3:14 "E pluribus unum? Na, f that, god is the only one!", a good estimation of what was going through their heads. Great video.
That video response to this got me involuntarily face palming (ouch it hurt, never experienced that so frequently), the comment section, too. It is a good idea for that one to go back to school.
This was the mindset of our country in 1952. This nation was very spiritual. Today, our nation is totally insane. Good job atheist assholes. you and your lawsuits
@miket1m That's not entirely true. I go to a MLB game and I have to listen to some fool sing God Bless America during the 7th inning stretch. There is no logical reason for it, other than christians wanting the entire audience to participate in their superstition.
@FlyingPinkUnicorn "Superstition" You believe there is no God. This is totally illogical. How do you know there is no God? In order for one to say there is no God, one would have to have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience) So, again, I ask you, How do you know there is no God?
Your position is illogical, 100% intellectually indefensible and based on nothing but simple abstract possibility. There is nothing that validates your position.
"Superstition" You believe there are no unicorns. This is totally illogical. How do you know there are no unicorns? In order for one to say there are no unicorns, one would have to have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience) So, again, I ask you, How do you know there are no unicorns?
Your position is illogical, 100% intellectually indefensible and based on nothing but simple abstract possibility. There is nothing that validates your position.
Didn't any of the xians posting here even watch the video. It clearly shows that it is wrong for the government to proclaim a day for prayer, and why. Still, postings show that they just don't understand. -sigh-
The whole forced national day of prayer just screams Sadomachisim on subconcious level! Forced mental slavery and a forced my religious bullshit down your throat against your will! Sounds like the same idoits who believe god raping mary was an ok thing!
@gravekeepersven I'm an atheist, and I don't recall anyone forcing me to pray. If it ever gets to that point, I'll worry about it. Otherwise, there are far bigger issues.
Its national day of prayer it didnt say national prayer of day to Jesus you can pray to any God you want to so whats the big fuss over it, I feel that its pointless to ban a national day of prayer becuase everyone is free to pray or not pray or pray to who ever they wanna pray to if they choose to pray.......
@theguywhohadabone123 "Its national day of prayer it didnt say national prayer of day to Jesus you can pray to any God you want to so whats the big fuss over it"
The only fuss is the government's getting involved. You're totally right: people can pray whenever and to whomever they want, if they want to pray at all. They don't need the government involved.
@ProfMTH i have no use for the national day of prayer but lemon v kurtzman uses, at least in part, the "slippery slope" argument, which i've seen categorized in logic as a fallacy of presumption. the opinion's section you quoted actually includes the phrase "downhill thrust"! how is kurtzman's reasoning different, if at all, from say that of gay marriage opponents ("it will lead to polygamy"), or second amendment zealots ("limiting clips is the first step to banning guns")? ciao.
@6ganey9 The interpretation of American constitutional law relies in large part on precedent. Moreover, judicial interpretations of the Constitution are extremely difficult to reverse: either the Court has to overrule itself or the Constituion has to be amended. Therefore when judges interpret the Constitution, they must, among other things, be mindful of the precedent they are establishing for future cases. This has nothing to do with the "slippery slope" fallacy.
@ProfMTH if and when California's prop 8 case comes before the supreme court do you think the "usual suspects" there will include slippery slope arguments in their opinions (presumably) supporting the original law? if so do you think this is intellectually consistent with the "bad precedent" language in lemon? if this is a poor example, say a locality has banned extended ammo clips? could a scalia, using lemon reasoning, rightly argue this is a step towards infringement of 2cd amendment rights?
@6ganey9 With respect to Prop 8, I encourage you to read Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, where he argues that the Court, in striking down as unconstitutional laws prohibiting oral and anal sex between consenting adults, had established a precedent for the Court to rule at some time later that the Constitution requires the legal right to marry to be extended to same-sex couples. As to your second hypothetical, the issue would have to be whether the ban *does* violate the 2nd...
@6ganey9 ...Amendment, not whether it's a step in the direction of a future violation. Again, the "downward thrust" bit was about purportedly small violations of the Establishment Clause that form a body of precedents that support more significant violations in future.
@theguywhohadabone123 Why do religious people CONSTANTLY need to make their praying and worship a public thing? If you're delusional enough to believe in god, do it at home, and leave the REST of the NATION out of it.Religion is like your penis, don't show it in public and don't shove it down little kids throats! If there were a god, it would be an atheist.It wouldn't be STUPID enough to believe in a higher power, now would it? And why create a nation of obese sheep? For fun? Yikes, WTFU!!
@theguywhohadabone123 You don't seem to understand this do you? What if we do not want to kneel down and and think to our self I mean pray Atheists have no one to pray to this is why this law is not constitutional
@theguywhohadabone123 The objection is that government should not be involved in religion. It's not an objection to prayer itself or religion. Why not have a national day of prayer that is just organized by religious leaders themselves? It would be exactly the same and people could pray but not involve government. Plus it might be a nice exercise in inter-faith discussions.
9:21 It's hard to see where the precipice lies. Sort of like with Integration, the opposite of Segregation. Twice he sneers at Segregationists, but now we have rap music and 12% of the population committing 60% of the crimes, and our own kids are following in Black footsteps because Blacks overwhelm the employment in the educational system. Time to bottle up the destructive genie again. There's no up-side.
@ProfMTH I'm saying quite flatly that MAYBE Segregation wasn't such a bad thing. After it stopped there were 25 MILLION White victims of "civil rights" crimes: murders, robberies and rapes that wouldn't have happened if we had just kept the screws on Blacks.
although removing it won't make us not be able to pray, but we're heading in that direction, they keep removing God from everything little by little. but Islams want a mosque for their prayer and they have the bell or whatever it is to let them know when to pray, why can't the Christians have their prayer day? it's only fair.
@Baby6att "God" being there at all is unconstitutional, you can still believe in God but flaunting your God in the face of everyone else is not and should never be tolerated.
@Trailslayer well it's another right we as american citizens have called 'freedom of speech'. we should be able to talk about our God and have our prayer day without 'offending' people. it shouldn't even be offensive if you don't believe in it in the first place. if you don't believe in God why is it offensive first of all ?
@Baby6att It's unconstitutional for the government to host a national prayer day. Imagine a national disbelief day in which you stand in silence for disbelieving in any religion. I am sure you'd be a bit put off by that just as we are put off by people standing in silence promoting their superstitious belief.
@Baby6att The first Muslim call to prayer was using a Black slave. "Call the prayer," they told him, and he had no more choice of what to do or not do than a cuckoo coming out of a cuckoo-clock.
@stranger7138 "How the hell can the people who wrote the constitution, be unconstitutional."
Members of the framing generation acted in unconstitutional ways. See, e.g., the Alien and Sedition Acts under the Adams administration. Spend some time learning actual history.
@ProfMTH So did Bill Clinton but thats not what I'm saying jackass. When it was written, everyone agreed with it. I'm not talking about what happened after it was written. To believe what you and this idiot judge thinks, while writing the constitution, the founding fathers were being unconstitutional. There is also "Freedom of Religion" , and the Congress practices it every day opening their sessions. So try and forget all that college education and use some common sense and learn real history.
