I'm back! I've been away for a while travelling and researching. The talk I gave in California should soon be available, so keep your eyes peeled. This video took a lot of time to research and produce. I hope you find it worth my efforts. All sources can be found in the description - if I've missed any, please let me know. Finally, let me know what you think of the video, did you hold any of the misconceptions I brought up?
it's the way America should be. take all gods out of the equation. leave your worship in church or at home or in your head. it has no place in the operation of a free country. no more apologizing to Muslims or Christians or whatever. if you want religious bias then promptly relocate elsewhere. I bet you'll miss America QUICKLY. nice work alex.
hgpo27 it is in all but name. The south is extremely religious and are numerous enough to influence decisions. The Constitution helps defend other religions and atheists, but it only goes so far. For example, my state has a law banning atheists from office, but I could fight that on constitutional grounds and win, but I probably wouldn't get elected because my voters are heavily Christian
Here's hoping the evangelicals falling all over themselves to support Trump is the death-throws on the fundamentalist control of our national government.
On one hand, I fully agree. On the other hand, I live in the Bible Belt, and I can't come out as a bisexual or atheist because my community would disown me.
Glitchboy Gaming what state? I live in Kansas and there are plenty of gay people here. Nobody gives a shit. Same as Missouri. I'm not saying your specific town isn't backwoods hillbilly. Simply that I see no persecution or hear of any overall. Maybe it's time for you to move? Some places will likely not change for some time and honestly it's their right. Atheism though, yeah. That's worse than being a pedophile in many people's eyes around here. Still, it's their right. Most, again, don't care.
Eric Albers I live in Texas one of the most prejudiced states as I know that I will be disowned from my family whom are Catholics the town I live in full of Christians and wish to leave as I will shortly the only good thing is my friends who accept me so I have a support system
MX Vlogs Ouch, I can see Texas being that way in smaller town's. I was stationed in San Antonio years ago and it wasn't bad for those I knew were gay. Even in the military (Army). Either way, at least you have a group to surround yourself with. That's the best thing other than moving.
It's sad, many people in my area in the U.S. are SO religious, my science teacher goes on and on about how "a puppy will never give birth to a kitten" in order to disprove evolution, which she is supposed to be teaching. Oh yeah, and she preached at me about Jesus when I told her she was ridiculous. Kill me
you should report them to the district administrators because unless you go to a private school, they're not allowed to force religion into your education.
If that were me I'd stand up and laugh in her face. Might get detention, but then I would just carry on laughing in hysterics until they were all convinced I had gone crazy. Just saying that, in my country both religious indoctrination and also patronism is definitely not the norm. In fact, we are pretty much encouraged to criticise the government from an early age.
@@jerrodmecca7745 The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Check again
Sorry but, as a Brit, I have to say that's bollocks. A great majority of Brits are atheist or just don't care about religion. We have some Muslims, who we allow freedom of worship. In time their descendants will wean themselves away from their religion, seeing it is un-necessary, just as Christians generally are doing. Religion is just not a big deal for us.
@@brochestedbs Got to agree, the church had so much power within state and in some ways does have some power through our leaders. I remember late 60's early 70's, we had outdated laws like not being able to buy bread on a Sunday. Chinese takeaways could open but chips shops couldn't.
The British educate their people, we don't. Christian schools, home schooling, etc. How are you giving your kids an advantage by not letting them associate with the people they will have to live and work with?
Last Sunday, I watched in disbelief as my neighbor mowed his yard. I loaded up my shotgun and set out to do God's work. I marched through the hedges and had him in my sights, when all of a sudden, my conscious kicked in, and remembered that the Bible and all bronze aged texts were written during a period of human pre-history when nobody had the slightest idea what was going on, except for the Chinese. The Chinese never saw the flood that covered the earth. Their dynasty somehow missed that chapter.
Dustin 3423 _"...the Bible and all bronze aged texts were written during a period of human pre-history..."_ As far as I know, written language is the dividing line between prehistory and history, so there are no prehistoric books.
MrPoster42 idk writing is a little different. You can argue in writing and state your opinions in writing but if you received an A for saying we are officially a Christian nation and you weren't writing an argumentative piece in English class. That is sad. That's bad history teaching. In public schools.
