In order for this day of prayer to be uphold all you christians have to do is pray for it to be so, and then pray more, and more and more and more, get it?
It clearly states in the constitution that the government will have nothing to do with religion, so an endorsing of a christian day of prayer is an obviously unconstitutional thing
Fuck prayer -- folks do that shit every god damned day of the god damn year... How about a National Nobody Gets To Have Their Head Up Their Ass Day, or a Federal Execute Anyone Who Uses a Fallacy or a Lie To Defend a Position Day for once?
It's fucking disgusting how badly our species needs to get a sense of perspective.
Having a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ is not a religion it is a relationship. God hates RELIGION! The fact that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins I guess doesn't matter to you Anti Christs. The comment "I want my national day of Blasphemy" is disgusting to me. I say this. God is not happy, and wrath will be poured out upon the earth when the church is raptured. Repent now! Turn to Jesus before it is to late for you. Last but not least READ THE BIBLE, GOD HATES RELIGION..
@kfarner1 "Having a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ is not a religion it is a relationship."
For purposes of American constitutional law, Christianity *is* a religion.
"God hates RELIGION!"
Odd that the Bible never says that. In fact, the New Testament calls Christians to "pure and undefiled RELIGION in the sight of our God and Father" (James 1:27, emphasis added).
Now do you have anything to say that's actually relevant to the video?
@ProfMTH Every religion is based upon this “works theology”. Neither ceremony, liturgy, creeds, sacraments nor money have ever brought one soul into a reconciled relationship to God. Abstaining from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, illicit sex and the places that provide them is a healthy thing to do but cannot of itself restore a broken relationship with God.
@ProfMTH Jesus really lets them have it in Matthew 23. Talking first to the people He said (paraphrasing), “The scribes and Pharisees sit in high seats and bind heavy burdens upon you that they themselves won’t even lift a finger to bear!
@ProfMTH They make themselves look pious before men so everyone will recognize their positions.” Then turning on the religious leaders He calls them hypocrites, fools and blind, tombs full of dead men’s bones. “Every time you open your mouth death comes out!” He called them snakes headed for the damnation of hell! These were the religious leaders
@kfarner1 I asked if you had anything to say that's relevant to the video. You've gone on for 3 comment boxes without saying anything relevant, so I'll take it your answer is, in a word, no.
As for religion, the fact remains (as I noted) that the NT has Christians being called to "pure & undefiled RELIGION in the sight of our God & Father" (James 1:27, emphasis added). Inconvenient for your "God hates religion" claim, I know, but in the Bible. So your argument is with it, not with me.
@gunzrkewl I don't know why some Christians find it so difficult to understand, but many of them continue to demand that the government be involved in their prayers and other religious activities.
@ProfMTH Well, that's the real reason. They want what they want, and that is to make make and solidiy this country as a christian nation. *sigh* Disgusting...
@yourjunk420 This country is a "Christian Nation" It was built on "Christian Principles" Our forefathers were Christians and to say that it is not a "Christian Nation" is heracy. When you stand before God you will have to answer for all that you are doing. I would not want to stand before God for judgement. Every knee shall bow, every tounge shall confess that Jesus is Lord. Believe it now or not. We all have free will to believe what we want but when your time here is up, no more chances!
"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."- Thomas Jefferson
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself." -Thomas Jefferson
"Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."-James Madison
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."- James Madison
"Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not."- James Madison
"The nearest I can make it out, 'Love your Enemies' means, 'Hate your Friends'."- Ben Franklin
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."- Ben Franklin
If your belief is that this Country is not formed by Bible belief system, you have been spiritual blinded or without knowledge of the Mayflower Compact 1620, Charter of Virgina 1611, Charter of Massachusetts Bay 1629,The Charter of New England 1620, English Bill of Rights 1689, Magna Carta 1215, and Cyrus Cylinder around 539–530 BC. All known about before our Constitution was formed. Why don't you try reading them. Then tell me the USA was not formed on, Biblical based principles.
People of Christ which work in the industries of Medicine, Food, Government, Technology, and Knowledge trained teachers, have a spirituality called a soul and the belief they are vessels of his love. They pour themselves into thier work, quite literally. That is why you have better everything, it is because they deligently work for our Creator in thier own work for him making a better life for all of us. Thank you Doctor Fox.
@LambLion777 "Why don't you try reading them. Then tell me the USA was not formed on, Biblical based principles."
Even if the U.S. were, to use your phrasing, "formed on Biblical based principles," that would not change the fact that the framers of our Constitution placed an institutional separation between religion and the state in the republic's fundamental governing document. Jesus instructed his followers to pray privately; he never told them to seek the governmental assistance to pray.
For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12 If the people who rule America are wicked, which I believe they are not. They will at the very least, understand, support, and sometimes lead by, giving tribute and recognition to God and His people to pray.
@LambLion777 Pray all you want. Pray with as many people as you like. You neither need nor are you entitled to have the government involved. Period. End of story.
There is no Lemon Test in the Constitution. This nothing more then an idiotic judicial invention. The Founding Fathers themselves were constantly calling for not only days of national prayer but of fasting & even thanksgiving. A day of thanksgiving is a day for giving thanks to GOD! You are saying Thanksgiving is unconstitutional. The Supremes need to stop making up nonsense to satisfying their arrogant whims. They're effectively establishing atheism as official U.S. policy.
@VictorLepanto "There is no Lemon Test in the Constitution."
Right. It's a method the Court has adopted for interpreting and applying a provision of the Constitution. Not everything in American constitutional law appears in the text of the Constitution itself. Only the naive and those with an ax to grind think it should.
"The Founding Fathers themselves were constantly calling for not only days of national prayer but of fasting & even thanksgiving."
(con't) @VictorLepanto ...the video, somewhat more complicated than some like to pretend. Moreover, it became clear very quickly that the members of the founding / framing generation were not beyond violating the very governmental charter they drafted. Finally, even if every founder / framer and every president since Washington proclaimed a national day of prayer, that wouldn't make it constitutional.
"A day of thanksgiving is a day for giving thanks to GOD!"
@ProfMTH: It is the most idiotic notion imaginable to suppose the Founders did know what they meant when they framed the Constitution. We have nothing but context to understand any written document. What people do & the way they normally use words is the only way to understand any set of words. We know the common uses of the terms used @ the time of the Constitution. We know how the Founders lived after framing these words. Nonsense invented by 20th cent. jurist is useless.