The opinion of President LINCOLN & THE US SENATE OR a federal judge in Wisconsin?? Lincoln signed the proclamation sent to him by the US Senate in 1863. Did he know the constitution? Here is the opening statement: Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.
@CBYakima "The opinion of President LINCOLN & THE US SENATE OR a federal judge in Wisconsin?? Lincoln signed the proclamation sent to him by the US Senate in 1863."
As Judge Crabb explained in her decision (quoting the SCOTUS) & I explained in the video, historical patterns don't justify violations of the Constitution. No one acquires a vested or protected right in violating the Constitution by long use, even if the span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it.
@blaq7427 Oh, don't waste your time and mine with such silliness, Blaq. It's not the Establishment Clause that's laughable, it's your ignorance and disregard for the fundamental law of the land that is laughable.
@blaq7427 The fact that an American can reach his/her 30s, as you have, without understanding the Establishment Clause is astounding. But none is so blind as the one who refuses to see.
@ProfMTH It might be the law of the land now because of the perversion of what was originally written in the Constitution, but clearly the founders didn't share the same view as these "bench legislators " today.
@ProfMTH half the country feels the same way I do , but I gues you can't take any of them seriously either . All you have to do is read the Constitution and you can plainly see there is nothing against government endorsing religious practice . There is only a restriction on government establishing a state religion or making a law restricting religion practice. How hard is it to understand that?
@blaq7427 "half the country feels the same way I do"
Even if true, it tells us nothing about whether what you feel has any basis in reality.
"All you have to do is read the Constitution and you can plainly see there is nothing against government endorsing religious practice."
It's called the Establishment Clause. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In the case of the National Day of Prayer statute, it did that and, therefore, violated the 1st Amendment.
@blaq7427 because you feel the way you do doesn't make you right either . The only thing that prove who is right or wrong i is what is written in the document. A national day of prayer does nothing to establish religion , so it is not illegal . A state religion created by the government would be illegal .
@ProfMTH You are the one who is uniformed or maybe you lack reading comprehension , otherwise you would be able to see that a "National Day of Prayer" doesn't violate the 1st amendment.
@blaq7427 It shows how bad you are when a guy from the UK has to point this out. The first amendment gives you the right to religion for all!!!! the government can not push one specific to the head of the que, thats what the point is.
Actually it doesn't violate the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment says" Congress shall make no law respecting religion......." Nowhere does it say that the government can't endorse religion . This whole " Establishment Clause" is just a fabrication created by atheistic judges.
@blaq7427 No, I didn't say anything about the National Day of Prayer causing the world to end. Rather, I talked about how the National Day of Prayer statute violates the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Christians and anyone else disposed to praying is free to do so. By contrast, the 1st Amendment precludes the federal government--the government of all the people--from facilitiating a religious exercise. So have your day of prayer, just do it without the government involved.
I wish religious people were more like the Buddhist tradition. In true Buddhism there is no "spreading the word" or "bringing people to the faith". The believe that if their faith is real, people will come to it on their own accord. Christianity and Islam both believe in "spreading the word" and forcing people to believe in their faith.
@fourtrees44 Over my years here on YouTube, I've had a few comments from people who challenged your characterization of Buddhism--at least Buddhism as it existed in places where it had access to political power. That noted, I think you're right: most Buddhists (certainly here in the West) don't seem to be about evangelism, much less using the instrumentalities of government to further their religion.
@ProfMTH I am sure there are Buddhist out there who "spread the word", but from what I have been told, that isn't a part of true Buddhism. But then again, that was what I was told, and I don't think I have done enough research to warrant my ability to defend my words. Thank you for your videos, they appear to be well thought out and they give solid points. You also have helped sharpen my discussion points when I discuss with others.
What I've been told by other rational people on this subject is that this isn't the fight we need to be picking and that no one is being harmed by it -- thoughts?
Given what I said about the decision in the video, I suspect you have a fairly good idea what my thoughts are. The 1st Amendment is *always" worth defending and allowing it to be violated is always harmful. We function in a precedential system.
@TerryBBurton no thanks, i once did and it ruined big part of my life. i cant trust on things that cant be proven. as a veteran you shuld know the pover of science that goes in to the weapons. did you trust in god or in your skills? was it anlges that looked out for you or your fellow soldiers? i think you shuld people and your self little more credit.
@TerryBBurton in your rage you fail to make a point. come in here europe and see what happends, smaller churces are pussed to the side lines bechose state church has monopoly rights on funeral and taxes. i am atheist and i can say that in european countries that are not secular other religons muslims and buddhist other christian churches have no right to funerals so if you whuld be anglican you whuld be funral in prostestan semetary. pleace dont let america become like eastern-europe. be secula
Friend, I am a 23 year military disabled veteran who served as a counselor. The jargon you are broadcasting here is propaganda for the New World Order, and not for the Republic of the USA. If you simply take out your wallet and read our currency, you will understand this is a nation that puts their trust in Almighty GOD. Not allah, buddha, zeus, or any other pagan god. Understand ?
IN GOD WE TRUST ... May GOD have mercy on your soul.
@TerryBBurton "The jargon you are broadcasting here is propaganda for the New World Order...."
It's a shame to see a veteran of the United States military as profoundly ignorant of the Constitution and laws of the nation he defended. You're young, TerryBBurton. Take the time to remedy that ignorance so it doesn't cloud your thinking throughout your life.
@TerryBBurton dude... seriously... the only reason we have those fucking words on money is because of cold war paranoia. people feared everything stereotyped with communism. which includes atheism, unfortunately.
@TerryBBurton You know as little about your country's history as you do its law Even the Christian members of the founding fathers were in favour of church state separation. It is such a shame to see ignorant bigots allowing themselves to be mis-educated into undoing so much of your fore-fathers good work.
@notinmyname2050 Have you even looked a history book? oh right your waiting for the "Pro Christian Texas Board censored special American History Textbook"!
It is good to see that you Americans are re-writing history so we all can repeat it again!
Good work ProfMTH!! But it seem that the next religious civil-war is going to happen slowly and painfully like a coldwar but with actual victim.
@opaldragon75 I assume that comment was directed at someone else as I'm an Irish Atheist (not an American Christian) and I'm supporting ProfMTH's position here.
This is why the Treaty of Tripoli was not contested by anyone anywhere. Not only were they secure enough in their faith to not have to have it represented by government, they saw how and why it should be so.
@themoralnation The Declaration of Independence is not a governing charter. The Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Paris, the Declaration of Independence, etc. were all written before Jefferson's secular Virginia Constitution provided such a successful model for the federal constitution. The change of language is intentional and obvious.
WHY do Christians want to encourage public prayer, their scriptures state:
Matthew 6:5 when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room,shut your door, pray to your Father ..in the secret place. 7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do.
Are they embracing "hypocrisy" or declaring themselves "heathens"?
Here is my question. What is the reasoning behind your video posts and what do attempt to accomplish? Please understand this point. I refused to respond to your continued response on my video because you are so wrapped up into proving your point, you missed the context of my video. Once more, the phrase, "separation of church and state" is not found in our constitution. When a federal judge makes a ruling based on any issue being unconstitutional based on THIS phrase, they are wrong.
@themoralnation "What is the reasoning behind your video posts and what do attempt to accomplish?"