I'm pretty sure that either the teacher was a Christian who believed the propagandist history already. Or she didn't want to chance facing fundamentalist parents calling for her job for pushing "evil liberal/atheist agendas" by telling their child "America wasn't Christian". Which given a school in the Bible Belt would not likely support such a teacher in some ways I would understand even if i ideally would wish she had challenged me (or any others) for reports that are clearly just not factual in nature. I was a good student so getting As was not uncommon. I'm sure the report was well written/constructed. However the conclusion is just objectively not true.
The problem isn't that it was made to be a Christian nation, but that it is becoming one despite the original purpose of the founding fathers. More laws are being pushed forward and passed every year to provide benefits to religious propagation while attempting to limit understanding of the topics that would provide a basis for questioning the religious texts. This is easy to see in scholastic circles, watch AronRa for more specific examples. The motto having changed with Eisenhower, for instance, is something that most Christians don't know, because they only know the current motto without ever questioning what it was before, if there ever was a before. Actual research is much more difficult than just claiming everything you like has nothing you don't like in it because you never paid any attention to inconvenient truths or didn't care enough to question. Christians regularly do this with the Bible, why does it surprise anyone when they do it with everything else? Christians are, unfortunately, a majority in America. Calling America Christian is a tactic to make Christians more patriotic and take more of an interest in politics, as Trump has successfully done. It's what he does, he takes the biggest thing that people like and says he likes it too. Pandering is hardly a new idea, and the attempt to teach a god-free worldview to kids has given Christians that didn't pay attention in elementary school a persecution complex which makes his job even easier.
Out of one, many? I’ve been saying that for years. We’re about 8 different countries and our system was never designed, and never will be able to, govern more than 20 million people. It’s time to break up! 😅
@@amygilmore9203 A stable community of human beings united by a common culture; and, usually in the modern sense, confined within a defined territory of land.
@@Anglomachian ye so the american people are a nation, and christianity was the religion that the vast majority of them followed and continue to follow to this day. Therefore america is a christian nation
I beg to differ. It depends where on Earth you are. General relativity dictates that time passes differently in different gravitational fields! So this only works if you look at 60 seconds at Africa and compare it to that exact same location. But generally it doesn't hold! It depends on your position on Earth. Dang
I know this question has nothing to do with the video at hand but some of the people here seem reasonable and intelligent enough so could any of you address a question that I have regarding the flat Earth? I originally responded to a flat Earther attempting to explain light refraction, I initially said: "Refraction over the surface of the Earth is well known and can be seen by ships appearing to float on top of the water in the ocean. It occurs BECAUSE the Earth is curved with a layer of air which has a different density due to temperature and humidity right on top of another layer. As the light from a distant object travels and the Earth curves that light wave will eventually hit the higher layer of different density due to the curvature and will be bent either upward or downward depending on which layer is the denser of the two. The bending is very slight, usually less than a degree in order to see a skyline over the horizon. It doesn't take much. It is the curvature that helps make the refraction in most cases unless there just happens to be a cold or hot packet of air between the viewer and the object. Typical refraction is one layer on top of the other. If the Earth were flat, then the light would simply go through the lower layer and not refract. But, due to the curvature, it eventually hits the higher layer which bends it." Pretty reasonable response right? She responded back by saying: "Your refraction explanation is fitted to your ball model. Interesting that it always precisely negates the claimed curvature, or compensates for it, in order to show the viewer what ought to be obscured by water at that remove. At a 6, 8 or 10 mile viewing range on a calm day, how much humidity/density variation do you think would be present a foot or two above the water? Honestly, you ball trolls never fail to entertain." Can anybody explain this?
@@RagicalPlays the separation is different from the first amendment. Separation of church and state comes from a letter written by Jefferson it is not the law. The first amendment really applies for establishing an institution like the Church of England and for religious freedom in general. But in reality there is not a legal position of separation of church and state. The state can in fact make laws supporting churches like special tax laws or provide federal aid if a church is struck by a natural disaster.
George Carlin: "What if they gave you a backwards, upside-down, written in Chinese braille bible with half the pages missing to swear on? Would that count?" Of course he was talking about the courtroom.
