Jefferson's Wall | Church and State 

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

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.

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: 🤓

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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 RU-vid 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 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.

I was gonna say the coin thing too. Although it usually just looks like “In God Trust”

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.

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.

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!

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks. And it takes more people like you sharing and spreading it in order to get me more exposure :) I can only do so much without being called a spammer...

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.

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!)

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

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

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.)

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.

...later that day... Mission Accomplished!

Later that day ...53k! Exponential growth!

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

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.

Too bad it didn't specify the right to be recognized as human by the gov't.

We really are living in the worst possible timeline.

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.

Yep! I'm sure yours said the same as mine. "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it!" ;-)

And you were also smart enough to change the wording of your second amendment. We should do the same and for very similar reasons.