In the instant case, my intent was to explain Judge Crabb's ruling in the NDoP case in particular as well as the origin of the NDoP statute and the relevant constitutional law in general.
"Once more, the phrase, 'separation of church and state' is not found in our constitution."
Which is utterly irrelevant to the outcome in the NDoP lawsuit.
(con't) @temoralnation "When a federal judge makes a ruling based on any issue being unconstitutional based on THIS phrase, they are wrong."
As I explained to you in my comments under your video and as this video explains (this video that you refused as a video response to yours--what are you afraid of?), the ruling was NOT based on the words "separation of church and state." You are wrong and it is clear that you don't know constitutional law.
Read page 5 of the order and you will clearly see what the plaintiff represents in the order and the wording used is improper. Judge Crabb should have clarified the order regarding the wording, instead, when she was interviewed, she stated her decision was based on her premise of separation of church and state and NDoP being Unconstitutional.
Again, government CANNOT force anyone to pray! I AGREE with this part of the ruling. However, Judge Crabb ERRED when she stated her reasoning.
@themoralnation If the president orders the people to pray or the issue is legislated, then it is a violation of the establishment clause. WE AGREE! However, when a federal judge makes a constitutional decision based on NON-CONSTITUTIONAL wording in the order as well as vocally states these words, she is wrong.
@ProfMTH "If the president orders the people to pray or the issue is legislated, then it is a violation of the establishment clause."
It WAS legislated. Presidential declarations of the NDoP are pursuant to a federal law enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president in the 50s. The law was struck down. Compulsion isn't necessary for an Establishment Clause violation. I cover this in the video. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you refused the video response.
@themoralnation Now, I ask you to admit your true reasoning. I would venture to believe you detest religion and you have every right. (I have looked at some of your other video posts to derive my opinion) America is a country founded on individual freedoms. Part of the Declaration of Independence uses the words Creator and Divine Providence. I know people detest these words but silence is awakening to your viewpoint and speaking back. Get used to it my friend cause you are not always right!
@themoralnation The Declaration of Independence is not a governing charter. The Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Paris, the Declaration of Independence, etc. were all written before Jefferson's secular Virginia Constitution provided such a successful model for the federal constitution. The change of language is intentional and obvious.
@themoralnation I asked you, "Why haven't you accepted my video response?" But no answer from you. I guess I'm not surprised. People who don't understand these things are all too often afraid to have their misinformation corrected publicly.
@ProfMTH Hey buddy. I hope your having a great day. I will not accept the video response, which we have already covered twice now, because you are so wrapped up in proving your point, you are unable to logically comprehend the points I am making. I understand you perceive yourself to be an intellectual genius. It sure is funny how there is another side that disagrees with her ruling and these people are pretty successful and intelligent also. Why are u not publicly known? This just amazes me!
@themoralnation " I will not accept the video response, which we have already covered twice now, because you are so wrapped up in proving your point, you are unable to logically comprehend the points I am making."
@ProfMTH ... disregard ProfMTH... he is not a professor, but a DISRESPECTFUL punk. Sure hope you have the guts to visit me PUNK. I will adjust your attitude.
ProfMTH I have not been on youtube all that often and that when engaged to this service, I am so happy to find your vids. I have been trying to focus on secular, science and philosophy content vids and lectures. Thank you for making this vid, which offers a much needed clarity on this important discussion.
3:37 <--- That's okay, you know that if you didn't state your mistake, not many would've noticed. You could have just ignored the fact that you had made that small mistake and not given a shit. Then again, you are not like FOX "NEWS" lol. Good Work Dude!
I live in a rediculously religious small town in missouri, there is a fundie christian (almost scarily fundimentalist) radio station based in my town and the natl. day of prayer is being held in a church here.
Not on government property, noone here is paying tax money that is going to pay for any part of it.
This is a great example of how people can have a national day of prayer and still follow the constitution, it is solely a religious event and not a governmental one.
ProfMTH, I absolutely love your work! I'm currently reading Susan Jacoby's book; Freethinkers, A History Of American Secularism, and this video reminded me of a quote by Ethan Allen from 1784, from the first chapter. "While we are under the tyranny of Priests...it will ever be in their interest, to invalidate the law of nature and reason, in order to establish systems incompatible therewith."
Its a good read. Looking forward to more videos. :)
i see nothing wrong with national day of prayer with franklin grahm. i see no hurt to pray for others but it could hurt others but they should have there own thing. maybe they feel you can not speak for all of them even if we pray for all who believe. but franklin grahm can not speak for all religion. only i don't like when people trying to force and convert others in there church. maybe frankin said something to certain kinds of people but it should not have cause trouble for pray day.
@gnoccafan "i see nothing wrong with national day of prayer"
I haven't said there's anything wrong with it. Rather, I've said (and the federal district court has ruled) that the federal government's endorsement of the day violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Religious people can have as many national prayer days as they like. They don't need the government of all the people to do it.
Haha, I just watched an O'reily-Palin interview where she explains that there should be a National Day of Prayer because we are a "Christian Nation". I guess she's talking about the Majority although I really never take that seriously because of the plethora of sects... Oh and she's an idiot.
Mccarthy,Evangelicals,Red Scare(2), and Segregation... Boy the Cold War sure was fun!!! "sigh"
JESUS TRUMPS ALLLLLLLLL!!!!! As Mrs. Dobson would say, religion's fun!!!
It's incredibly hard to understand how is it even possible to overlook something so blatantly obvious for 60 years.. Not to mention enact these things in the first place.
I wish my country had such a clause too, instead we got two national churches...
i would think it would be almost better that way. right now selling crap to the credulous is a free market and it has only made religious groups stronger and more in your face about sales.
Shouldn't praying be a personal thing between a person and their deity. These people want to have a special day? Millions of people pray everyday, they don't need a schedule.
Awesome! Yet another demonstration of how your legal knowledge and ability are an invaluable asset to the YouTube community and the greater world at large.
Didnt even know there was a national day of prayer until that court case, I thought it was new legislation had no idea it had been around since I never even heard of this bs before.
Thousand dollars says that National Day of Prayer will remain intact. I'm going to pray that more people will continue crying over this issue. Of course, I will be praying to science....
Also, who ever you are, the 5 people who thumbed down this video, go fuck your selves. I'm sorry that you either don't have the brain capacity to understand the clear and concise logic presented here, or just don't care.
While I agree with almost everything that you have said here, how the day is unconstitutional and the like, and you state your point with such grace and intelligence, the only thing I want to mention is how you pointed out the fact that some of the people are segregationists. I honestly dont think it is a valid point, and seems that this tends to aim towards a small and subtle smear campaign - and you are above that - save that for the republicans other than that - brilliant
@ninjabob42 I appreciate the criticism. Let me contextualize my mentioning that they were segregationists and perhaps it will seem less of a "small and subtle smear campaign" to you. Senator Robertson supported de jure segregation, which legally mandated, enforced, and perpetuated the inequality of American citizens who happened to be black--inequality that the Soviets and their sympathizers would point to in order to claim that equality in the U.S. was a chimera. ...
(con't) @ninjabob42 Opposing & ending segregation would have been a potent way to highlight a meaningful difference between the US and the Soviet Union, i.e., Americans' true commiment to equality. Of course this would have taken courage, commitment, & willingness to assume political risk. Senator Robertson eschewed it in favor of a pointless and unconstitutional bit of symbolism, requiring no courage, commitment, or risk, one that demonstrated nothing about the US vis-a-vis the Soviet Union.
