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.

Posts Tagged with…

Reader Comments

  1. Deborah Smith

    Yes, but I might add that no political candidate who is an Atheist can ever be Elected int the Us, so Religion has more influence than we know.

  2. J Giles

    Preferring religious groups over others as refugees could invoke the seriousness of the danger they are in if they don’t come here, so I don’t think this could be seen as a violation

  3. dax kat

    The US is not officially a Christian nation, but it IS a nation of lots of Christians. Granted, also lots of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. But the US government recognizes the most widely celebrated holiday on the calendar, Christmas, as a federal holiday, and it is still officially known as "Christmas Day." Not "Gifting Day" or "Most People Get the Day Off Day" or any other secular name. Why is that if we are not basically a Christian nation? Nobody can be legally sanctioned for his or her religious beliefs, but today in the US, Christians are ridiculed and marginalized simply because of their religion. Why is that considered OK? You may have heard it said that "There are no atheists in foxholes." I've observed evidence of that. In the absolute worst of times, where do people, even those in public light, turn? To God. Pay attention; that's how it happens. The US as a State and God are not separate. They never have been and never will be.

  4. dax kat

    The US is not officially a Christian nation, but it IS a nation of lots of Christians. Granted, also lots of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. But the US government recognizes the most widely celebrated holiday on the calendar, Christmas, as a federal holiday, and it is still officially known as "Christmas Day." Not "Gifting Day" or "Most People Get the Day Off Day" or any other secular name. Why is that if we are not basically a Christian nation? Nobody can be legally sanctioned for his or her religious beliefs, but today in the US, Christians are ridiculed and marginalized simply because of their religion. Why is that considered OK? You may have heard it said that "There are no atheists in foxholes." I've observed evidence of that. In the absolute worst of times, where do people, even those in public light, turn? To God. Pay attention; that's how it happens. The US as a State and God are not separate. They never have been and never will be.

  5. wakcedout

    We turned the jews away and that was bad. But Christians in the middle east also face a similar persecution.

    Are we to repeat our mistakes?
    Yes im atheist and agree but we cannot ait idley by

  6. Gewgulkan Suhckitt

    Regarding the Muslim ban, there's a legal loophole that makes that legal. Constitutional rights only apply to citizens of this country. If the U.S. government discriminates against Muslims who are U.S. citizens, that's illegal. If they discriminate against Muslims who are NOT U.S. citizens, that's perfectly legal. That includes Muslims who are attempting to become U.S. citizens but aren't citizens yet.

  7. Philip Zornes

    None were staunch athiests, many were deists. There is a difference. Secondly, we are not a Christian nation, but we were. The notion of America's Christian heritage is cultural not governmental. Get it together. I guess this level of willful ignorance should be expected out of someone who called Jordan Peterson a Nazi sympathizer. lol what a joke.

  8. qdllc

    On churches endorsing a candidate….MANY churches in the USA have the pastor as the head of the church. If any pastor expresses an opinion on who one should vote for FROM THE PULPIT, they are speaking on behalf of the organization.

  9. John Lawson

    Re favouring Christian refugees. It's a process problem. In the UK it's been noted that it's mostly Muslims being given asylum. This is because refugee status is given to people in approved refugee camps, which Christians won't use because they don't feel safe in the camps, and so are looked after by local churches. These people are therefore no eligible for help by the UK or the EU. It is probably the same for the US refugee programme.

  10. Radical Moderate

    Again you need to take a class in logic. You contradicted your self. You said @3:29 you said "individual states were allowed to have an official state religion…" But then you later said… "The local government saying you cannot have a monument to the ten commandments… " I hate to break it to you but local governments fall under State Governments.

  11. Radical Moderate

    No such thing as a Muslim ban, most countries if not all where already on a complete immigration ban, or very limited in immigration. Again you need to take a logic class as you contradicted yourself since you admitted that the ban from these countries bans all people "Christians" and other Non Muslim groups. Also you rightfully point out that there was no ban on Saudi's. So so much for your Muslim ban.