@VictorLepanto "It is the most idiotic notion imaginable to suppose the Founders did know what they meant when they framed the Constitution."
I take it you meant to write "did NOT know what they meant." Again, your comment betrays your ignorance. See, e.g., the disagreement among members of the founding generation who were in George Washington's administration vis-a-vis whether the federal government had the authority to establish a bank and what the Necessary & Proper Clause meant. ...
(con't) @VictorLepanto And that's just one example. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. Moreover, it's clear you didn't understand my previous comment response to you, in which I said that "it became clear very quickly that the members of the founding / framing generation were not beyond violating the very governmental charter they drafted." That doesn't mean those violations were based on not understanding what the Constitution meant. See, e.g., the Alien & Sedition...
@ProfMTH: The Ignorant one is yourself. As if opinions about the national bank have any bearing on the proper disposition of Federal gov't towards religion! Even a menadicious anti-federalist like Jefferson gave broad latitude for the acknowlegement, encouragement, & tolerance of expressions of religion in public life. All federal building in Washington were used for religious services. Jefferson attended these meetings, he even had the Marine band perform hymns for the worshippers.
@ProfMTH: G. Washington was the chairman of the Constitutional Convention. He supervised the proceeding & all its deliberations. Hamilton was his closest confidant & advisor. Jefferson (& who else was opposing the Nat. Bank besides him?) was in Paris as ambasssador under the Articles of Confederation. Jefferson was hostile to the explicite intentions of the Constitution & hoped to undermine it. There is hierarchy of authority & reliability (& trusworthiness) in opinions.
@VictorLepanto "The Ignorant one is yourself. As if opinions about the national bank have any bearing on the proper disposition of Federal gov't towards religion!"
Listen, you moron, you claimed that it was idiotic and unimagineable that the framers of the Constitution would not have known what it meant. I gave you an example where that was precisely the case. I could give you a number of others, but what has become clear is that you're not worth the time it would take to type them out. ...
@ProfMTH The Founders are the only source for establishing what the Founders meant. I never said anything about a unanymous opinion. There is a clear, obvious consensus in the actions of the 1st Congress. Go read Lincoln's Cooper Union Address to see how to think PROPERLY about our Constitution & its Framers.
@ProfMTH: If you talk about oposition to a national you are talking primarily about Jefferson. He hated the Constittution, played no role in framing it & spent the rest of his political career undermining it. Washington was the driving force behind callng the Convention. He presided over all of it, Hamiltion was his right hand man. The 1st Congress voted in the Nat. Bank, Washington signed it into law. One or two eccentric opionions don't nullify the general concensus.
@ProfMTH: They knew precisely what they meant & acted on it. They also explained themselves quite clearly in the Fed. Papers & in other places. There is absolutely NO grounds for claiming lack of clarity on the issue of religion. They established chaplains for the military. They hired a chaplain for the congress. Religious services were conducted in federal building from the beginning. The seperate states continued to maintain state funded churchs. The fostering of religion was given as...
@VictorLepanto ...a reason FOR establishing public schools in the North West Territory. This was under the weaker Articles of Confederation & the new gov't under the Constitution of the U.S. reratified the Norht West Ordinance which says that fostering religion is the REASON for having public schools. Progressive's desire to import European style "post-christian" anticlericalism into American law under the pretext of constitutionalism is anachronistic orwellian nonsense.
@ProfMTH: Certainly on the issue of the Federal gov't attitude towards the religious sentiments of the people their is clear consensus of opinion & practice. The simple fact that all federal buildings were routinely opened to use for religious services makes this antireligious canard absolutely absurd. The Founders were not atheists, or agnostic, or (generally) deists. They were predominantly devout & conventional Protestant Christians. Anyone who spends any time looking into it can see it.
No. Each Judge, shows specific power in the Supreme Court. Your belief are self serving, the lemon test is a secular farce. Why do you fight against, Christian religion of your own soul, if it's not troubled? Which it is. The Biblical moral ramifications of real light of Truth, hurts the darkness of your held sins. My hope that someone able to expose the 1948 McCullom vs. Illinois judgment is the exact cause of lies about our National Heritage & reason why we have the moral trouble we do today.
@LambLion777 Every generation since Socrates has said "we are in moral trouble", and yet humanity lives on. We've been 2000 years without the aid of the second coming of Christ and we have better medicine, more food, better government, longer lifespans, better technology and increased knowledge, none of it coming from Christian inspiration.
Pray all you want, just keep it out of my government.
If the government is spending time to put together the proclamation then I clearly have participated through my tax dollars against my will for a god or gods to be prayed too. The government employees do not work for free.
This was really great. I definitely hope this ruling sticks - it hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court yet, has it? It bothered me that Obama endorsed the day of prayer too... he's the first guy I ever voted for (I'm only 20 lol) so I of course hoped he'd be better than that... but at least this judge knew what she was doing. :D
(con't) @luvtheheaven3 BTW, with respect to the President's pressing the case on this in court, in the main it is political suicide for an American elected official to take a stand against these sorts of religious endorsements. When James Madison was president, he declared national prayer days even though he later said he wished he hadn't done so because he believed they violated the 1st Amendment.
no where in the Constitution does it say "government cant endorse religion" therefore religious endorsement is not against the law.. The actions and words of the founders holds more weight than some judge centuries later trying to legislate from the bemch
@blaq7427 It says in the 1st line of the bill of rights is government can "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which means it can't make laws about religion, including endorsing the religion! And times have changed... slavery is a good example... Judges made decisions regarding slavery which obviously held more weight than the original founders's "words" such as slaves being counted as 3/5 of a person for House of Representative population count. You're so wrong it's pathetic.
you make a great argument to stop funding israel. israel is a state funded religion. seperation of temple and state is a good start. seperation of secularism and state would be a good idea too..
Despite the obvious unconstitutional nature of the Nat'l Day of Prayer I fear that it will remain in effect as will the 'Under God' in the pledge and the rest . I do not have confidence that our courts will be courageous enough to invalidate it. Brilliant exposition, thanks.
From the comments to the first part was dismayed to learn you do not detest religion. Please reconsider your position on this! Join us God haters, we meet on Thursdays behind the SCOTUS.