I withdraw seeing that it was contextual, although (for me) it would have been more effective mentioning that as well, and struck a bit more of a chord.
But kudos to you for this (as well as everything else you have up here) It is refreshing to hear an truthful and intelligent position on topics such at this, that are not driven by angry emotions. It reminds me of older BBC, when it was fact and quite unbiased
they see this as an attack on there (god given)-. I think we need to make sure it does not get passed this point but not press the issue. A person is more dangerous when there backs are to the wall.
My idea has always been to play the waiting game and give them there non-sense prayer day and the pledge because in the end this generation is being born atheist/agnostics and we will fix the damage religion has done to america.
Momentum...great point. it'd have been nice if they had thought of that when they made the Kelo vs. New London verdict. Now you have houses being termed as blighted which are worth 500k. Brilliant. I had a developer threaten me. He had 100 million dollars. I had 1000 thousand. I won, because my town has respect for private property-unlike the Supreme Court
I do believe in an independent judiciary, but I think some of the criticism leveled at judges is justified. I think it can be argued that there might be a mid-point between being independent and completely unaccountable. It would take a miracle for one of these judges to lose their job. To me, that is a tad scary. Great video and I agree with decision.
Honestly, I don't know why people would freak out about this ruling. This does not prevent the community or the churches from organizing national days of prayer. All I see it doing is removing the responsibility from the government to manage a religious event. If I have my history right, it was introduced during the Soviet War -- the same time there was a general movement to weed out those "godless commies", so it likely WAS attacking atheism anyhow.
"I believe in the Constitution. The Constitution says that government isn't supposed to be infusing religion into our society, and so I asked to have that upheld." Michael Newdow
Thank you for this video. Not just for the issue about the Nat. Day of Prayer, which of course is unconstitutional - anyone who denies that shouldn't call oneself an American (which I am not btw) - but It is very important that the point you make here about the 50s when God entered the US as an "illegal immigrant" and became the "eternal president" was an act against communism.
I wonder about the two fasci in congress hall, do you know from when they are?
3:14 "E pluribus unum? Na, f that, god is the only one!", a good estimation of what was going through their heads. Great video.
That video response to this got me involuntarily face palming (ouch it hurt, never experienced that so frequently), the comment section, too. It is a good idea for that one to go back to school.
Bourtini 1 week ago
@Bourtini Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 week ago
@ProfMTH No, thank you, you have a very good channel : )
Bourtini 1 week ago
This was the mindset of our country in 1952. This nation was very spiritual. Today, our nation is totally insane. Good job atheist assholes. you and your lawsuits
miket1m 8 months ago
@miket1m Good to see you have nothing agenst Muslims, Christians, Mormons and Scientology implementing thier laws on you : )
daarco2 4 months ago
@daarco2 You know as well as I do that Christians do not force anything on you at all. I can't speak for the other religions
miket1m 4 months ago
@miket1m That's not entirely true. I go to a MLB game and I have to listen to some fool sing God Bless America during the 7th inning stretch. There is no logical reason for it, other than christians wanting the entire audience to participate in their superstition.
FlyingPinkUnicorn 3 months ago
@FlyingPinkUnicorn "Superstition" You believe there is no God. This is totally illogical. How do you know there is no God? In order for one to say there is no God, one would have to have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience) So, again, I ask you, How do you know there is no God?
Your position is illogical, 100% intellectually indefensible and based on nothing but simple abstract possibility. There is nothing that validates your position.
miket1m 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@miket1m
"Superstition" You believe there are no unicorns. This is totally illogical. How do you know there are no unicorns? In order for one to say there are no unicorns, one would have to have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience) So, again, I ask you, How do you know there are no unicorns?
Your position is illogical, 100% intellectually indefensible and based on nothing but simple abstract possibility. There is nothing that validates your position.
BeBoBli 2 months ago
Didn't any of the xians posting here even watch the video. It clearly shows that it is wrong for the government to proclaim a day for prayer, and why. Still, postings show that they just don't understand. -sigh-
CCnTaylor 11 months ago
The whole forced national day of prayer just screams Sadomachisim on subconcious level! Forced mental slavery and a forced my religious bullshit down your throat against your will! Sounds like the same idoits who believe god raping mary was an ok thing!
gravekeepersven 1 year ago
@gravekeepersven "Forced national day of prayer"?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH That is what i see could theoretically happening if this nation becomes a christian nation.
gravekeepersven 1 year ago
@gravekeepersven I'm an atheist, and I don't recall anyone forcing me to pray. If it ever gets to that point, I'll worry about it. Otherwise, there are far bigger issues.
FlyingPinkUnicorn 3 months ago
@FlyingPinkUnicorn Sounds like plan.
gravekeepersven 3 months ago
I don't want the government in my bed or my bible.
chgosatrap 1 year ago
@chgosatrap I don't want the Bible in my government or my bed.
perrrob 2 months ago
@perrrob
We agree, rob!
chgosatrap 2 months ago
Its national day of prayer it didnt say national prayer of day to Jesus you can pray to any God you want to so whats the big fuss over it, I feel that its pointless to ban a national day of prayer becuase everyone is free to pray or not pray or pray to who ever they wanna pray to if they choose to pray.......
theguywhohadabone123 1 year ago
@theguywhohadabone123 "Its national day of prayer it didnt say national prayer of day to Jesus you can pray to any God you want to so whats the big fuss over it"
The only fuss is the government's getting involved. You're totally right: people can pray whenever and to whomever they want, if they want to pray at all. They don't need the government involved.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH i have no use for the national day of prayer but lemon v kurtzman uses, at least in part, the "slippery slope" argument, which i've seen categorized in logic as a fallacy of presumption. the opinion's section you quoted actually includes the phrase "downhill thrust"! how is kurtzman's reasoning different, if at all, from say that of gay marriage opponents ("it will lead to polygamy"), or second amendment zealots ("limiting clips is the first step to banning guns")? ciao.
6ganey9 1 year ago
@6ganey9 The interpretation of American constitutional law relies in large part on precedent. Moreover, judicial interpretations of the Constitution are extremely difficult to reverse: either the Court has to overrule itself or the Constituion has to be amended. Therefore when judges interpret the Constitution, they must, among other things, be mindful of the precedent they are establishing for future cases. This has nothing to do with the "slippery slope" fallacy.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH if and when California's prop 8 case comes before the supreme court do you think the "usual suspects" there will include slippery slope arguments in their opinions (presumably) supporting the original law? if so do you think this is intellectually consistent with the "bad precedent" language in lemon? if this is a poor example, say a locality has banned extended ammo clips? could a scalia, using lemon reasoning, rightly argue this is a step towards infringement of 2cd amendment rights?
