core list. Obama made the list. Now you know better.

  46. Um….so
    Anglicans and Episcopalians are the same thing. I know this since I'm born and raised Episcopalian and also worked for the Episcopal Church. If you don't know this it makes me question your actual knowledge. Please fact check yourself before you make videos. I like your videos, and have watched many, but I have seen multiple mistakes like this and I have to wonder if you really know better.

  47. still waiting for that citizens united vid

  48. Didn’t he get the list from Obama

  49. And now we see what happens when you have a rubber stamp Supreme Court.

  50. Well, the Great Turtle is going to strike you dead.
    I have got to stop watching these videos while I'm drunk.

  51. This is by far my favorite of the videos of yours I've seen so far. Great job!

  52. You're right about most things here, but your basis on most of your videos are skewed by the liberal views that you have. In no way does the Federal Constitution offer freedom FROM religion. It offers, like everything else in the Constitution, that the Government will not throw you in jail for your religious beliefs. So it does not inhibit any government use of religious artifacts or symbolism, at all. It's nearly impossible to view it like that, you would have to be hugely anti-religion to take that view. I like you, a lot, but I suggest you work harder to separate your personal views from the facts of what your videos are about. I know how difficult that is, because it seems like what you feel is the way it is, it is not though, they are most often different.

  53. So feel free to disagree with me, but most people I talk to when they say Christian Country are referring to the demographics of America, where I think like 77% of Americans claim Christianity, kinda like how Turkey is a Secular country but 98% follow Islam

  54. So, you're saying Christians in the Middle East aren't a persecuted group and shouldn't receive priority for asylum because… why exactly? We favor religious groups all the time for the purposes of asylum. That's kind of the point. What's material for consideration of asylum eligibility is the conditions in the country of origin and whether or not that group faces prosecution there…

  55. In still tripping over that 4th verse shit like holy shit

  56. I have to say Serge, I think that for a group of religious extremists community, state, country) to force a victim of rape to carry to term, raise and love this child as her own is cruel and unusual punishement. I think stonning will come back in style soon, just like my favorite gum will. Murdering doctors, pushing them to bankruptcy, harrassment, intimidation, State driven impossible regulations motivated by religious extremism as opposed to sound medecine or fact proven science… Doesn't sound like State and "church" clear separation to me. Justice for all… yeah.
    P.S.: I think Trump has constutional TP.

  57. Religion=protected delusion

  58. Saying the law cant favor one religion over another doesnt apply anymore because the right side of politics has done their fucking damnedest to maintain control over the SCOTUS.. When Trump said he would help syrian christians, hes doing it for his base. Meaning republican christians who voted for him, which is about 70% of the total vote he received.. The number isnt 100% factual but its damn close. However, when you complain about church and state, the "christians" cry and say youre picking on them.. Ive had enough of religion in this country.. When will people wake the fuck up and realize when you die, its over? There is no second chance, you become one with the ground.. There wont be any law to protect you from separation of church and decomposition.. When you die, its over!!!

  59. Whats funny is the Russians, or most Russians are unorthodox catholics.. showing just how stupid we were and still are to this day..

  60. During the wars in the former Yugoslavia, didn't the U.S. grant refugee status to Muslims on the basis of their religion? Refugee status was granted preferentially to a religious group because their religious identity was the criteria by which they were targeted by their persecutors.It was not a case of the government promoting one religion over another in violation of the Establishment Clause, and neither was Trump's targeting Christians in Syria for relief impermissibly based on religion.

  61. I mostly agree with everything you say, but you really took the Quranic verses out of context.

    First
    8:12 talks about what to when meeting the disbelievers in the time of the prophet in battle and thus an order to fight them because they were at war with them. It does not state to ''kill all disbelievers'' as you stated.

    Second
    7:80-7:84 Does not tell Muslims to kill Homosexuals. These verses are a part of the story of the Prophet Lut and how God punished these people.
    These verses are no command to Muslims and no legal ruling.

  62. No murdering and no stealing aren't religious ideas.

  63. It seems rather naive to state that the United States is not in danger/will never be taken over by a religion's "law." The Constitution only protects as long as those in the country, including people/citizens and government respect it and uphold it.