@ihateirony Aetheismo does not require prayer like other Gods. He has the self confidence that other Gods lack, and so doesn't need the reassurance of the masses.
Wow! Wonderful. Your video not only provides us with a much needed overview of the issue, yet it provides us with names, references and such for each one of us to do the honourable act of leaning more about this important issue.
Calling it the Establishment Clause gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it's a coincidence that people understand the law to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
Calling it the Establishment Clause gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it's a coincidence that people understand the law to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
What these religious tards don't get is if this is allowed, then a National Day of Blasphemy is allowed, too, with the simple statement that you "may" participate in denouncing the holy spirit.
@apocalypseap "...if this is allowed, then a National Day of Blasphemy is allowed, too, with the simple statement that you "may" participate in denouncing the holy spirit."
Like so much in the Constitution, it is not understood by most and poorly understood by some, despite its exceptionally straight forward and approachable language. It is so very sad. Calling it the "establishment clause" is as misleading as calling the a law forbidding burning of a building the "person building". It makes it sound as though the law was against construction, not arson. Totally misses the point.
I am so, so tired of hearing called the "Establishment Clause." That is totally misleading. Establishment is a reference to the religion, not what Congress is prohibited from doing. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Want to know what this says? "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment" It is "respecting" that they are forbidden to do, not "establish".
@ProfMTH Thanks. The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
@ProfMTH Thanks. The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
@ProfMTH Thanks. The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
@ProfMTH With this in mind, you suggest we accept the term, without so much as comment, even though it directly contributes to the gross misunderstanding of the Amendment because it does not do us well to point out widespread fundamental flaws? I disagree wholeheartedly and am surprised, given your other videos, that you would accept such a misconception because it has a history.
@furtim1 The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives basis to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause". Sorry if this posts twice, seem to have upload errors on my end.
@furtim1 The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives basis to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause". Sorry if this posts twice, seem to have upload errors on my end.
@furtim1 The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives basis to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause". Sorry if this posts twice, seem to have upload errors on my end.
@ProfMTH The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
@idkwhenidie The administration has appealed the ruling. Therefore the ruling does not take effect. It won't take effect until the appeals options have been exhausted.
I was always reluctant about opposing the Nat.D.O.P even though I knew it was unconstitutional. Looked at it as: therapeutic for the majority of the population and probably harmless for the rest.
With the growing diversity in this country, I think its best to stick to what is right. I was unaware of the detailed history & legal background of the day before watching your vid. Thanks, very informative & crystal clear. :-)
The constitution and America was founded under God, indivisable with liberty (a gift of God) and justice for all. When the constitution was written it was done under great prayer, that small church still standes in the heart of New York. When we loose waht this country was founded on, morales and princaples, we loose the nation.
@SilentPrayingmanTis "When the constitution was written it was done under great prayer, that small church still standes in the heart of New York."
The Constitution was written in Philadelphia, not New York, and the Constitutional Convention did not have any prayer meetings. You might want to learn the actual facts of your nation's history before you talk about it.
The Lemon test is probably not binding law anymore. We have seen inconsistent application in major Establishment Clause cases. The Court has implicitly left the decision of whether to apply the test in a specific case up to lower courts, often it is not used. There has been an obvious lack of a clear reaffirmation of the central tenets of Lemon over the years since the 1980s. The better description is a useful case but not controlling.
@Matur1n Incorrect. Lemon is still good law. Some justices want it tossed (e.g., Scalia, who has likened the test to a horror movie ghoul), but it hasn't been tossed. Rather, the main disagreement has been about some of the test's particulars, with various justices articulating more or less revised versions of it, e.g., O'Connor's endoresement test. Judge Crabb took this into account by showing, e.g., that the NDoP statute failed the endorsement test.
Good law just means not overruled, and is not the same as controlling or binding law. There are numerous cases, as you seem to admit, that alter Lemon in their holdings, some ignoring the Lemon test entirely. At worse, you have to admit its use is on pretty shaky ground. That doesn't mean whatever standard is eventually applied won't bounce the NDoP, I am just not convinced it will be the Lemon test.
@Matur1n "Good law just means not overruled, and is not the same as controlling or binding law."
Again, you're incorrect. If decision X is still good law, then decision X *is* controlling as to what it ruled on. I'm not sure where you're getting your understanding of how the law works, but you should stop consulting he, she, it, or them because he, she it, or them is/are not serving you well and giving you accurate information.
You admitted: "Rather, the main disagreement has been about some of the test's particulars"
That is just another way of saying its exact use is in doubt.
You admitted: "revised versions of it"
That's all I am saying. Whatever the final decision on the NDoP is, may well rest on some revised standard, not the specific standard applied in Lemon.
That's hardly controlling or binding law if it is regularly revised or ignored.
@Matur1n I've covered this already with you. The Lemon Test is the Establishment Clause test. Some justices have suggested revised versions of it, but the test continues to be the test. What you seem to regard as "controlling or binding law" has little, if anything to do with what actually is controlling and binding in American law. If you mean to suggest that Lemon may no longer be the test at some point, that's quite another matter.
"If you mean to suggest that Lemon may no longer be the test at some point, that's quite another matter."
I mean to suggest that we are very close to that point, if not at it. You are just in denial if you think it hasn't been seriously criticized by the constitutional folks that people listen to, and I don't mean Scalia. It doesn't do the Lemon test much good to be "the Establishment Clause test" if it isn't always used and is often modified even when referenced.
@cablepanos There's a link in the description box to the full segment. It's definitely worth watching. Alas, I didn't have time to show much more of it than I did.
@ProfMTH Thanks. That was kind of disappointing. That weaselly little fuckstick got off too easy IMHO. Your video was excellent BTW. Thanks for making your videos.
@agentorange20 But don't be too quick to dismiss Perkins and his ilk. They are highly skilled propagandists who know how to fire up those in the religious community who are gullible and/or ignorant of constitutional law.
"National Day of Blasphemy"!!!! Now there's a concept that Day of Prayer advocates can't deny violates Establishment Clause. If only they could see how it's simply the opposite side of the same coin they are wrongly in support of.
I hate you for busting out the DC Talk. I've been an atheist for 12 years or so and I have committed sooo many of their songs to memory. I'm trying to forget, damnit!