6ganey9 1 year ago
@6ganey9 With respect to Prop 8, I encourage you to read Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, where he argues that the Court, in striking down as unconstitutional laws prohibiting oral and anal sex between consenting adults, had established a precedent for the Court to rule at some time later that the Constitution requires the legal right to marry to be extended to same-sex couples. As to your second hypothetical, the issue would have to be whether the ban *does* violate the 2nd...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@6ganey9 ...Amendment, not whether it's a step in the direction of a future violation. Again, the "downward thrust" bit was about purportedly small violations of the Establishment Clause that form a body of precedents that support more significant violations in future.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@theguywhohadabone123 Why do religious people CONSTANTLY need to make their praying and worship a public thing? If you're delusional enough to believe in god, do it at home, and leave the REST of the NATION out of it.Religion is like your penis, don't show it in public and don't shove it down little kids throats! If there were a god, it would be an atheist.It wouldn't be STUPID enough to believe in a higher power, now would it? And why create a nation of obese sheep? For fun? Yikes, WTFU!!
V45Rider 1 year ago
@theguywhohadabone123 You don't seem to understand this do you? What if we do not want to kneel down and and think to our self I mean pray Atheists have no one to pray to this is why this law is not constitutional
TJ5897 1 year ago
@theguywhohadabone123 The objection is that government should not be involved in religion. It's not an objection to prayer itself or religion. Why not have a national day of prayer that is just organized by religious leaders themselves? It would be exactly the same and people could pray but not involve government. Plus it might be a nice exercise in inter-faith discussions.
beamla 1 year ago
9:21 It's hard to see where the precipice lies. Sort of like with Integration, the opposite of Segregation. Twice he sneers at Segregationists, but now we have rap music and 12% of the population committing 60% of the crimes, and our own kids are following in Black footsteps because Blacks overwhelm the employment in the educational system. Time to bottle up the destructive genie again. There's no up-side.
Dracopol 1 year ago
@Dracopol What the fuck are you talking about?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I'm saying quite flatly that MAYBE Segregation wasn't such a bad thing. After it stopped there were 25 MILLION White victims of "civil rights" crimes: murders, robberies and rapes that wouldn't have happened if we had just kept the screws on Blacks.
Dracopol 1 year ago
@Dracopol "I'm saying quite flatly that MAYBE Segregation wasn't such a bad thing."
And I'll say quite flatly that only an idiot and a bigot would make such a claim.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@Dracopol fucking racist.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
although removing it won't make us not be able to pray, but we're heading in that direction, they keep removing God from everything little by little. but Islams want a mosque for their prayer and they have the bell or whatever it is to let them know when to pray, why can't the Christians have their prayer day? it's only fair.
Baby6att 1 year ago
@Baby6att Christians can have every day of the year as a prayer day if they like. They don't need the government involved.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@Baby6att "God" being there at all is unconstitutional, you can still believe in God but flaunting your God in the face of everyone else is not and should never be tolerated.
Trailslayer 1 year ago
@Trailslayer well it's another right we as american citizens have called 'freedom of speech'. we should be able to talk about our God and have our prayer day without 'offending' people. it shouldn't even be offensive if you don't believe in it in the first place. if you don't believe in God why is it offensive first of all ?
Baby6att 1 year ago
@Baby6att it is government endorsed religion. thats why.
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
@Baby6att It's unconstitutional for the government to host a national prayer day. Imagine a national disbelief day in which you stand in silence for disbelieving in any religion. I am sure you'd be a bit put off by that just as we are put off by people standing in silence promoting their superstitious belief.
Trailslayer 11 months ago
@Baby6att
You have the right to talk about your "god", but the government can not endorse that "god". None of your rights are being violated here.
Fretmonster123 11 months ago
@Baby6att The first Muslim call to prayer was using a Black slave. "Call the prayer," they told him, and he had no more choice of what to do or not do than a cuckoo coming out of a cuckoo-clock.
Dracopol 1 year ago
How the hell can the people who wrote the constitution, be unconstitutional. This 'judge" is a religious bigot and a dumbass. She can go to hell.
stranger7138 1 year ago
@stranger7138 "How the hell can the people who wrote the constitution, be unconstitutional."
Members of the framing generation acted in unconstitutional ways. See, e.g., the Alien and Sedition Acts under the Adams administration. Spend some time learning actual history.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH So did Bill Clinton but thats not what I'm saying jackass. When it was written, everyone agreed with it. I'm not talking about what happened after it was written. To believe what you and this idiot judge thinks, while writing the constitution, the founding fathers were being unconstitutional. There is also "Freedom of Religion" , and the Congress practices it every day opening their sessions. So try and forget all that college education and use some common sense and learn real history.
stranger7138 1 year ago
@stranger7138 "To believe what you and this idiot judge thinks, while writing the constitution, the founding fathers were being unconstitutional."
You are a moron and have wasted enough of my time.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
The opinion of President LINCOLN & THE US SENATE OR a federal judge in Wisconsin?? Lincoln signed the proclamation sent to him by the US Senate in 1863. Did he know the constitution? Here is the opening statement: Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.
CBYakima 1 year ago
@CBYakima "The opinion of President LINCOLN & THE US SENATE OR a federal judge in Wisconsin?? Lincoln signed the proclamation sent to him by the US Senate in 1863."
As Judge Crabb explained in her decision (quoting the SCOTUS) & I explained in the video, historical patterns don't justify violations of the Constitution. No one acquires a vested or protected right in violating the Constitution by long use, even if the span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
A single pair of hands at work is worth more then a billion clasped in prayer
LokiMythos 1 year ago
Yes , I agree the establishment clause is laughable.,
blaq7427 1 year ago
@blaq7427 Oh, don't waste your time and mine with such silliness, Blaq. It's not the Establishment Clause that's laughable, it's your ignorance and disregard for the fundamental law of the land that is laughable.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@blaq7427 The fact that an American can reach his/her 30s, as you have, without understanding the Establishment Clause is astounding. But none is so blind as the one who refuses to see.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH It might be the law of the land now because of the perversion of what was originally written in the Constitution, but clearly the founders didn't share the same view as these "bench legislators " today.
blaq7427 1 year ago
@blaq7427 Based on your comments thus far, there's no reason for ANYONE to take your opinions about American constitutional law seriously.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH half the country feels the same way I do , but I gues you can't take any of them seriously either . All you have to do is read the Constitution and you can plainly see there is nothing against government endorsing religious practice . There is only a restriction on government establishing a state religion or making a law restricting religion practice. How hard is it to understand that?
blaq7427 1 year ago
@blaq7427 "half the country feels the same way I do"
Even if true, it tells us nothing about whether what you feel has any basis in reality.
"All you have to do is read the Constitution and you can plainly see there is nothing against government endorsing religious practice."
It's called the Establishment Clause. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In the case of the National Day of Prayer statute, it did that and, therefore, violated the 1st Amendment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@blaq7427 because you feel the way you do doesn't make you right either . The only thing that prove who is right or wrong i is what is written in the document. A national day of prayer does nothing to establish religion , so it is not illegal . A state religion created by the government would be illegal .
blaq7427 1 year ago
@blaq7427 "because you feel the way you do doesn't make you right either"
Unlike you, I'm not merely going on feelings, Blaq. Now stop wasting my time and yours with your uninformed drivel.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH You are the one who is uniformed or maybe you lack reading comprehension , otherwise you would be able to see that a "National Day of Prayer" doesn't violate the 1st amendment.
blaq7427 1 year ago
@blaq7427 It shows how bad you are when a guy from the UK has to point this out. The first amendment gives you the right to religion for all!!!! the government can not push one specific to the head of the que, thats what the point is.
loudman12 1 year ago
Actually it doesn't violate the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment says" Congress shall make no law respecting religion......." Nowhere does it say that the government can't endorse religion . This whole " Establishment Clause" is just a fabrication created by atheistic judges.
blaq7427 1 year ago
@blaq7427 "This whole " Establishment Clause" is just a fabrication created by atheistic judges."
