The meaning of separation of church and state, as described in the First Amendment.
Constitution Lecture 9: Separation of Church and State
25 comments on “Constitution Lecture 9: Separation of Church and State”
Leave a Reply
 |
Copyright © 2024. Liberty Walk. All rights reserved |
Paulwhoisvegan
June 1, 2010 at 2:09 am
@helpvidz I love this channel as well!!
ceezmad1
June 1, 2010 at 2:42 am
@shanedk Really, the person is causing panic and that could cause someone to get hurt, I am sure that I could sue that person for making creating panic, perhaps just civil case but no criminal case. I am sure not going to try testing it 🙂
I guess that if no one gets hurt then it is just a joke, like they say it is funny until someone gets hurt.
shanedk
June 1, 2010 at 3:30 am
@ceezmad1 No, there’s nothing illegal about it at all.
ceezmad1
June 1, 2010 at 3:48 am
@DaveC86 “shouting fire in a public building would not be an issue if all property were private”
This makes no sense to me, correct me if I am wrong, theaters are private property, but it is still illegal to scream fire (when there is none) because of the harm that could cause to people by causing panic.
ceezmad1
June 1, 2010 at 4:39 am
@interstate317
1 like this rating better.
2 the religious ones probably do say the new pledge.
3 no
concisefitness
June 1, 2010 at 4:45 am
case closed
helpvidz
June 1, 2010 at 5:27 am
I love this channel, thank you so much.
Altimadark
June 1, 2010 at 5:46 am
@shanedk I’m always forgetting some important detail; thanks for clarifying that one for me. I appreciate it.
shanedk
June 1, 2010 at 6:17 am
@Altimadark It wasn’t just two of the founders. It passed the Senate unanimously, and it was published without any recorded dissent whatsoever.
Altimadark
June 1, 2010 at 6:53 am
Treaty of Tripoli FTW, Shane. It’s hard to argue “The Founders wanted it to be Christian” when two of the most well-known of them flat-out disagree.
shanedk
June 1, 2010 at 7:01 am
@leesec1 And in what way do I have a hard time understanding this?
leesec1
June 1, 2010 at 7:09 am
Here’s what this guy is having a hard time understanding: The founders were religious men, they did not however want a Theocracy because there were several different denominations of Christianity among the people and the founders, to keep it fair so Baptist wouldn’t be favored above Methodist or Catholics, Inserted the establishment cause in the first amendment, notice there is a free exercise clause there to to ensure people would have the right to practice their belief’s in the public square.
neoverse
June 1, 2010 at 8:05 am
@Elitistb616 What research would I need to do? I’m not against prop 8. If you feel a law was broken get off your butt and call the ALCU or something, If not then sit down and stop whining. Stop trying to demonize people because I don’t agree with you. I think you do need to stop posting because your not being logical.
Elitistb616
June 1, 2010 at 8:15 am
@neoverse
This, it appears, is the end. You have shown a steadfast refusal to actually do any investigation or research on issues you repeatedly espouse an opinion on. You know little to nothing of the actual contents of the Constitution, the basis behind taxes, nor even the definition of the word bigotry. You throw out phrases like “evidently people who want to pass laws to get their way are the ones who don’t like freedom”, not even seeing the inherent irony of your position.
neoverse
June 1, 2010 at 8:19 am
@Elitistb616 Is prop 8 law or not? Can you prove any church has broken the law. If you can then seek justice, quit crying about it on youtube. Call me a bigot or what ever you like, it means nothing in the grand scheme of things I do understand having freedoms, evidently people who want to pass laws to get their way are the ones who don’t like freedom. My personal opinion is that there should be no law either way for homo marriage, marriage by license is not marriage in my opinion
neoverse
June 1, 2010 at 8:31 am
@Elitistb616 I’m a bigot, LOL. How about a small percentage of the population wanting new laws to be passed to suite heir life style, then point fingers at people who do not agree with it, that’s bigotry my friend. You want to talk constitution, how about the whole income tax code being unconstitutional, you don’t want to discuss that because it doesn’t suite the homo agenda. You only want to point out a claim against people who don’t agree with this prop 8 stuff.
Elitistb616
June 1, 2010 at 9:03 am
@neoverse ” How is it that someone who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman should be labeled as a bigot?”
What labels someone a bigot is their manner of speech and attitudes. For instance, you are a bigot. And I did show that the Constitution has been broken, which is the highest law of the land, by the government making a law respecting religion. Please quit before you dig yourself into a deeper hole. Perhaps someday you will understand what having freedoms mean.
neoverse
June 1, 2010 at 9:49 am
@Elitistb616 You haven’t shown that they broke any laws, so why would I be embarrassed? Sorry but no embarrassment here. How is it that someone who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman should be labeled as a bigot? So by the use of the word I could say anyone who thinks they can change laws for gays to get married are bigots as well. So is both sides are bigots then neither are.
Elitistb616
June 1, 2010 at 10:16 am
Making churches tax exempt gives them a privileged status. The US constitution forbids very specifically making any laws that respect a religion. Making a church tax exempt (when it isn’t specifically a charitable organization, which has additional rules) is a law that respects a religion, which is forbidden.
Therefore, all churches should be taxed unless they meet the requirements for a charity.
Elitistb616
June 1, 2010 at 11:16 am
@neoverse “Why would I feel embarrassed for a question to be answered?”
Because it shows you can’t google stuff?
“Evidently they didn’t break any rules if their license wasn’t revoked.”
And the current pope wasn’t involved in child abuse coverups either.
“Why is it that you think it’s OK for a group of homos to campaign for a cause and it isn’t for for someone who has a belief contrary to it to campaign against it?”
Bigots can campaign, they just shouldn’t be tax exempt.
neoverse
June 1, 2010 at 11:44 am
@Elitistb616 Why would I feel embarrassed for a question to be answered? Evidently they didn’t break any rules if their license wasn’t revoked.
The only thing misperception is thinking there is some kind of wall that magically goes up to separate one’s belief when he enters a voting booth. Why is it that you think it’s OK for a group of homos to campaign for a cause and it isn’t for for someone who has a belief contrary to it to campaign against it? Sounds like a double standard to me.
Elitistb616
June 1, 2010 at 12:19 pm
@neoverse “Again I ask do those Churches have a 501c3? If they don’t then you have no argument. If they do then their license should have been revoked.”
You could have saved yourself this embarrassment with 10 seconds of searching. Of course the Mormon church is a 501c3, virtually all churches are. Even the Church of Scientology. And of course the Mormons won’t get their 501c3 status revoked, because people fundamentally misperceive what church-state separation means. Like you.
neoverse
June 1, 2010 at 12:21 pm
@Elitistb616 Again I ask do those Churches have a 501c3? If they don’t then you have no argument. If they do then their license should have been revoked.
Elitistb616
June 1, 2010 at 12:33 pm
@neoverse “What proof do you have of such a thing taking place?”
I take it you didn’t follow the whole Proposition 8 thing? It was Church Leaders who sent out fliers and advertisements. It was their sheep who followed along with what the leaders preached from the pulpit. And it was their own documentation that shows exactly what they did. The mormon church funded 45% of the pro-Prop 8 efforts, over 20 million dollars, and were DIRECTLY involved in fundraising for it.
Surhotchaperchlorome
June 1, 2010 at 12:47 pm
@neoverse
/watch?v=j4s5GC06ZWU