I absolutely love how passionate you are in relation to the things you talk about. You leave no stone unturned by way of backing up everything you say and you always site your sources. Is it weird that I actually feel immensely proud of this guy? He's so young but such a positive member of society. Seriously, you're going to go very, very far in life and I couldn't be happier for you.
Hey Alex, love your channel! I'm writing an argumentative essay for my college comp class, I'm writing against religion in science classes/separation of church and state; I am going to use some of the information you have provided here but will give full credit in my citations/bibliography, keep up the awesome work! You are an inspiration!
Shorey I think you also should look at population status per country and match those with that of the population in jail. We have high population in the US so therefore more people will be in jail than that of other smaller countries.
The US _does_ have the largest prison population by percentage of population, of the so-called free world. I seem to recall they're more like China than any of the other "free" countries.
Thank you for this! Another great video, very impressed by your knowledge for your age. So glad to see someone who can do their research and use facts and not feelings.
@@sandraolson8635 and @Chase You are exceptions to the rule. The membership of the Republican Party leans heavily Christian, and they are the party of the Bible thumpers. You'll find very few, if any, Christian fundamentalists among the Democrats. Honestly, I think it's a shame. If the fundies scattered themselves among the parties then their influence would tend to cancel itself out. Not going to happen, though. The Democrats generally progressive agenda, wanting to change the country to be more dynamic and inclusive, is not going to appeal to people who want to maintain the status quo and their position of religious privilege.
@@davidstorrs thats not so much the case anymore, you may have been right 10-20 yrs ago. but right wing politics have heavily shifted from a religious/moral grounds to more economic and personal freedoms/ america first policies. i mean, the left is pushing for socialism, censorship and flooding america with economic and religious migrants
@@nocthemedic2951 I started to react with a casual dismissal of what I feel is propaganda, but your post has some real historical awareness and analysis in it, implying that you're actually worth having a discussion with. As to the Bible-thumpers being Republicans, I feel that your points are not relevant to what I was saying. Yes, I will agree that the Republican party nowadays spends more time talking about economics and nationalism (note: not patriotism) than they do about religion. Despite that, you won't find many Democrats arguing for laws on theistic grounds whereas Republicans are all about that. As one obvious example: Their opposition to gay marriage is based on religious grounds. ("Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve") As to the portrayal of the left as "pushing socialism", I think that's a misapprehension and I'd like to try to convince you why. Let me preface this by saying that hopefully we can both acknowledge that generalizations like "the left" and "the right" and "conservatives" and "liberals" are just that -- generalizations. Not everyone in those groups wants the same things, so all of this is referring to overall trends. With that stipulated, I think the real difference between liberals and conservatives is in the ethical systems they follow. In my experience, conservatives follow virtue ethics: an action is right or wrong depending on how it aligns with certain pre-selected principles, such as self-sufficiency and self-determination. Universal health care is bad under virtue ethics because it involves some people being forced to spend money on other people despite not wanting to do that, thereby reducing their freedom. Liberals, on the other hand, generally follow consequentialism: an action is right or wrong depending on what its effect will be. Universal health care is good under consequentialism because it will have better outcomes in the real world. Among those outcomes is the fact that universal health care is good for the economy. Don't believe me? Imagine Bob. Bob served in the military out of high school, but he's a civilian now. He works a good blue-collar job that pays a decent wage -- maybe construction worker or long-haul trucker. He has a wife, Alice, who works as a waitress, or in retail, or etc. They have two young kids; Charlie is 16, gets good grades, and is a bit of a nerd -- he thinks computers are awesome and wants to be a programmer some day. Debby is 13 and a tomboy who likes to play football with her dad, but she's also great with people and started her first business (a lemonade stand) when she was 6. Alice and Bob aren't rich, but they're not poor either, and they've never asked anyone for anything. There's a roof over their heads, food on the table, and they're putting a tiny bit aside every month into a college fund, and they're doing it all on their own. Sure, college will have to be state school and there will need to be financial aid, but it's attainable. Charlie and Debby could both get degrees and end up better off than their parents. Sure, after living expenses and the college fund there's not enough for savings or health insurance, but