  64. Trump didn't ban all Muslims like he wanted

  65. Actually, in the 1960s someone sang that fourth verse at the start of an Orioles baseball.

    The next day, Baltimoreans were righteously outrage that “some damned hippies turned our song,” it was after all written about Fort McHenry in Baltimore so we had a certain proprietary feeling about it, “into something about peace and the war being over.”

    Yeah, no. But here it is so you can see what was so awful about that.

    “O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
    Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
    Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
    And this be our motto – "In God is our trust,"
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
    O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

    Damned hippies.

  66. I think the references to God in american politics are cultural richness, I use them because it's cool.

  67. Liberty is an endowed unalienable right… but not free speech? Isnt free speech a part of liberty?

  68. Bro… why is your house so empty/clean… (says the father of 3)

  69. Our town hall has a Christmas tree and hannukia during the holidays.

  70. In English pretexts, separation of church and state has to do with preventing government intrusion on religion. It is true that in French pretexts, it means the reverse, but the US operates under English pretexts.
    Historically, the idea comes from seeking religious liberty from persecution of non-Anglicans by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.
    The First Amendment only prohibits the government from promoting or persecuting religion. Ideas stemming from religious ideas are allowed to be incorporated into law as long as they don’t directly promote or persecute any religious groups.
    When you say that the US is not a Christian nation, you need to specify what you mean by that. Counter Arguments did a whole video breaking down the argument, and whether or not that statement is true is extremely dependent on how you mean the US to be Christian (also, you should point out that that doesn’t make us an atheist nation).
    About how you can do things your religion requires and avoid doing things it prohibits as long as you obey the law, you VASTLY oversimplified that. Religious liberty vs. certain laws that could violate it is a hotly debated, hotly litigated issue (possibly a new video?).
    Gutting the Johnson Amendment is not necessarily unconstitutional (as long as Trump is operating within the restraints of Article 2), primarily because again: under English pretexts, religious influence on government is not prohibited; the government simply must treat all religious groups equally.
    That said, I can agree that clergy becoming political activists is a problem. As a Catholic, I have not been to any church where the Homily turned political at all. Giving religious officials positions in government can corrupt their ability to be spiritual leaders.
    And the travel ban argument (it’s a Muslim ban because the majority of people affected are Muslims) is dubious for a few reasons: a) it’s a slippery slope that could lead to perfectly common sense policies being struck down for being discriminatory in the future, b) the text of the ban itself mentions nothing about religion (as Chief Justice John Roberts even notes), c) the First Amendment only applies to Congress, and d) not every Muslim-majority country was banned (there are probably some more that Trump should have banned, and others that were perfectly fine).
    And yes, I know it’s possible to hide discrimination behind other metrics, but it’s worth noting that many people in the most extremist parts of the Middle East want all of us dead, so not letting them into the nation is probably smart.

  71. Are ferrets Christians?

  72. 6:14–6:20
    "The Soviets we're atheist and secular, and actively oppressed religion"
    Knowing Better, you do know that oppressing religion is not secular right? You said yourself that the USU doesn't opress a religion because it's secular.
    I really love your content but you need to be more careful about the terms you use in order to avoid contradictions like this.

  73. Would explicitly banning Muslims (or any group) really be unconstitutional, though? The Constitution really only applies to those under our jurisdiction, which is essentially citizens and those with legal status. Just as how the 14th only applies to people within US jurisdiction, you would think that laws and policies regarding religious freedom would be the same. I don’t think that a foreigner from across the world has any right under our laws from discrimination. Even though prioritizing or prohibiting immigration from a certain religious group would be questionable, I think the US government has the power to decide who comes into the country. It is supposed to look out for and protect our rights, not all the people of the world.

  74. Yes, some of their freedoms become oppressed if that church/organization is in fact 501(c)(3). You can be a church/organization legally in the US and not be 501(c)(3). The US government just makes it harder to run as a church/organization not under 501(c)(3) by limiting it’s banking, or discouraging people’s contribution towards that organization by not being about to get a tax exemption, etc. I’m sure there’s more to the law that am not aware that makes it harder to operate as a non 501(c)(3) organization, but in short you can legally operate a church/organization and not be classified under 501(c)(3).

  75. 9:00 -ish. And some stiff Auntie might not just be racist against all Muslims he might just be racist against all people from the Middle East and Arabs in general 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤣😂🤣😂😭😭😭💀💀💀💀🤬🤬

  76. TIL: there are 4 verses to the national anthem….

  77. Trump just added North Korea and Venezuela to the list of banned countries and the Supreme Court went along with this. What a fucking travesty.

  78. The video is good and all, but I really like that Nuka Cola picture on your wall, I want it

  79. He really just sent “K” lmao😂😂😂

  80. When people say the USA is a Christian nation they are referring to the fact that Christianity is a majority faith and the religion of society

  81. 4:23 those rules in Deuteronomy and Leviticus only applied to Hebrews in ancient Israel, those aren’t actual religious rules that apply to Christianity, or to Judaism anymore.

  82. I really wish that it wasn't just people in line with your beliefs, who are inclined to agree with you on most topics, who watch your videos (going by the like bar). The people who need to watch this, probably never will… What's your most polarising video been?

  83. Must be nice to live in a country that has a clear separation of church and state. Meanwhile I have to go to the citiy hall to leave my church and therefore stop paying church tax, that is only collected for the catholic and lutheran church, not for other denominations or religions. I did not consent to be a member of the lutheran chruch in the first place, since baptism is when someone enters and I was baptised as a baby. Why is it so muddied in Germany?

  84. 'Bet you didn't know about the 4th verse'. . .

    . . .yah well. . . Now i know better.

  85. Please understand that the Constitution of the United States does not convey rights to the people. It enumerates some of the rights which are already held as a birthright and it forbids the government from curtailing certain of them.

  86. This is bond to start a religous fire on religion vs state

  87. Who told you the Federalist Papers can't be used in the Supreme Court? Theyr'e all over the place: in argument, in majority opinion, in dissent…also free speech is covered under the "liberty" part of the phrase

  88. Show me the text of the "Muslim Ban" where Muslims are banned from the county?

    Didn't think so.

  89. 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.

  90. the less religion the better. no religion at all would be ideal

  91. he didn't even mention Venezuela, or North Korea on the ban. both aren't Muslim.

  92. 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.

  93. Also, I would like to hear a discussion regarding having free speech, but being told you are being ungrateful and ought to shut your mouth unless you support *insert argument here*. This is HUGE in the United States, and it drives me fucking MENTAL. Please, talk about this.

  94. The idea of secularism, separation of church and state, benefits both religion and government. People who don't get that should study history.

  95. Correction animal sacrafice IS protected under the first amendment it's been contested and won by voodoo and santaria practioners in court. Where it usually runs afoul of the law is zoning laws and religious groups not addressing those.

  96. now when you say "from" does that mean we can do anything we want or because it spacifically says of this means partaining to a religion you choose to be a part of. The only pepole saying from are the ones that dont recognize when they die they would gladly go to hell to burn and judge everyone else who trys to make their life better with a belief system that reaches up instead of one that torchers others and like athiest puts others beliefs in a gas chamber to be murdered. FROM IS DIFFERENT THEN OF. IT SHOULD BE SAID THAT YOU ARE INTENTLY TRYING TO PREACH YOUR OWN BELIEF SYSTEM THAT CONTRADICTS LIFE AND APPRECIATES NO GOD… Think about this too if there really was a GOD then we would have science to study because someone who knows better would want all the humans to not get lost or trip out of the evolutionary goo that also means life is pointless. Or is it?.

  97. Calling it a “Muslim Ban” is factually incorrect, millions of Iraqi and Syrian Christians have been denied entry to the U.S. and saying it’s a ban of only Muslims is ignoring their plight and essentially saying they don’t exist.

  98. When people say their rights are given to them from God, they are in fact not usually referring to the Declaration Of Independence or any other government related document, they are expressing a belief on morally acceptable bounds of government. It is missing the point of a "God given" right to ask what legal document gives the right.

Comment here