  12. Bruce IDW

    Trump isn’t kicking muslim american citizens out of the country, he can deny the entry of any foreigner for ANY reason. We had the Chinese Exclusion Act for decades, preventing foreign Chinese ("yellow menace") from immigrating to the US. The constitution doesn’t apply to foreigners in foreign countries, and IAAL, I know about this. This is why Obama could assassinate (brown) foreigners on foreign soil with drone (killer-robot) attacks without having to give them any due process. This is why Bush put the terrorist holding facility in Guantanamo Bay, off US soil "where the constitution doesn’t apply".

    Meanwhile islam is not a race, it’s not a bunch of oppressed brown people. Islam is an ideology and a criminal conspiracy. Followers of 7th century illiterate insane pedophile rapist warlord murderer Mohammad should be kept out of the US. The should be rounded up and put down (humanely, no slavery, starvation, forced labor etc. they’re just too dangerous. It’s sad, I don’t say this with glee.

  13. timmy chang

    How is his Candace now. We could talk about this all day. I hate to talk about whataboutism but trump gets spied on are way more scarier, don't u think so? Spied on conspiracy theory of theDNC n intelligence agency to frame someone! Executive decision could always be repealed by the next president. That's y Obama haters don't need to worry. However, bureaucrats taking charge to undo a legitimate democratic election. But that no liberal would even touch on it.

  14. Lou Lombardi

    I admit that I had a little knee jerk to some of this. LOL! But it was very informative and clears up a lot of confusion. Thank you! 🙂

  15. thedog556

    There's a couple of mistakes here.

    1) the federalist papers have been used many times in the supreme Court, notably in Heller.

    2)the Constitution does not grant rights, it protects rights endowed by the creator at birth as determined in Cruikshank

  16. rogermwilcox

    <Nitpick> "In God we trust" first appeared on a U.S. coin in 1864, not 1865.

    It appeared on the newly-issued 1864 bronze 2 cent piece, a coin which (as you can probably guess) never caught on. It started appearing on gold coinage the next year, and on silver coinage the year after that.

    The impetus to put "In God we trust" on our coins stemmed from the increased religious fervor felt during the Civil War. It's also why the most popular song of the war, the Battle Hymn of the Republic, was such a staunchly religious song.

  17. TheDinosaurPlanet

    By citing Deuteronomy and Leviticus, some may think you are implying Christianity teaches that. It does not. The Jews were to do that when they conquered Canaan. It was the Old Covenant Law. Christianity is under the New Covenant Law (love your neighbor and love God). While it teaches homosexuality as a sin, it does not teach any type of physical punishment on them.

  18. Cody Watson

    Churches are not tax free. We paid that tax as income tax as workers. If they taxed the church it would be a second tax, same as the death tax. You get taxed on income, then on your money at time of death. Both are and would be unfair.

  19. pbanthonyv

    I think it's perfectly reasonable to favor refugee status of people in persecuted religious minorities. That could be any religion depending on the circumstance. Christians in the middle east certainly face some issues Muslims don't.

  20. RealityCalling

    "While the phrase never appears in the Constitution" – everything the left holds dear while ignoring every phrase that does appear in the Constitution.

  21. james cagle

    I like your videos, but you started off with a non-truth. Creator, being capitalized in this fashion, does act as a synonym of God. On top of that, though it is true that we shouldn't be considered a christian nation, people need to understand that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS with the exception of Franklin were openly christian. And on his death bed, his final letter, Franklin acknowledged that the existence of God (though this may have been a cover your bases thought as Franklin was that kind of dude).

  22. V Moore

    These rights aren't given by the government, they are ment to be protected by the government we have these rights, natural rights government or not my rights dont go away because government went away

  23. Kirk Bertino

    The Constitution restricts the power of the government. For example, we are born with the ability to speak. We are not given the ability to speak by the government. The Constitution restricts the government from arresting you or punishing you for speaking. This is what we call "Free Speech." The Constitution protects you from the government.

  24. Pedro Dinis

    Nothing better than printing some words on money to stop the spread of Communism… Communism doesn't even have to be secular or atheistic. There are Christian Communists just so you know.

  25. ctastrophe

    Rights DO NOT come from the Constitution, they are inherent to humanity. The founders believed in the idea of Natural Rights, and that the purpose of government was to ensure those rights would not be infringed – i.e. the government cannot to tell you what you can or can’t say, or what religion you must adopt, or have property taken from you without just cause. This is why we can say other countries (China, or Iran, etc.) are “human rights abusers”. If rights come from a piece of paper then on what basis can you criticize other countries’ pieces of paper? I’m not a theist, and you don’t have to be religious to understand the philosophy of Natural Rights.