Alice and Bob have their priorities straight and their kids are the most important thing. Then one day Bob notices that he's often getting up in the middle of the night to pee and his feet sometimes tingle. It's not a big deal and there's no money for doctors so he doesn't think much about it...until his feet start swelling up, go necrotic, and need to be cut off. Of course, this all happens at the ER, because Alice and Bob have no insurance and the ER isn't allowed to turn anyone away. Alice and Bob can't pay the bill, so the hospital eats it and raises their rates in order to pass the cost on to people who CAN pay. Meanwhile, Bob is out of the workforce. That decent-paying job is gone and the family is now heavily in the red. The college fund is now going towards paying rent and groceries. Charlie drops out of school so he can get a job to help keep the family afloat. Debby is too young for that, but she's getting all the baby-sitting and other tween-appropriate work she can find, even though it heavily cuts into her study time and kills her grades. She's sure not getting financial assistance with those new grades, so forget college. Those bright futures? Gone. Pretty bleak, huh? Now contrast it with what happens when there's universal health care: Bob notices that he's often getting up in the middle of the night to pee and his feet sometimes tingle. He goes to the doctor for a checkup, which is free because of Medicare For All. The doctor says "Oh, hey, you have Type II diabetes. Good thing we caught it early before it caused real problems. Take this Metformin twice a day, exercise, and follow the dietary guidelines in this pamplet. Come back in three months for an A1C test." Bob follows the directions and remains healthy. Charlie and Debby go to college. After graduation Debby founds a tech startup with Charlie as her lead engineer. They company is successful; after a few years they're employing a dozen people and making a top-line revenue of several million. Sure is a good thing that their dad had free health care, huh? I could do similar breakdowns for your other points about "the left", but hopefully the point is made. The left isn't evil and we're not out to ruin the country. We're simply more focused on the outcomes than on a specific set of arbitrary principles, and the data generated by the rest of the world proves that universal health care more than pays for itself, as well as saving a lot of lives.
When you were pointing out that "Creator" isn't by definition a Christian-only concept it got me thinking about my own aggravations regarding the trespasses of religion. "Love your brother." "Oh how Christian of you to say that." Yeah, like Christianity was the first time THAT concept was put forward. >_> Honestly I think religion and spirituality should be done in a general way, always. Broad concepts, no specifics. A concept like knowing the difference between serving someone and pleasing them is a wonderful insight. Moses climbing a mountain to get two carved tombstones with text on them from a burning shrub (probably getting the story all wrong) is just stupid and has no place in logical discourse.
I don't actually consider that too much of an issue. Prejudice versus non-Christians IS a thing. If instead of that I let someone know me complexly, then explain to them my resistance to specifics/supernatural, I kind of circumvent that prejudism.
How do you know? You have no way of discovering knowing or experiencing anything about the past, for all you know, "love thy neighbour" was a common principle for all men (human beings)
Absolutely brilliant video. The extensive research shows! A pleasure to watch, and I was delighted you highlighted the distinction between atheism and secularism towards the end. Well done mate! :)
This video has been up for a little while and I kept avoiding watching it because I already know America is not a Christian nation and I've done a lot of research on that topic. But I decided to go ahead and watch the video because I figured that I might learn something new. And boom, I did. Alex teaching a lifelong American a thing or two. Love this channel. I'm always learning.
Darth Jar jar Neither was the USSR or China. Did the workers own the means of production in those countries? No, so they weren't communist. The state owned the means of production, so they were statist. Not the same thing at all.
Grimbeard+ Thank you very much. Knowing that in this word still remain someone capable to acknowledge something so bloody obvious iver all the propaganda and indoctrination of the mass media gives me hope.
America is indeed a secular nation filled with a mostly religious people. I know this. I'm an American. I am also a philosophical agnostic. And I approve of this situation. Thank you for posting this video.
I just can't comprehend how your dealing with truth, self reflection and objective thought (and maturity) is on this level with 18? I'm turning 30 and fought though many issues to get to this point and at that age I was a narcissistic, mindless fool. Respect
It's crazy to think that in 2019 we have almost the same arguments the founding fathers had all them years ago. It really gives you perspective on how hard it is to come to an agreement on religion and how people look at it in government and media through out time. Good work I love all your videos you give such good information and you say it in really easy to understand whys.