LMAO!!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
what is the big deal about a national day of pray ? Do you think the world will come to an end if we had a certain day of prayer?
blaq7427 1 year ago
@blaq7427 No, I didn't say anything about the National Day of Prayer causing the world to end. Rather, I talked about how the National Day of Prayer statute violates the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Christians and anyone else disposed to praying is free to do so. By contrast, the 1st Amendment precludes the federal government--the government of all the people--from facilitiating a religious exercise. So have your day of prayer, just do it without the government involved.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
i love your videos.
toolegit2quittttt 1 year ago
@toolegit2quittttt Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I wish religious people were more like the Buddhist tradition. In true Buddhism there is no "spreading the word" or "bringing people to the faith". The believe that if their faith is real, people will come to it on their own accord. Christianity and Islam both believe in "spreading the word" and forcing people to believe in their faith.
fourtrees44 1 year ago
@fourtrees44 Over my years here on YouTube, I've had a few comments from people who challenged your characterization of Buddhism--at least Buddhism as it existed in places where it had access to political power. That noted, I think you're right: most Buddhists (certainly here in the West) don't seem to be about evangelism, much less using the instrumentalities of government to further their religion.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I am sure there are Buddhist out there who "spread the word", but from what I have been told, that isn't a part of true Buddhism. But then again, that was what I was told, and I don't think I have done enough research to warrant my ability to defend my words. Thank you for your videos, they appear to be well thought out and they give solid points. You also have helped sharpen my discussion points when I discuss with others.
fourtrees44 1 year ago
@fourtrees44 Excellent! I'm so glad you've found the videos useful.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
What I've been told by other rational people on this subject is that this isn't the fight we need to be picking and that no one is being harmed by it -- thoughts?
Daruqe 1 year ago
@Daruqe "Thoughts?"
Given what I said about the decision in the video, I suspect you have a fairly good idea what my thoughts are. The 1st Amendment is *always" worth defending and allowing it to be violated is always harmful. We function in a precedential system.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
All's I can say is: Fuck the 1950s!
KingMacintosh 1 year ago
@TerryBBurton no thanks, i once did and it ruined big part of my life. i cant trust on things that cant be proven. as a veteran you shuld know the pover of science that goes in to the weapons. did you trust in god or in your skills? was it anlges that looked out for you or your fellow soldiers? i think you shuld people and your self little more credit.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
blcok ProfMTH... permanently. Thanks ! the punk needs to grow up.
TerryBBurton 1 year ago
@TerryBBurton in your rage you fail to make a point. come in here europe and see what happends, smaller churces are pussed to the side lines bechose state church has monopoly rights on funeral and taxes. i am atheist and i can say that in european countries that are not secular other religons muslims and buddhist other christian churches have no right to funerals so if you whuld be anglican you whuld be funral in prostestan semetary. pleace dont let america become like eastern-europe. be secula
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
@TerryBBurton
How can I trust in someone or something that I don't believe exists?
Tavereen 1 year ago
Friend, I am a 23 year military disabled veteran who served as a counselor. The jargon you are broadcasting here is propaganda for the New World Order, and not for the Republic of the USA. If you simply take out your wallet and read our currency, you will understand this is a nation that puts their trust in Almighty GOD. Not allah, buddha, zeus, or any other pagan god. Understand ?
IN GOD WE TRUST ... May GOD have mercy on your soul.
GoodPersonTEST com
TerryBBurton 1 year ago
@TerryBBurton "The jargon you are broadcasting here is propaganda for the New World Order...."
It's a shame to see a veteran of the United States military as profoundly ignorant of the Constitution and laws of the nation he defended. You're young, TerryBBurton. Take the time to remedy that ignorance so it doesn't cloud your thinking throughout your life.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
TerryBBurton 1 year ago
@TerryBBurton "you LIE. I am 49 years old"
Ah, well, then you're old enough to know better and, therefore, your ignorance is inexcusable. More's the pity.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@TerryBBurton dude... seriously... the only reason we have those fucking words on money is because of cold war paranoia. people feared everything stereotyped with communism. which includes atheism, unfortunately.
Benlucky13 1 year ago
@TerryBBurton you know that "In god we trust" was added to our currency in the 50s as a political motive in response to communism right?
Radetzky19 1 year ago
@TerryBBurton You know as little about your country's history as you do its law Even the Christian members of the founding fathers were in favour of church state separation. It is such a shame to see ignorant bigots allowing themselves to be mis-educated into undoing so much of your fore-fathers good work.
notinmyname2050 1 year ago
@notinmyname2050 Have you even looked a history book? oh right your waiting for the "Pro Christian Texas Board censored special American History Textbook"!
It is good to see that you Americans are re-writing history so we all can repeat it again!
Good work ProfMTH!! But it seem that the next religious civil-war is going to happen slowly and painfully like a coldwar but with actual victim.
opaldragon75 1 year ago
@opaldragon75 I assume that comment was directed at someone else as I'm an Irish Atheist (not an American Christian) and I'm supporting ProfMTH's position here.
notinmyname2050 1 year ago
@notinmyname2050 yup.... and miss reading tooo! sorry my bad!
but my 'Americans Re-writing' still works either ways so I won't remove it!
I think I need too slow down today to much stupidity making me slip.
opaldragon75 1 year ago
@opaldragon75 Thanks. I take it you meant that comment for TerryBBurton, not Notinmyname2050.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
This is why the Treaty of Tripoli was not contested by anyone anywhere. Not only were they secure enough in their faith to not have to have it represented by government, they saw how and why it should be so.
gatogreensleeves 1 year ago
@themoralnation The Declaration of Independence is not a governing charter. The Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Paris, the Declaration of Independence, etc. were all written before Jefferson's secular Virginia Constitution provided such a successful model for the federal constitution. The change of language is intentional and obvious.
gatogreensleeves 1 year ago
WHY do Christians want to encourage public prayer, their scriptures state:
Matthew 6:5 when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room,shut your door, pray to your Father ..in the secret place. 7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do.
Are they embracing "hypocrisy" or declaring themselves "heathens"?
ledotter51044 1 year ago
@ledotter51044 i think george bush showe what happends when one prays more then works. only thing what mathers is what you do, thats what i think.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
Here is my question. What is the reasoning behind your video posts and what do attempt to accomplish? Please understand this point. I refused to respond to your continued response on my video because you are so wrapped up into proving your point, you missed the context of my video. Once more, the phrase, "separation of church and state" is not found in our constitution. When a federal judge makes a ruling based on any issue being unconstitutional based on THIS phrase, they are wrong.
themoralnation 1 year ago
@themoralnation "What is the reasoning behind your video posts and what do attempt to accomplish?"
In the instant case, my intent was to explain Judge Crabb's ruling in the NDoP case in particular as well as the origin of the NDoP statute and the relevant constitutional law in general.