Absolutely excellent work! Are you going to team up with Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Dennett as the "5th horseman" ?
We need as many brilliant minds as quickly as possible to speak up, given the state of potential looming disaster.
Seems as though that since the "end timese" aren't going to occur according to "prophecy", there are those with their legions that are hell bent on creating it anyway.
I just wrote a research paper on the matter of 'the wall of separation' and its constitutionality. Really wish I had seen this and maybe steal a couple of your terrific observations.
Excellent video as always my friend. Hope all is well.
Thanks for another informative video! Your choice in screen name (and presumably by extension your choice in occupation) is quite apt. :)
And surely I'm not the only one who lol'd at the Hitchens death stare at 1:34. Perkins is lucky that psychic powers aren't real or he would've been in serious danger of a mind crush right there.
As a law student who just took his constitutional law final, I will add to this discussion. There was nowhere where may meant must that I recall. I'm not an expert, but I've seen the constitution at work and read the cases, and this point doesn't seem strong.
@rolfsuege1284 Thanks for the comment. Since 666DJL has removed all of his comments, I suspect he's realized that he had it wrong when he claimed 'may' = 'shall' in constitutional law. It doesn't.
Because I'm still in High School, I'm more worried about whether or not my school will attempt to enforce this in some way, shape, or form. I seriously doubt it will, but it's still an issue.
In order for this day of prayer to be uphold all you christians have to do is pray for it to be so, and then pray more, and more and more and more, get it?
dluque003 2 days ago
It clearly states in the constitution that the government will have nothing to do with religion, so an endorsing of a christian day of prayer is an obviously unconstitutional thing
moroney1 2 months ago
Fuck prayer -- folks do that shit every god damned day of the god damn year... How about a National Nobody Gets To Have Their Head Up Their Ass Day, or a Federal Execute Anyone Who Uses a Fallacy or a Lie To Defend a Position Day for once?
It's fucking disgusting how badly our species needs to get a sense of perspective.
skoockum 5 months ago
Dude how does judge crabs asshole taste?
Lightdaze 9 months ago
Having a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ is not a religion it is a relationship. God hates RELIGION! The fact that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins I guess doesn't matter to you Anti Christs. The comment "I want my national day of Blasphemy" is disgusting to me. I say this. God is not happy, and wrath will be poured out upon the earth when the church is raptured. Repent now! Turn to Jesus before it is to late for you. Last but not least READ THE BIBLE, GOD HATES RELIGION..
kfarner1 10 months ago
@kfarner1 "Having a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ is not a religion it is a relationship."
For purposes of American constitutional law, Christianity *is* a religion.
"God hates RELIGION!"
Odd that the Bible never says that. In fact, the New Testament calls Christians to "pure and undefiled RELIGION in the sight of our God and Father" (James 1:27, emphasis added).
Now do you have anything to say that's actually relevant to the video?
ProfMTH 10 months ago
@ProfMTH Every religion is based upon this “works theology”. Neither ceremony, liturgy, creeds, sacraments nor money have ever brought one soul into a reconciled relationship to God. Abstaining from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, illicit sex and the places that provide them is a healthy thing to do but cannot of itself restore a broken relationship with God.
kfarner1 10 months ago
…” Jesus answered, “Why do you transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?…You hypocrites!”(Matt 15:1-9)
kfarner1 10 months ago
@ProfMTH Jesus really lets them have it in Matthew 23. Talking first to the people He said (paraphrasing), “The scribes and Pharisees sit in high seats and bind heavy burdens upon you that they themselves won’t even lift a finger to bear!
kfarner1 10 months ago
@ProfMTH They make themselves look pious before men so everyone will recognize their positions.” Then turning on the religious leaders He calls them hypocrites, fools and blind, tombs full of dead men’s bones. “Every time you open your mouth death comes out!” He called them snakes headed for the damnation of hell! These were the religious leaders
kfarner1 10 months ago
@kfarner1 I asked if you had anything to say that's relevant to the video. You've gone on for 3 comment boxes without saying anything relevant, so I'll take it your answer is, in a word, no.
As for religion, the fact remains (as I noted) that the NT has Christians being called to "pure & undefiled RELIGION in the sight of our God & Father" (James 1:27, emphasis added). Inconvenient for your "God hates religion" claim, I know, but in the Bible. So your argument is with it, not with me.
ProfMTH 10 months ago
@ProfMTH Nice PWN. :)
atheistram 9 months ago
@atheistram Thanks.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
Maybe we can compromise. I'd allow a National Day of Prayer for a National Day of Blasphemy.
havvyweponsman 10 months ago
@kfarner1 Your religion is a religion. Special pleading gets you nowhere. Can you not see how circular your logic is?
SanguineBullet667 5 months ago
What the heck is wrong with a religiously neutral government that represents all it's citizens equally?
CCnTaylor 11 months ago
Damn! I want my National Day of Blasphemy. :(
Godlesspanther 1 year ago
@Rapture092011Repent What?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@gunzrkewl I don't know why some Christians find it so difficult to understand, but many of them continue to demand that the government be involved in their prayers and other religious activities.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Well, that's the real reason. They want what they want, and that is to make make and solidiy this country as a christian nation. *sigh* Disgusting...
yourjunk420 1 year ago
@yourjunk420 This country is a "Christian Nation" It was built on "Christian Principles" Our forefathers were Christians and to say that it is not a "Christian Nation" is heracy. When you stand before God you will have to answer for all that you are doing. I would not want to stand before God for judgement. Every knee shall bow, every tounge shall confess that Jesus is Lord. Believe it now or not. We all have free will to believe what we want but when your time here is up, no more chances!
kfarner1 10 months ago
@kfarner1
"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."- Thomas Jefferson
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself." -Thomas Jefferson
Commentsboxcaughtme 9 months ago
@Commentsboxcaughtme
"Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."-James Madison
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."- James Madison
Commentsboxcaughtme 9 months ago
@Commentsboxcaughtme
"Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not."- James Madison
"The nearest I can make it out, 'Love your Enemies' means, 'Hate your Friends'."- Ben Franklin
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."- Ben Franklin
Commentsboxcaughtme 9 months ago
@kfarner1:
Just shut your mouth on matters you're too ignorant to understand.