I'm glad we're not a Christian nation, I don't want entire towns slaughtered for not beleiving! EDIT: This is satire I know these were the orders given to the Israelites not the Christians
AGAIN, you take things out of context and this is what you get. IGNORANCE ON A RANT. THEY WERE SACRIFICNG BABIES ON ALTERS! SO HE JUDGED THEM!!! WOULDNT YOU HAVE????
If you enjoy audiobooks, Thomas Paine's aforementioned "The Age of Reason" is available here on RU-vid, he demolishes the Bible with some razor like arguments. Well worth a listen. A truly great man.
I loved that. ❤ It was very understandable and clear. Straight to the point. Witty and knowledgeable. Great explanation of secularism. All around wonderful video.
Im gonna use some of your arguements for a college project. Its a steven crowder style social expirement called "I dont believe in God, change my mind."
It is a sure sign of an infant, that the creature uses that asinine and infantile term "dude", but since the puppy-mouse is indeed infantile, it has some application.
@@vhawk1951kl it is a sure sign of an elitist, that a man insults another based merely upon their word choice, one of which does not hinder but rather helps the conveying of tone or meaning between the two, fulfilling the purpose of speaking at all, and then thinks himself smart by communicating an elongated kindergarteners quip
Alex, I just donated to your Patreon account. Don't worry about providing me with anything more than your videos! Keep the money to pay for whatever! Thanks for being there. Mark
So refreshing to have a place to direct people toward for proper analysis of information. The fact that you decided to take the best evidence FOR it being a Christian nation first, and then deconstruct it, was exactly what was needed and so often not made a priority. By taking care of this first, you cut out *almost all pointless rebuttal* (I stress almost) that would attempt to state that it IS a Christian nation. It saves everyone time and patience they don't have. Your videos get more refined with each one, as opposed to getting lazier like some channels like this inevitably fall to. Keep up the great work Alex. Your content is fantastic.
Answer : Hell No. It's is and always has been a Secular nation. The majority of people in a nation doesn't define said nation. With is why we all live in a *Democracy* and Not a *Theocracy* . Furthermore. America for instance, has *alot* of different religions. Meaning it *Cannot* be defined as a Christian nation.
Good thing were not a Christian nation, or else we'd be stoning gays EDIT: This is satire I know these were the orders given to the Israelites not the Christians
Elijah Dunn Except we probably wouldn't do that because Christians haven't done that for centuries because of the reformation. The only Christian country that still does that is Uganda. But almost all Muslim majority countries do that
Wow it's almost like religion is fucking shitty and when we get stuck in the 1st century when we look for our morality, it isn't right. So why don't we bin it all? Because Christians caught up to one part of the program? Congrats, you're a semi-decent person, despite your religion.
I've never felt the need to comment before, as you are one of the most brilliant young man I've seen on RU-vid so far, but I think you missed the point (for once!). You stick to the text-book definition of what America is, should, or would be, but for the first time you seem to ignore the facts. For exemple, you say that thinks like "in God we trust" on dollar bills only happened after the 50's. Okay, but we ARE after the 50's, right know, and it therfore defines what america is NOW. A state that puts God on it's bills. You say swearing on the bible isn't a requirement during the presidential inauguration (or when taking a oath on a trial), and I've seen in the comments people say that some presidents swore on a law-book, but the fact that nearly every president, and certainly every president since de 50's, HAVE sworn on the bible, says something about the kind of man America wants at it's head. The rumors about Obama being a Muslim seriously jeopardised his chances while they were active during his first run for presidency, and I don't remember any party risking a non-christian candidate, ever. You even play on words, because... come on.. What could they ever have meant by "Creator" ? Lord Xenu ? Or like, the Mother as a person's creator ? It's cleary a reference to God, made by people aware that a religious state is a terrible idea but who still want a god in the mythos to keep religious people rooting for it (as themselves, although you claim it's irrelevent). How about the fact that corporations can now have religious rights and can act on them without any problem ? I feel like you avoided the subject to make a pointless demonstration that the country wasn't "designed" as christian, but if you face facts and not the ideals, it is and has almost always been. I guess the UK also still has God in it's system (God save the Queen), but most non-religous countries have banned every religous reference from their governement, laws and declarations. I'm French, and The French President would be badly seen if he ever included a detour to a church during his presidential inauguration, or a reference to god in his speech, or swore on a religious book. They always stick to symbols of the state and the republic. Even our extremists are mostly-quiet on the religious side -well, with their OWN religion of course... And when we had our last religious debate, it was on baning any religious signs, even a cross on a necklace, from public spaces and places. Which is extreme, I guess, but more importantly for this subject, is the complete opposite of the US, who go as far as building communities and towns organised around their religious beliefs, mostly based on some variation of christianity (mormons, born-agins, evangelists etc...). Hence, why the rest of the world, and mostly Europe, view the US as a religious -if not christian per-say- state, and why I think you missed the point with this video. You didn't say it isn't christian, you said it's not supposed to be, which is a big difference... Cause that's a belief... not a fact or a conclusion based on observation ! Mister Skeptic ;)
Durendal1 While you may have some truth in there, you are (in my opinion) ignoring the fact, that still to this day every political Person has had at least some references to the founding fathers in one way or another. So let‘s say you are correct. And the definition of the USA is defiened by its current state of beeing, than well why would americans listen or quote the founding fathers in the first place? Or am I misunderstanding something here. By the way I am not an US American, I am from Austria. So, sorry for my bad english and have a good day, sir!