"Once more, the phrase, 'separation of church and state' is not found in our constitution."
Which is utterly irrelevant to the outcome in the NDoP lawsuit.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @temoralnation "When a federal judge makes a ruling based on any issue being unconstitutional based on THIS phrase, they are wrong."
As I explained to you in my comments under your video and as this video explains (this video that you refused as a video response to yours--what are you afraid of?), the ruling was NOT based on the words "separation of church and state." You are wrong and it is clear that you don't know constitutional law.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Read page 5 of the order and you will clearly see what the plaintiff represents in the order and the wording used is improper. Judge Crabb should have clarified the order regarding the wording, instead, when she was interviewed, she stated her decision was based on her premise of separation of church and state and NDoP being Unconstitutional.
Again, government CANNOT force anyone to pray! I AGREE with this part of the ruling. However, Judge Crabb ERRED when she stated her reasoning.
themoralnation 1 year ago
@themoralnation If the president orders the people to pray or the issue is legislated, then it is a violation of the establishment clause. WE AGREE! However, when a federal judge makes a constitutional decision based on NON-CONSTITUTIONAL wording in the order as well as vocally states these words, she is wrong.
themoralnation 1 year ago
@themoralnation "Read page 5 of the order...."
Quote the part of the decision that you believe supports your claim.
"when she was interviewed"
What interview? I don't really care about an interview. I care about what the decision does and does not say. ....
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH "If the president orders the people to pray or the issue is legislated, then it is a violation of the establishment clause."
It WAS legislated. Presidential declarations of the NDoP are pursuant to a federal law enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president in the 50s. The law was struck down. Compulsion isn't necessary for an Establishment Clause violation. I cover this in the video. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you refused the video response.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@themoralnation Now, I ask you to admit your true reasoning. I would venture to believe you detest religion and you have every right. (I have looked at some of your other video posts to derive my opinion) America is a country founded on individual freedoms. Part of the Declaration of Independence uses the words Creator and Divine Providence. I know people detest these words but silence is awakening to your viewpoint and speaking back. Get used to it my friend cause you are not always right!
themoralnation 1 year ago
@themoralnation "I would venture to believe you detest religion...."
Well, you're wrong.
"Part of the Declaration of Independence uses the words Creator and Divine Providence."
So what?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@themoralnation The Declaration of Independence is not a governing charter. The Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Paris, the Declaration of Independence, etc. were all written before Jefferson's secular Virginia Constitution provided such a successful model for the federal constitution. The change of language is intentional and obvious.
gatogreensleeves 1 year ago
Would you be willing to answer this one question and answer with honesty?
themoralnation 1 year ago
@themoralnation What question? And while we're asking questions, why haven't you accepted my video response?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@themoralnation I asked you, "Why haven't you accepted my video response?" But no answer from you. I guess I'm not surprised. People who don't understand these things are all too often afraid to have their misinformation corrected publicly.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Hey buddy. I hope your having a great day. I will not accept the video response, which we have already covered twice now, because you are so wrapped up in proving your point, you are unable to logically comprehend the points I am making. I understand you perceive yourself to be an intellectual genius. It sure is funny how there is another side that disagrees with her ruling and these people are pretty successful and intelligent also. Why are u not publicly known? This just amazes me!
themoralnation 1 year ago
@themoralnation " I will not accept the video response, which we have already covered twice now, because you are so wrapped up in proving your point, you are unable to logically comprehend the points I am making."
LOL!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH ... disregard ProfMTH... he is not a professor, but a DISRESPECTFUL punk. Sure hope you have the guts to visit me PUNK. I will adjust your attitude.
TerryBBurton 1 year ago
@TerryBBurton "Sure hope you have the guts to visit me PUNK. I will adjust your attitude."
Oh, go fuck yourself, TerryBBurton. Go peddle your tough-guy bullshit elsewhere, you moron.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@TerryBBurton "maybe next time you will refrain from putting VULGAR comments on my YouTube channel."
Girl, if you can't stand the heat, you need to stay out of the kitchen.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Hilarious. Much respect mate!
caligulaincarnate 1 year ago
ProfMTH I have not been on youtube all that often and that when engaged to this service, I am so happy to find your vids. I have been trying to focus on secular, science and philosophy content vids and lectures. Thank you for making this vid, which offers a much needed clarity on this important discussion.
thedeeliciousplum 1 year ago
@thedeeliciousplum You're welcome. Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Well done, faved.
I may link this to my facebook account, I've got some Fox News loving friends that are outraged by this rational, logical, Constitutional ruling.
(If you don't mind)
OnTheFritz602 1 year ago
@OnTheFritz602 Thanks. I don't mind at all.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
3:37 <--- That's okay, you know that if you didn't state your mistake, not many would've noticed. You could have just ignored the fact that you had made that small mistake and not given a shit. Then again, you are not like FOX "NEWS" lol. Good Work Dude!
Paulwhoisvegan 1 year ago
@Paulwhoisvegan Thank you, sir.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I live in a rediculously religious small town in missouri, there is a fundie christian (almost scarily fundimentalist) radio station based in my town and the natl. day of prayer is being held in a church here.
Not on government property, noone here is paying tax money that is going to pay for any part of it.
This is a great example of how people can have a national day of prayer and still follow the constitution, it is solely a religious event and not a governmental one.
FuturePants 1 year ago
Good job, Judge. This one was a no-brainer.
dougmanjones 1 year ago
@dougmanjones Indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
ProfMTH, I absolutely love your work! I'm currently reading Susan Jacoby's book; Freethinkers, A History Of American Secularism, and this video reminded me of a quote by Ethan Allen from 1784, from the first chapter. "While we are under the tyranny of Priests...it will ever be in their interest, to invalidate the law of nature and reason, in order to establish systems incompatible therewith."
Its a good read. Looking forward to more videos. :)
yeti402 1 year ago
@yeti402 Thanks very much.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
i see nothing wrong with national day of prayer with franklin grahm. i see no hurt to pray for others but it could hurt others but they should have there own thing. maybe they feel you can not speak for all of them even if we pray for all who believe. but franklin grahm can not speak for all religion. only i don't like when people trying to force and convert others in there church. maybe frankin said something to certain kinds of people but it should not have cause trouble for pray day.
gnoccafan 1 year ago
@gnoccafan "i see nothing wrong with national day of prayer"
I haven't said there's anything wrong with it. Rather, I've said (and the federal district court has ruled) that the federal government's endorsement of the day violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Religious people can have as many national prayer days as they like. They don't need the government of all the people to do it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Haha, I just watched an O'reily-Palin interview where she explains that there should be a National Day of Prayer because we are a "Christian Nation". I guess she's talking about the Majority although I really never take that seriously because of the plethora of sects... Oh and she's an idiot.
Mccarthy,Evangelicals,Red Scare(2), and Segregation... Boy the Cold War sure was fun!!! "sigh"
JESUS TRUMPS ALLLLLLLLL!!!!! As Mrs. Dobson would say, religion's fun!!!
Toastyfire45 1 year ago
@Toastyfire45 "Oh and she's an idiot."
She is indeed.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
hehe, love the 869 thumbs up vs 6 thumbs down. you cannot make everyone happy. but almost everyone :-)
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
@MWcrazyhorse Is that the split? Yeah, almost everyone. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
It's incredibly hard to understand how is it even possible to overlook something so blatantly obvious for 60 years.. Not to mention enact these things in the first place.
I wish my country had such a clause too, instead we got two national churches...
Deetwo7 1 year ago
@Deetwo7
i would think it would be almost better that way. right now selling crap to the credulous is a free market and it has only made religious groups stronger and more in your face about sales.
83zeus 1 year ago
Shouldn't praying be a personal thing between a person and their deity. These people want to have a special day? Millions of people pray everyday, they don't need a schedule.
MrMRmik 1 year ago
@MrMRmik And even if they want a schedule, they don't need the government to provide it. They can make it up and promulgate it all on their own.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Awesome! Yet another demonstration of how your legal knowledge and ability are an invaluable asset to the YouTube community and the greater world at large.
Evid3nc3 1 year ago
@Evid3nc3 Thank you very much, good sir. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Didnt even know there was a national day of prayer until that court case, I thought it was new legislation had no idea it had been around since I never even heard of this bs before.
tobyeo 1 year ago
If the first of May fell on a Thursday
Would May Day become Pray Day?
Maybe thats why they fixed it to the sixth
Has anyone ever used the term "Pray Day"?
+ "Under God" sounds like the god of the Under world
Thor is the Thunder God
and also the God of Thursdays
Perhaps there is a link to the Thunder god and the Under god on pray day
Choowbz 1 year ago
Thousand dollars says that National Day of Prayer will remain intact. I'm going to pray that more people will continue crying over this issue. Of course, I will be praying to science....
Danny123456789009876 1 year ago
Just wanted to say awesome videos once again :D
Also, who ever you are, the 5 people who thumbed down this video, go fuck your selves. I'm sorry that you either don't have the brain capacity to understand the clear and concise logic presented here, or just don't care.
ChairmanKiel 1 year ago
@ChairmanKiel LOL. Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
love your videos. keep up the good work.
bananaafone 1 year ago
@bananaafone Thanks!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Barbara Crab for SCOTUS
Craigipedia 1 year ago
@Craigipedia Indeed!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Seconded. Motion carried!
If only it were actually that easy.
KentRigeI 1 year ago
While I agree with almost everything that you have said here, how the day is unconstitutional and the like, and you state your point with such grace and intelligence, the only thing I want to mention is how you pointed out the fact that some of the people are segregationists. I honestly dont think it is a valid point, and seems that this tends to aim towards a small and subtle smear campaign - and you are above that - save that for the republicans other than that - brilliant
ninjabob42 1 year ago
@ninjabob42 I appreciate the criticism. Let me contextualize my mentioning that they were segregationists and perhaps it will seem less of a "small and subtle smear campaign" to you. Senator Robertson supported de jure segregation, which legally mandated, enforced, and perpetuated the inequality of American citizens who happened to be black--inequality that the Soviets and their sympathizers would point to in order to claim that equality in the U.S. was a chimera. ...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @ninjabob42 Opposing & ending segregation would have been a potent way to highlight a meaningful difference between the US and the Soviet Union, i.e., Americans' true commiment to equality. Of course this would have taken courage, commitment, & willingness to assume political risk. Senator Robertson eschewed it in favor of a pointless and unconstitutional bit of symbolism, requiring no courage, commitment, or risk, one that demonstrated nothing about the US vis-a-vis the Soviet Union.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH touche-
I withdraw seeing that it was contextual, although (for me) it would have been more effective mentioning that as well, and struck a bit more of a chord.
But kudos to you for this (as well as everything else you have up here) It is refreshing to hear an truthful and intelligent position on topics such at this, that are not driven by angry emotions. It reminds me of older BBC, when it was fact and quite unbiased
ninjabob42 1 year ago
I honestly never even thought about it.
I think I am more lax when all religions and faiths are represented.
If for example it was pray only to jesus or whatever god then i would be pissed but anyone can pray to whatever whoever they want to.
Personally as an atheist I could give a shit if people want to pray to there imaginary friends. I personalty don't see the harm or the help
I guess my position is I don't care either way until its enforced ( I have to pray)
then fuck um
Science bless you
inquiry10 1 year ago
@inquiry10 "Personally as an atheist I could give a shit if people want to pray to there imaginary friends."
Nor do I. As an American, I don't want the government involved one way or the other (i.e., helping/encouraging them OR deterring/discouraging them).
ProfMTH 1 year ago
But do we as atheists encourage the religious?
they see this as an attack on there (god given)-. I think we need to make sure it does not get passed this point but not press the issue. A person is more dangerous when there backs are to the wall.
My idea has always been to play the waiting game and give them there non-sense prayer day and the pledge because in the end this generation is being born atheist/agnostics and we will fix the damage religion has done to america.
science bless you
inquiry10 1 year ago
Learned a lot here, Prof! Thank you!
MuscularHumanism 1 year ago
@MuscularHumanism You're welcome. I'm glad you did. Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Constitutionality aside, I think the day of prayer is pretty silly. It bodes somewhat poorly for the spirituality of the other 364 days.
kreskinkun 1 year ago
Pat Robertson has a father?? I was pretty sure he was the result of immaculate conception.
Clausfarre 1 year ago
@Clausfarre Or hatched from a pod.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Dude, that's uncalled for; pod-people aren't that bad.
jimbrown257 1 year ago
@Clausfarre
You're not familiar with Satan?
jimbrown257 1 year ago
Momentum...great point. it'd have been nice if they had thought of that when they made the Kelo vs. New London verdict. Now you have houses being termed as blighted which are worth 500k. Brilliant. I had a developer threaten me. He had 100 million dollars. I had 1000 thousand. I won, because my town has respect for private property-unlike the Supreme Court
Brambledemon 1 year ago
I do believe in an independent judiciary, but I think some of the criticism leveled at judges is justified. I think it can be argued that there might be a mid-point between being independent and completely unaccountable. It would take a miracle for one of these judges to lose their job. To me, that is a tad scary. Great video and I agree with decision.
Brambledemon 1 year ago
@Brambledemon "Great video and I agree with decision."
Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Honestly, I don't know why people would freak out about this ruling. This does not prevent the community or the churches from organizing national days of prayer. All I see it doing is removing the responsibility from the government to manage a religious event. If I have my history right, it was introduced during the Soviet War -- the same time there was a general movement to weed out those "godless commies", so it likely WAS attacking atheism anyhow.
blackheart32006 1 year ago
"I believe in the Constitution. The Constitution says that government isn't supposed to be infusing religion into our society, and so I asked to have that upheld." Michael Newdow
arizonaviking 1 year ago
He said "retard".
kausidya 1 year ago
Thank you for this video. Not just for the issue about the Nat. Day of Prayer, which of course is unconstitutional - anyone who denies that shouldn't call oneself an American (which I am not btw) - but It is very important that the point you make here about the 50s when God entered the US as an "illegal immigrant" and became the "eternal president" was an act against communism.
I wonder about the two fasci in congress hall, do you know from when they are?
drdalet 1 year ago
@drdalet "I wonder about the two fasci in congress hall, do you know from when they are?"
I'm sorry, the two what in Congress?
Thanks for the comment. I'm glad you liked the video.
ProfMTH 1 year ago