  26. Mark Groves

    I agree that the United States is not nor was it ever a Christian nation. However, I don't think the Constitution GIVES us rights. It PROTECTS rights we inherently have (that doesn't mean those rights come from any God, just that we already acknowledged the rights in question for a very long time and the Constitution just guaranteed the federal government could not infringe on any of those rights).

  27. Tango Jones

    If you believe that izlam poses no threat then you are not aware of what's happening in Europe (and increasingly here in the US), and you have only a passing acquaintance with historical events regarding izlam and their conquests.

  28. Tango Jones

    You couldn't be more WRONG. The establishment clause applies ONLY to US citizens. Why is it illegal to ban specific groups of people – especially if they pose a danger to our nation, either physically or culturally? Are citizens of all nations entitled by law to emigrate to the US? Doesn't the US set immigration policy for itself? The history of migration in this country saw periods of migration determined by US, set at specific numbers – and then shut down again completely to allow for assimilation. What's happening now is a non-stop, relentless wave of migrants from the 3rd world and other foreign cultures hostile to Americans and American culture, who do not assimilate, and whom mostly rely on our taxpayer welfare benefits. You are ignorant and dangerous for spreading SJW propaganda.

  29. Yotto O.

    What year did the U.S. add Bibles to court rooms? Remember people used to have to put their hands on a Bible and swear to tell the truth in courtrooms before they were allowed to take the stand. Also the U.S. used to have statues of the Ten Commandments in front of American courthouses. Of course all of those things have since been removed and erased from history, as history has been re-written and young people are now told that America was never Christian.

  30. acester86

    Funny anecdote usually the people who adamantly proclaim the US is a Christian nation are the same ones saying the government should not support the poor. While Jesus never said the poor should be cared for by the government they are saying that our laws should reflect Jesus's teaching so welfare should be a thing if you truly want a Christian nation.

  31. John Reineke

    I am all for a a wall of separation but to say the constitution does not in any way reference the Christian faith is not 100% correct there is this one reference. To be fair it changes nothing, just posting it for completeness: the Reference is IN THE YEAR OUR LORD
    Article. VII.
    The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
    Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

  32. David Welsh

    The only reason someone would ever disqualify someone is the candidate's own behavior and track record.. in other words, the candidate's personal character.

  33. red mercury

    deuteronomy and leviticus are in the old testament. this is not practiced anymore. i do love your channel. even if i criticize it sometimes. its way more interesting than most! you like, know everything haha. my brother was in iraq. he spent 3 terms and was awarded 3 purple harts. i certainly thank you for your courage. im sure your family never take it for granted that you made it home safe. i know we dont. even today after all this time i am thankful to have my brother back home safe. banged up, but safe. hey can you maybe put that hawaiian guy in more of your videos. hes hilarious! i have to play it a few times to understand what the hell he is trying to say. you do a great job

  34. Casshern

    Beginning of the video: "You cannot cite the Federalist papers or the Declaration of Independence in Court and the intentions of the founders' doesnt matter."

    Near the end of the video: "Donald Trump INTENDED to make a Muslim Ban but didn't. It's still a Muslim Ban and he's wrong, though."

    How can you, not only not have known the concept of Originalism is actual legal practice, but also so obviously contradict yourself in the same video and still be taken seriously?

    You always had an over left-wing bias and its horribly unfair to your unsuspecting viewers who are being denied the spectrum of differing philosophies. Not to mention that you, like most other people, pick the weakest and dumbest arguments to support your point.

    Although, you probably avoided mentioning Originalism to be able to slyly avoid having to tackle legitimate reasons why the USA, a nation FOR and BY the People, was indeed founded on a Christian thought.

    There's a reason why only the United States and England (to a degree) were able to produce the philosophy of Liberty we love today. They're the only nations (at the time) to break away from the Catholic Church and more openly discuss the Bible. But its easier to ignore centuries of history and pretend atheists are smarter for simply saying the flying spaghetti monster disproves my faith.