Nope..... we are now & always have been a secular nation. There are some ignorant nutters who would believe differently because they think that everyone should live by their beliefs that they can't even follow themselves. #SecularNation
Durendal *What could they ever have meant by "Creator" ?* Some of the founders were deists so they could have meant just that... a creator. Saying it MUST mean yahweh is xian spin. *view the US as a religious if not christian per-say state* The US is a secular country with a very large amount of theists.
A christian nation and a nation of christians are 2 different things. The majority are christian so it only makes sense that after communism that feeling was intensified and tradition took place. Doesnt mean that it is.
Fun fact - originally, the First Amendment applied only to Congress, i.e., to the federal government, not to states. Individual states technically could set up an official religion. After the Civil War, the courts used the 14th Amendment (requiring due process and equal protection at the state level) to apply many of the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) to the states, so now states are also bound by the First Amendment.
The rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were taken from John Locke's philosophy. Locke said that those rights are fundamental rights given to Adam by God and passed down by birthright. Even if Jefferson wasn't Christian, he wrote Christian ideas into the Declaration of Independence.
Mike Hermida 😡 Life, liberty and happiness. Do you really claim these to be specific to Christianity? If you answer yes, then what do you offer non Christians instead? Is friendship exclusively Christian? Or compassion? Or kindness? Explain the social, economic, ethnic and religious divisions in your nation, given your adherence to Christianity. Which version of Christianity do you profess to believe? I await your response with interest. Regards from 🇬🇧
Sir Meow The Library Cat, I don't think that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are exclusively Christian. However, I think (but I might be wrong about this) that the reason Jefferson picked those rights to be the fundamental one was because he was a Christian. Best wishes from Canada, eh?
Very good. Very accurate. One quibble, though... it is true that Jefferson's first draft did not refer to a "Creator" but it did explicitly refer to "nature's god". The meaning of this phrase "nature's god" is ambiguous and controversial, but we should not pretend that it is not there.
Admittedly a minor error but I still thought I'd mention it. "In God we trust" has been on money since the 1800s but it was first put on "paper money" in 1956
Alex, I love listening to you talking. Unfortunately I am speech disabled, and can only be "eloquent" in writing. That being said; you speak as I wish that I could. I was recently working on a manuscript eluding to "mathematics determines actual operational reality" entitled "Pilates Dilemma". Sadly my publisher rejected my first draft saying "it is too like 'The Ascent of Man' by Jacob Bronkowski". I looked that book up and read it and decided that my publisher was correct, Bronkowski said what I wanted, and did it so very well! Much better than I had been able write. You remind me of the polish of Jacob Bronkowski, and what I had wished for myself as a young man (I am now 64). I enjoy listening to you and following your lines of reasoning, and wish that I could voice things like that. But sadly I am limited to writing, lacking a voice. For the record, I am a recovering Catholic. But now am "Cosmic Skeptic" (If I might take the liberty of borrowing your own title).