Commentsboxcaughtme 9 months ago
When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan. Proverb 29
LambLion777 1 year ago
If your belief is that this Country is not formed by Bible belief system, you have been spiritual blinded or without knowledge of the Mayflower Compact 1620, Charter of Virgina 1611, Charter of Massachusetts Bay 1629,The Charter of New England 1620, English Bill of Rights 1689, Magna Carta 1215, and Cyrus Cylinder around 539–530 BC. All known about before our Constitution was formed. Why don't you try reading them. Then tell me the USA was not formed on, Biblical based principles.
LambLion777 1 year ago
People of Christ which work in the industries of Medicine, Food, Government, Technology, and Knowledge trained teachers, have a spirituality called a soul and the belief they are vessels of his love. They pour themselves into thier work, quite literally. That is why you have better everything, it is because they deligently work for our Creator in thier own work for him making a better life for all of us. Thank you Doctor Fox.
LambLion777 1 year ago
@LambLion777 "Why don't you try reading them. Then tell me the USA was not formed on, Biblical based principles."
Even if the U.S. were, to use your phrasing, "formed on Biblical based principles," that would not change the fact that the framers of our Constitution placed an institutional separation between religion and the state in the republic's fundamental governing document. Jesus instructed his followers to pray privately; he never told them to seek the governmental assistance to pray.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH : English Revised Version
For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12 If the people who rule America are wicked, which I believe they are not. They will at the very least, understand, support, and sometimes lead by, giving tribute and recognition to God and His people to pray.
LambLion777 1 year ago
@LambLion777 Pray all you want. Pray with as many people as you like. You neither need nor are you entitled to have the government involved. Period. End of story.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
There is no Lemon Test in the Constitution. This nothing more then an idiotic judicial invention. The Founding Fathers themselves were constantly calling for not only days of national prayer but of fasting & even thanksgiving. A day of thanksgiving is a day for giving thanks to GOD! You are saying Thanksgiving is unconstitutional. The Supremes need to stop making up nonsense to satisfying their arrogant whims. They're effectively establishing atheism as official U.S. policy.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto "There is no Lemon Test in the Constitution."
Right. It's a method the Court has adopted for interpreting and applying a provision of the Constitution. Not everything in American constitutional law appears in the text of the Constitution itself. Only the naive and those with an ax to grind think it should.
"The Founding Fathers themselves were constantly calling for not only days of national prayer but of fasting & even thanksgiving."
That history is, as I noted in...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @VictorLepanto ...the video, somewhat more complicated than some like to pretend. Moreover, it became clear very quickly that the members of the founding / framing generation were not beyond violating the very governmental charter they drafted. Finally, even if every founder / framer and every president since Washington proclaimed a national day of prayer, that wouldn't make it constitutional.
"A day of thanksgiving is a day for giving thanks to GOD!"
So thank your god. You...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @VictorLepanto ...don't need government to help you do that.
"They're effectively establishing atheism as official U.S. policy. "
Your comment betrays a profound ignorance of American constitutional law.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH: It is the most idiotic notion imaginable to suppose the Founders did know what they meant when they framed the Constitution. We have nothing but context to understand any written document. What people do & the way they normally use words is the only way to understand any set of words. We know the common uses of the terms used @ the time of the Constitution. We know how the Founders lived after framing these words. Nonsense invented by 20th cent. jurist is useless.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto "It is the most idiotic notion imaginable to suppose the Founders did know what they meant when they framed the Constitution."
I take it you meant to write "did NOT know what they meant." Again, your comment betrays your ignorance. See, e.g., the disagreement among members of the founding generation who were in George Washington's administration vis-a-vis whether the federal government had the authority to establish a bank and what the Necessary & Proper Clause meant. ...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @VictorLepanto And that's just one example. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. Moreover, it's clear you didn't understand my previous comment response to you, in which I said that "it became clear very quickly that the members of the founding / framing generation were not beyond violating the very governmental charter they drafted." That doesn't mean those violations were based on not understanding what the Constitution meant. See, e.g., the Alien & Sedition...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ...Acts in the early days of the republic.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH: The Ignorant one is yourself. As if opinions about the national bank have any bearing on the proper disposition of Federal gov't towards religion! Even a menadicious anti-federalist like Jefferson gave broad latitude for the acknowlegement, encouragement, & tolerance of expressions of religion in public life. All federal building in Washington were used for religious services. Jefferson attended these meetings, he even had the Marine band perform hymns for the worshippers.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@ProfMTH: G. Washington was the chairman of the Constitutional Convention. He supervised the proceeding & all its deliberations. Hamilton was his closest confidant & advisor. Jefferson (& who else was opposing the Nat. Bank besides him?) was in Paris as ambasssador under the Articles of Confederation. Jefferson was hostile to the explicite intentions of the Constitution & hoped to undermine it. There is hierarchy of authority & reliability (& trusworthiness) in opinions.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto "The Ignorant one is yourself. As if opinions about the national bank have any bearing on the proper disposition of Federal gov't towards religion!"
Listen, you moron, you claimed that it was idiotic and unimagineable that the framers of the Constitution would not have known what it meant. I gave you an example where that was precisely the case. I could give you a number of others, but what has become clear is that you're not worth the time it would take to type them out. ...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @VictorLepanto You're here to grind an ax, not deal with facts.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH The Founders are the only source for establishing what the Founders meant. I never said anything about a unanymous opinion. There is a clear, obvious consensus in the actions of the 1st Congress. Go read Lincoln's Cooper Union Address to see how to think PROPERLY about our Constitution & its Framers.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@ProfMTH: If you talk about oposition to a national you are talking primarily about Jefferson. He hated the Constittution, played no role in framing it & spent the rest of his political career undermining it. Washington was the driving force behind callng the Convention. He presided over all of it, Hamiltion was his right hand man. The 1st Congress voted in the Nat. Bank, Washington signed it into law. One or two eccentric opionions don't nullify the general concensus.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto "The Founders are the only source for establishing what the Founders meant."
And sometimes even they weren't sure what they meant.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH: They knew precisely what they meant & acted on it. They also explained themselves quite clearly in the Fed. Papers & in other places. There is absolutely NO grounds for claiming lack of clarity on the issue of religion. They established chaplains for the military. They hired a chaplain for the congress. Religious services were conducted in federal building from the beginning. The seperate states continued to maintain state funded churchs. The fostering of religion was given as...