  35. CyanRyanN64 !

    Dude fdr ban jews because of high amount since it was wwll and the uk and etc stop at a certain amount we also didn't want everyone to start hating and being violently against them

  36. Indigo

    And in 2019 we are seeing our government simply disregarding the law and doing what they please. Just because the law is there, doesn't mean that a totally corrupt and self-serving elite class will follow it, because Epstein didn't kill himself.

  37. 77Catguy

    "Secular" has the dictionary definition of "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."

    It would not be accurate to define the federal government in this way since this was never the way the freedom of religion clause was intended. The government saw no conflict in–for example–funding chaplains for the military or even for the United States Senate.

    Neither did it find conflict in swearing upon a bible in either court proceedings or being sworn into official offices, nor in posting the Ten Commandments in government buildings.

    Neither was it intended as a proscription against religion, as in the "freedom FROM religion" that you impute to its meaning.

    Neither is it a document that begrudgingly allows one to "believe" in a religion as long as doing so does not conflict with other laws, since–for example–special accommodation must be made to exempt pacifists from being forced into military service if doing so would conflict with their religious principles–and, if interpreted honestly with that precedent in mind, out to exempt believers in certain religions from being forced to violate their religious principles in other ways.

    In short, as with most true secularists, you overemphasize the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause and underemphasize the "(Congress shall make no law) prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.

  38. Aidan des Mittleren Westen

    Jesus says you can't kill sinners though, especially if you sin yourself, at all. In the Qur'an, you're uh, stil supposed to do that.

  39. Spyderarm Flyer

    I normally love your very intelligent videos until you get political. Here you forgot to tell your viewers about North Korea and Venezuela also being on the travel ban list, you forgot to say WHY these countries made the list – essentially the same reason that Obama put them on his ban list – these countries have no functional governments that can provide proper vetting of immigrants. This is 'high-risk' for possibly allowing terrorists in, you know that. You forgot to say that there are some 40 other Muslim majority countries not on the list, and, although this was probably after your video was posted, you forgot to update it to say that the Supreme Court found nothing wrong with these travel-related executive orders. All that makes your viewers less well-informed, and I would think, of all people, you should 'know better'

  40. Simeon Adams

    Why does your sub titles differ from what you’re actually saying ? I noticed that “planned parenthood” was omitted and a number of other words were altered although had the same meaning.

  41. silverwolf9979

    You made one of the biggest mistakes people make when talking about the constitution. No where in the document or its amendments does it grant anything. The bill of rights was written to lay out a non exhaustive list of the most important rights that were protected from the government.

  42. GM Steelhaven

    Trump's ban didn't cover Muslims. Show me the word "Muslim" in the ban that was upheld (which is the 2nd one, the 1st, which was a total garbage fire) and I will agree with you.
    PROTIP: you can't.

  43. P T

    He fails to understand the difference between the nation ( people) and the state ( government). US has always had a religious settler people ( nation) and a relatively secular state.

  44. Ben Cheevers

    It's not actually illegal to ban Muslims from entering the country, arguable the president has those powers, he is the sole organ dictating foreign relations, he doesn't just have the power to do it, he's the only one with power to decide whatever he wants. I'm not a lolywer but I watch Rekieta Law most nights and a long long time ago he did a really good stream on the matter, I don't stand on one side or the other, I'm not American, I just think it's disingenuous to say the Muslim ban is illegal so he 'hid' it in something else. A 'Muslim ban' is obviously immensely unpopular on the left and also with RINOS, they piss themselves whenever you accuse them of any ism, that's the main reason why Trump choose Obama's countries to ban movement. Trump won in the Supreme Court which is actually the right ruling given the law, it's only the crazy 9th Circuit that's filled with looneys from California and Washington that rule based on their ideology rather than the law, that's why they can't take these cases to ANY OTHER CIRCUIT and why they're always filed there, it's actually an incredible broken system, getting some constitutionalists on the court is a win for both parties so long as both parties are still interested in American values and believe in the American way of life. Dems are super mad about that because they want to live in a totalitarian hellhole where they can throw people in jail for offending them and indoctrinate every child in the country and have government involved in every aspect of your life, your child's education, the way you raise your child, the way you talk at home, what your values are allowed to be, who you're allowed to support, what views you're allowed to hold, how successful you're allowed to be (and the ceiling that they would like to enforce on the privileged who were 'handed everything and stepped on marginalized people and exploited them to do it.
    This is rambling and really badly written because I've been up for a day and a half, time to nap

  45. Nicholas Haas

    "This is why this country is under no threat of Sharia Law"….. here is the issue with that statement…. it only remains true for as long as the people that follow it deem it valid, and for as long as the institutions that uphold it are seen as legitimate. Beyond that point, you have no protection at all.