Devil's advocate here. The establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) is one of the most common pieces of evidence invoked to refute the notion of the USA being founded as a Christian nation, but this argument has a hole in it that I discovered the hard way. The principle of federalism, the sharing of power between different levels of government, meant that the Bill of Rights originally applied to only the federal government and that state governments were free to ignore its provisions, such as the establishment clause. The result of this is that almost all of the original 13 states' constitutions contained laws based on religious doctrine. If I remember correctly, seven states explicitly established religions. A couple of caveats: It must be noted that the last state to do away with its established religion did so in 1833. Also, a state government is no longer able to establish a religion since the Bill of Rights now applies to states as well as the federal government. This is because the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which was passed in 1868) allows for incorporation of the Bill of Rights - making it applicable to state governments on a clause-by-clause basis. The establishment clause was incorporated in 1947.
Isaac Weintraub this is false because there is a supremacy clause in the constitution which means all federal laws, treaties, and constitution took precedence over state ones.
Actually it's not. It was assumed that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, and the Supreme Court held that this was the case in Barron v. Baltimore (1833).
Isaac Weintraub and the bill of rights pertains to every American citizens therefore all states. What part of ALL federal laws hold precedence of state is so hard to understand. A federal law doesn't not just affect federal things, since the Feds are the parents of all states.
Isaac Weintraub also in 1897 in the Supreme Court case, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the bill of rights applied to all state governments.
As stated previously, the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government. This was both assumed due to the principle of federalism as well as fear of a strong central government and upheld by the Supreme Court. However, once the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, the Bill of Rights could be (and since been) made applicable to the states. If a state were to establish an official religion today, it would be blatantly unconstitutional. Back in the early years of the USA's existence, since the Bill of Rights did not yet apply to the states, the Supremacy Clause was irrelevant in matters of state-level establishment of religion. Considering whether or not the USA is a Christian nation, this is relevant since at its foundation the individual states did have the ability to establish Christianity (and several did) even though they don't today.
Alex, I adore your videos since the beggining, in all ways. Although i can't help but be bothered by the constant naming the USA as "America." Seeing it is an entire largely founded continent. It's a historical sin basically. Cringeworthy level to anyone who lives in any country in America who isn't the United States. Our histories are diverse and we were colonized on different religious perpectives (although all europeans were christians, there were different political effects, including differences between catholic founded south america and calvinist founded USA).
NamelessHere Forevermore - The Americas includes both North and South America, the correct name of this nation is The United States OF America. We are the US.
Right, the point of my question was to point out that the US is the only *country* with America in its name. That is why it's the only *country* that is called America.
NamelessHere Forevermore it's called united states of america, although America is the correct name of the continent, it's incoherent to call it that way. if someone from your country comes to mine and says "i'm from america," if the person listening doesn't know american english or your culture, they'll be legitmetly confused. like "dude.. you haven't left america" Puritans in the US were like one of the last ones to get in the continent.
@@antropophilia Not true. Others in the Americas outside of the US call the USA America. If you're saying you're from America, the only reasonable conclusion is they're talking about the USA. Nobody tends to say they're from a continent. They say they're from a country. And, as others correctly pointed out, only one country can be reasonably called America.
I absolutely love seeing a new video from you! I've been waiting for weeks to see a new one checking my feed everyday😂 I also just so happened to be looking into this exact topic recently☺️
Nations change m8. It was founded on secular values, however, I would say it is a Christian nation now, judged by the population being majorly Christian
44mikk So Germany isn't a German nation anymore? I mean native Germans are the minority now. No, I'm not talking about the refugees though they do contribute to the total.
in the south religion is still somewhat forced, without force religion wouldnt be the huge thing it is today Also, 44mikk, perhaps you dont have to be native German to be German but you do have to be culturally Germanic. The immigrants, while they may be citizens of Germany, are not truly Germans because they tend to not assimilate (I know that some do assimilate but the majority dont).
I find your videos really interesting. I'm seventeen myself and enjoy getting more information on the topics you bring up. I also really admire that you don't use hate against hate but answer constructively. + you could visit Finland some time
In my town’s cookout, they have crucifixes besides the doors to the bathrooms and the Ten Commandments between them, and there’s always modern Christian music playing constantly..