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto ...a reason FOR establishing public schools in the North West Territory. This was under the weaker Articles of Confederation & the new gov't under the Constitution of the U.S. reratified the Norht West Ordinance which says that fostering religion is the REASON for having public schools. Progressive's desire to import European style "post-christian" anticlericalism into American law under the pretext of constitutionalism is anachronistic orwellian nonsense.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto "They knew precisely what they meant & acted on it."
Not always. This has already been covered. Moreover, it's not a central issue here.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH: Certainly on the issue of the Federal gov't attitude towards the religious sentiments of the people their is clear consensus of opinion & practice. The simple fact that all federal buildings were routinely opened to use for religious services makes this antireligious canard absolutely absurd. The Founders were not atheists, or agnostic, or (generally) deists. They were predominantly devout & conventional Protestant Christians. Anyone who spends any time looking into it can see it.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@BillyTalentFan8 I'm glad you found the videos helpful. Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
No. Each Judge, shows specific power in the Supreme Court. Your belief are self serving, the lemon test is a secular farce. Why do you fight against, Christian religion of your own soul, if it's not troubled? Which it is. The Biblical moral ramifications of real light of Truth, hurts the darkness of your held sins. My hope that someone able to expose the 1948 McCullom vs. Illinois judgment is the exact cause of lies about our National Heritage & reason why we have the moral trouble we do today.
LambLion777 1 year ago
@LambLion777 "No. Each Judge, shows specific power in the Supreme Court."
What?
"the lemon test is a secular farce."
What?
"Why do you fight against, Christian religion of your own soul, if it's not troubled?"
What?
I stopped reading your gibberish there. Do you have anything of substance to say in response to this video?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@LambLion777 Every generation since Socrates has said "we are in moral trouble", and yet humanity lives on. We've been 2000 years without the aid of the second coming of Christ and we have better medicine, more food, better government, longer lifespans, better technology and increased knowledge, none of it coming from Christian inspiration.
Pray all you want, just keep it out of my government.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
If the government is spending time to put together the proclamation then I clearly have participated through my tax dollars against my will for a god or gods to be prayed too. The government employees do not work for free.
MsMommaRose 1 year ago
@squid4947 They can have as many prayer days as they like. Just don't involve the government.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
This was really great. I definitely hope this ruling sticks - it hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court yet, has it? It bothered me that Obama endorsed the day of prayer too... he's the first guy I ever voted for (I'm only 20 lol) so I of course hoped he'd be better than that... but at least this judge knew what she was doing. :D
luvtheheaven3 1 year ago
@luvtheheaven3 "it hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court yet, has it?"
No, not yet.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @luvtheheaven3 BTW, with respect to the President's pressing the case on this in court, in the main it is political suicide for an American elected official to take a stand against these sorts of religious endorsements. When James Madison was president, he declared national prayer days even though he later said he wished he hadn't done so because he believed they violated the 1st Amendment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
no where in the Constitution does it say "government cant endorse religion" therefore religious endorsement is not against the law.. The actions and words of the founders holds more weight than some judge centuries later trying to legislate from the bemch
blaq7427 1 year ago
@blaq7427 LOL! Your ignorance of establishment clause jurisprudence is funny (and a bit sad, too).
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@blaq7427 It says in the 1st line of the bill of rights is government can "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which means it can't make laws about religion, including endorsing the religion! And times have changed... slavery is a good example... Judges made decisions regarding slavery which obviously held more weight than the original founders's "words" such as slaves being counted as 3/5 of a person for House of Representative population count. You're so wrong it's pathetic.
luvtheheaven3 1 year ago
This video was awesome! Good Work! I am going to subscribe to your channel.
Radetzky19 1 year ago
@Radetzky19 Thanks! And welcome to the channel.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
you make a great argument to stop funding israel. israel is a state funded religion. seperation of temple and state is a good start. seperation of secularism and state would be a good idea too..
dcjhrj 1 year ago
@dcjhrj "you make a great argument to stop funding israel."
Nothing I've said here applies to U.S. aid to Israel.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Despite the obvious unconstitutional nature of the Nat'l Day of Prayer I fear that it will remain in effect as will the 'Under God' in the pledge and the rest . I do not have confidence that our courts will be courageous enough to invalidate it. Brilliant exposition, thanks.
From the comments to the first part was dismayed to learn you do not detest religion. Please reconsider your position on this! Join us God haters, we meet on Thursdays behind the SCOTUS.
disrxt 1 year ago
@disrxt "Brilliant exposition, thanks."
Thank *you*.
"Please reconsider your position on this! Join us God haters, we meet on Thursdays behind the SCOTUS."
LOL. I appreciate the invitation. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Brilliant video!!!
spiminator 1 year ago
@spiminator Thanks a lot!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
What if we get them to pray to Aetheismo?
ihateirony 1 year ago
@ihateirony Aetheismo does not require prayer like other Gods. He has the self confidence that other Gods lack, and so doesn't need the reassurance of the masses.
neverfearchrisishere 1 year ago
Wow! Wonderful. Your video not only provides us with a much needed overview of the issue, yet it provides us with names, references and such for each one of us to do the honourable act of leaning more about this important issue.
thedeeliciousplum 1 year ago
@thedeeliciousplum I'm glad you found it helpful.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Thank you! ummm forgive my typo...
"...act of learning more about this."
thedeeliciousplum 1 year ago
Calling it the Establishment Clause gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it's a coincidence that people understand the law to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
furtim1 1 year ago
Calling it the Establishment Clause gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it's a coincidence that people understand the law to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
furtim1 1 year ago
Bulls eye!
ratherbill 1 year ago
@ratherbill Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
What these religious tards don't get is if this is allowed, then a National Day of Blasphemy is allowed, too, with the simple statement that you "may" participate in denouncing the holy spirit.
apocalypseap 1 year ago
@apocalypseap "...if this is allowed, then a National Day of Blasphemy is allowed, too, with the simple statement that you "may" participate in denouncing the holy spirit."
Indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Oops. That should have said, "building clause."
furtim1 1 year ago
Like so much in the Constitution, it is not understood by most and poorly understood by some, despite its exceptionally straight forward and approachable language. It is so very sad. Calling it the "establishment clause" is as misleading as calling the a law forbidding burning of a building the "person building". It makes it sound as though the law was against construction, not arson. Totally misses the point.
furtim1 1 year ago
I am so, so tired of hearing called the "Establishment Clause." That is totally misleading. Establishment is a reference to the religion, not what Congress is prohibited from doing. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Want to know what this says? "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment" It is "respecting" that they are forbidden to do, not "establish".
furtim1 1 year ago
@furtim1 "I am so, so tired of hearing called the "Establishment Clause.""
Well, that's what it's called. So you'd do well to get over it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Thanks. The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
furtim1 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Thanks. The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
furtim1 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Thanks. The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
furtim1 1 year ago
@ProfMTH With this in mind, you suggest we accept the term, without so much as comment, even though it directly contributes to the gross misunderstanding of the Amendment because it does not do us well to point out widespread fundamental flaws? I disagree wholeheartedly and am surprised, given your other videos, that you would accept such a misconception because it has a history.
furtim1 1 year ago
@furtim1 The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives basis to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause". Sorry if this posts twice, seem to have upload errors on my end.
furtim1 1 year ago
@furtim1 "Sorry if this posts twice...."
Twice? It and several other of your comments posted about six times each. Come on. Give it a bit of a rest.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I am sorry about that. Every time I hit Post, YouTube gave me an error message. Seriously, I didn't mean for that to happen.
furtim1 1 year ago
@furtim1 The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives basis to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause". Sorry if this posts twice, seem to have upload errors on my end.
furtim1 1 year ago
@furtim1 The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives basis to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause". Sorry if this posts twice, seem to have upload errors on my end.
furtim1 1 year ago
@ProfMTH The application of this term to the 1st Amendment gives bases to those who seek to do everything just short of establishing a state religion. Like I said, it makes it seem as though establishment was the prohibition instead of laws respecting any religion. I don't think it is a coincidence that most people understand the amendment to prohibit establishment and we refer to it as the "establishment clause".
furtim1 1 year ago
Haha I love Perkins's logic...
"Slavery goes back to the dawn of mankind therefor it is ok"
Yeah Tony, other people used the same arguements for Immoral bullshit and we shot them down the same way.
FuturePants 1 year ago
@FuturePants Indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Awesome video. Thank you for explaining.
DarthQuola 1 year ago
@DarthQuola You're welcome. Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
wait...so is the 'National Day of Prayer' done with or is it still currently being challenged?
idkwhenidie 1 year ago
@idkwhenidie The administration has appealed the ruling. Therefore the ruling does not take effect. It won't take effect until the appeals options have been exhausted.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I was always reluctant about opposing the Nat.D.O.P even though I knew it was unconstitutional. Looked at it as: therapeutic for the majority of the population and probably harmless for the rest.
With the growing diversity in this country, I think its best to stick to what is right. I was unaware of the detailed history & legal background of the day before watching your vid. Thanks, very informative & crystal clear. :-)
SaraCares 1 year ago
@SaraCares You're welcome. Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I'd like to buy judge Crabb a drink.
evolve749 1 year ago
The constitution and America was founded under God, indivisable with liberty (a gift of God) and justice for all. When the constitution was written it was done under great prayer, that small church still standes in the heart of New York. When we loose waht this country was founded on, morales and princaples, we loose the nation.
SilentPrayingmanTis 1 year ago
@SilentPrayingmanTis "When the constitution was written it was done under great prayer, that small church still standes in the heart of New York."
The Constitution was written in Philadelphia, not New York, and the Constitutional Convention did not have any prayer meetings. You might want to learn the actual facts of your nation's history before you talk about it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH your wrong sir.
SilentPrayingmanTis 1 year ago
@SilentPrayingmanTis Wrong about what?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
National Day of Blasphemy :p
what an incredibly popular idea...
uvauva2 1 year ago
Ah, judging from what I've seen... the US needs more judges like Barbara Crabb. Great videos, MTH.
Samuraionthewall 1 year ago
@Samuraionthewall Indeed we do. Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
The Lemon test is probably not binding law anymore. We have seen inconsistent application in major Establishment Clause cases. The Court has implicitly left the decision of whether to apply the test in a specific case up to lower courts, often it is not used. There has been an obvious lack of a clear reaffirmation of the central tenets of Lemon over the years since the 1980s. The better description is a useful case but not controlling.
Matur1n 1 year ago
@Matur1n Incorrect. Lemon is still good law. Some justices want it tossed (e.g., Scalia, who has likened the test to a horror movie ghoul), but it hasn't been tossed. Rather, the main disagreement has been about some of the test's particulars, with various justices articulating more or less revised versions of it, e.g., O'Connor's endoresement test. Judge Crabb took this into account by showing, e.g., that the NDoP statute failed the endorsement test.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Good law just means not overruled, and is not the same as controlling or binding law. There are numerous cases, as you seem to admit, that alter Lemon in their holdings, some ignoring the Lemon test entirely. At worse, you have to admit its use is on pretty shaky ground. That doesn't mean whatever standard is eventually applied won't bounce the NDoP, I am just not convinced it will be the Lemon test.
Matur1n 1 year ago
@Matur1n "Good law just means not overruled, and is not the same as controlling or binding law."
Again, you're incorrect. If decision X is still good law, then decision X *is* controlling as to what it ruled on. I'm not sure where you're getting your understanding of how the law works, but you should stop consulting he, she, it, or them because he, she it, or them is/are not serving you well and giving you accurate information.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
You admitted: "Rather, the main disagreement has been about some of the test's particulars"
That is just another way of saying its exact use is in doubt.
You admitted: "revised versions of it"
That's all I am saying. Whatever the final decision on the NDoP is, may well rest on some revised standard, not the specific standard applied in Lemon.
That's hardly controlling or binding law if it is regularly revised or ignored.
Matur1n 1 year ago
@Matur1n I've covered this already with you. The Lemon Test is the Establishment Clause test. Some justices have suggested revised versions of it, but the test continues to be the test. What you seem to regard as "controlling or binding law" has little, if anything to do with what actually is controlling and binding in American law. If you mean to suggest that Lemon may no longer be the test at some point, that's quite another matter.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"If you mean to suggest that Lemon may no longer be the test at some point, that's quite another matter."
I mean to suggest that we are very close to that point, if not at it. You are just in denial if you think it hasn't been seriously criticized by the constitutional folks that people listen to, and I don't mean Scalia. It doesn't do the Lemon test much good to be "the Establishment Clause test" if it isn't always used and is often modified even when referenced.
Matur1n 1 year ago
My nipples get hard listening to you!
1632385 1 year ago
@1632385 LOL.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I wish you would have let that clip with Tony Perkins roll. I wanted to see that guy get Hitch-slapped!
cablepanos 1 year ago
@cablepanos There's a link in the description box to the full segment. It's definitely worth watching. Alas, I didn't have time to show much more of it than I did.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Thanks. That was kind of disappointing. That weaselly little fuckstick got off too easy IMHO. Your video was excellent BTW. Thanks for making your videos.
cablepanos 1 year ago
Wait!! Is this a reasoned, intelligent, substantiated argument on YouTube???
Amazing!! I didn't know such things were possible.
Whaddya know?
seicho99 1 year ago
@seicho99 lol Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I think evangelical is Greek for "lying sack of shit."
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@NilDesperandum1998 My pleasure. Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@MAR4168 And you don't need the government's help or encouragement to do it. Good for you! ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Tony Perkins vs Christopher Hitchens = Bambi vs Godzilla.
agentorange20 1 year ago
@agentorange20 But don't be too quick to dismiss Perkins and his ilk. They are highly skilled propagandists who know how to fire up those in the religious community who are gullible and/or ignorant of constitutional law.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Extremely eloquent as per usual, I'd like to shake your hand, and possibly furnish you with a hug.
richybinns 1 year ago
@richybinns Well, thank you very much indeed. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"National Day of Blasphemy"!!!! Now there's a concept that Day of Prayer advocates can't deny violates Establishment Clause. If only they could see how it's simply the opposite side of the same coin they are wrongly in support of.
bu1ckgnx 1 year ago
@bu1ckgnx Exactly!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
EXCELLENT analysis and explanation. Thanks!
endergt 1 year ago
@endergt You're welcome. Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I hate you for busting out the DC Talk. I've been an atheist for 12 years or so and I have committed sooo many of their songs to memory. I'm trying to forget, damnit!
MercifulMing 1 year ago
@MercifulMing That was MC Hammer. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@MercifulMing As I think about it, I'm not sure I've ever even heard a DC Talk song. I'm fairly certain I haven't, though I know the group's name.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH oh crap, critical fail
MercifulMing 1 year ago
Awesome and thorough as usual Prof.
agnosticman77 1 year ago
@agnosticman77 Thank you very much, good sir.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Absolutely excellent work! Are you going to team up with Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Dennett as the "5th horseman" ?
We need as many brilliant minds as quickly as possible to speak up, given the state of potential looming disaster.
Seems as though that since the "end timese" aren't going to occur according to "prophecy", there are those with their legions that are hell bent on creating it anyway.
Love your expoundings and exposes!
gugspunpun 1 year ago
@gugspunpun Hey, thanks a lot.
"Are you going to team up with Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Dennett as the '5th horseman'?"
lol I don't think those four are looking for (or need) any help. But I appreciate the suggestion. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Yet another very well made and informed video; you,re awesome Prof :D
dapanzy 1 year ago
@dapanzy Thanks very much. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Ahhhhhh... :)
tomaselvis 1 year ago
I just wrote a research paper on the matter of 'the wall of separation' and its constitutionality. Really wish I had seen this and maybe steal a couple of your terrific observations.
Excellent video as always my friend. Hope all is well.
ManBehindTheGun 1 year ago
@ManBehindTheGun Hey, thanks a lot. Good luck with the paper.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I think there should be a day of prayer so that i can steal stuff from people's houses while they are at church. This is violating my secular rights!
do0me0nice 1 year ago
Thanks for another informative video! Your choice in screen name (and presumably by extension your choice in occupation) is quite apt. :)
And surely I'm not the only one who lol'd at the Hitchens death stare at 1:34. Perkins is lucky that psychic powers aren't real or he would've been in serious danger of a mind crush right there.
UnbelievableRANTLERS 1 year ago
@UnbelievableRANTLERS Thanks a lot. :-)
Yeah, Hitchens was great in that discussion.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
As a law student who just took his constitutional law final, I will add to this discussion. There was nowhere where may meant must that I recall. I'm not an expert, but I've seen the constitution at work and read the cases, and this point doesn't seem strong.
rolfsuege1284 1 year ago
@rolfsuege1284 Thanks for the comment. Since 666DJL has removed all of his comments, I suspect he's realized that he had it wrong when he claimed 'may' = 'shall' in constitutional law. It doesn't.
How did your final go?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@rolfsuege1284
Read it back.
Remind me not to hire this law graduate as my representative.
"There was nowhere where may meant must that I recall. Not that I'm an expert ..."
I'm not an expert on what you said there either - but the likes of Judge Crab would make crab-meat out of you in a court of Law.
If you are a Constitutional Law graduate - then it must be about the "law" that dictates how much booze your "constitution" can take.
Watch Judge Crab and see how a real Judge does it.
jazzx251 1 year ago
I like this Judge Crab a lot.
She could help on the "In God We Trust" crap as well - where every bank note is religious propaganda.
It's the same argument shown at the end there - what would people think if every bank note said "We don't trust God for shit"?
Both arguments would form an excellent pincer movement for Judge Crab!
(sorry - that's lame. I'll crawl back into my shell)
jazzx251 1 year ago
@jazzx251 LOL!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
666DJL 1 year ago
@666DJL I have no idea where you're getting the idea that 'may' = 'shall'.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
666DJL 1 year ago
@666DJL Which law dictionary are you using?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
666DJL 1 year ago
@666DJL
... my vote is "full of crap"....
middlekk 1 year ago
Comment removed
666DJL 1 year ago
@middlekk
And the coward known as 666DJL responds to me that he agrees that's he's full of crap, and then deletes the comment.
Brave. Real brave.
No kidding, if you're going to be that big of a pussy, why bother?
middlekk 1 year ago
Because I'm still in High School, I'm more worried about whether or not my school will attempt to enforce this in some way, shape, or form. I seriously doubt it will, but it's still an issue.
McMaster94 1 year ago