  46. bob brooks

    5 minutes in and you lost your chance of a sub. 2nd vid I watched in the last 10 min. Will not be trying anymore. No sub plus a thumbs down. Have a nice day.

  47. Kurt Haas

    You had me until :49
    Your Rights are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
    They are given by nature, or God or just because you're a person; depends on your belief system.
    The Constitution does not give anything. It limits the Government interactions with you, itself and the states.
    If you don't learn anything else, remember, that which is given can be taken away involuntarily. Do you want that power over your rights in governments hands?

  48. Fat Yoshi

    Muslim Majority Countries:
    Saudi Arabia
    And Bosnia and Herzegovina
    Trump may have called it, it’s technically not one…

  49. Fat Yoshi

    It’s not illegal to take Christian or another religion into account when becoming a refugee. To be a refugee you need to be oppressed or treated poorly, Christians, Jews, and other religious people are discriminated against in Syria and other countries. Muslims are not oppressed in any western countries.

  50. Schechter Arts

    Re 3:01 – As of now, that is true. While I mostly agree with the narrator's take on Trump's attempted Muslim ban, I think his earlier comment conveys a certain complacency. Yes, as long as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Establishment clause of the 1A is in force & we don't have to worry about shari'a being imposed. But this nation is (to some extent) a representative democracy. Muslims are a minority right now; certainly not every last one would agree to some version of shari'a governing the US. But if they were to grow to an electoral majority (or a large enough & dedicated minority) while still greatly being influenced by Salafists & their theologically conservative allies…I could see the 1A or perhaps the Constitution itself being called into question. One could argue as to whether or not such a sequence of events is likely (I don't think it is), but it is possible. If you get enough of Congress onboard, you can petition for adding a new Amendment–or alteration or removal of any current one. All it takes is sufficient Congressional votes.

    No legal document holds power forever, after all. If that were not true, then why are we living under the Constitution & not, say, the Magna Carta? Or perhaps the Code of Hammurabi?

  51. chiepah2

    "that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." There are not "only three", among – being a member or members of (a larger set). So there are at least four.

  52. Harold D Burke

    Very good work. You see I'm I'm Christian but I firmly believe in the wisdom of the founding fathers. In fact I believe they were inspired… Islam is more than a religion. I would suggest that people learn more about Islam. The history of Islam and modern Islam. When people learn more they will understand why Mr.Trump is concerned. If it was a personal spiritual belief then that might be different. But religion is only one aspect .

  53. Norman Osburn

    You should have delved more into Jefferson's letters to the Danbury Baptist Association. Explaining more in depth about the their context and implacations.

  54. Johnny Doey

    4:15 those biblical verses you cited are from the Old Testament which in NO WAY are Christians ever commanded to do that. Those were commanded to the Israelites from the Law of Moses under the Mosaic Covenant and the Old Covenant. We the Church are under the New Covenant. We are living in the Age of Grace. We should be thankful/grateful, repent and trust in Jesus: to NOT do that would be the biggest mistake of anyone’s life today. Never in human history before the life of Jesus did we have direct access the God. We always had to through man: a Prophet, Priest, etc, But after Jesus’ death, we have direct access to God. We don’t have to go through man. The Jesus of the Bible IS our only mediator for man to God. We have the greatest gift from God ever given to man: Jesus the Christ. It would be like Bill Gates offering a million dollars to you and you refuse because you want to live however you want: It’s ridiculous.

  55. Flying Paladin

    Trump was not favoring Syrian Christians because they were Christian, but rather because they were being exterminated. Your characterization is dishonest.

  56. VicInNocal

    You went full libtard when you complained about Trump rightfully wanting to bring in Christian refugees who are persecuted…get this, genius…FOR BEING CHRISTIANS in the Middle East. But oh, were it Muslims pouring in instead, you'd be all for it.

  57. James Vassalla

    What you are saying is somewhat skewed about "favoring" religious groups. If Christians are targets of any group for their religion and being beheaded en masse, they are granted different privileges.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *