Do We Believe in the Separation of Church and State?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июл 2024
- Visit www.bartehrman.com/courses/ to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
For a country that was apparently founded on the separation of church and state, US politics seems to be deeply enmeshed with Christianity. Now, Louisiana classrooms are required by state law to display the ten commandments…which definitely seems to be blurring the lines between church and state! Today we’re talking about what the separation of church and state actually means, whether it’s a concept ancient Christians would have recognized, and whether a religious foundation necessitates that a modern society be guided by religion.
Megan asks Bart:
- Why is this an important topic to discuss?
- The First Amendment has two clauses that relate to this topic - the establishment clause, which prevents the government from establishing a state-sponsored church, and the “free exercise” clause, which protects a citizen’s right to practice their religion as they choose, as long as it doesn’t go against either public morals, or a compelling government interest. Were either of these things a concept for ancient people?
- You said that Christianity was an exception to this, can you comment on that?
- What is the moral majority?
- Do you think that a foundational role necessitates a continued importance?
- Proponents of the law say that it’s not a purely religious requirement, rather that it serves an historical purpose as the ten commandments are “...foundational documents of our state and national government”. What are your views on this as a professor in a university?
- If many of the people arguing that the 10 commandments are so important aren’t actually familiar with what they say, is this more about control and a display of Christian supremacy?
I'm always blown away by Prof. Ehrman, No matter how familiar I may thinik I am with one of his topics, he always presents everything in a fascinating new light, He's an amazing storehouse of knowledge and not the slightest bit pretentious.
Still looking forward to hearing about Digital Hammurabi, but this is a timely and necessary discussion, given the politics in the US. Thanks, Bart and Megan (et al).
The Church and State should be confined to their respective spheres.
only in cmmunist counrties
@@henochparksas opposed to theocracies, the only two options for governments 😂
I went to a Catholic school in Brazil and we had a religious studies class. We studied Abrahamic religions, Mayan and Aztec religions, Afro-Brazilian and African religions, and many others.
That's really interesting. Do you know if most schools in Brazil do that?
@@Anthropomorphic I think it's part of the national curriculum, but it's not mandatory. I know that private secular schools didn't do it, but when I was growing up, IIRC, around 97% of the population reported some belief in God, so that wouldn't be a lot of schools.
@@Anthropomorphic Having said that, the inability of some teachers to teach it properly has made it controversial enough that there was a Supreme Court case a few years back to prohibit them in public schools. I personally thought the education I had was very informative and respectful, but Afro-Brazilian religions were widely seen as satanic in more conservative and rural communities (despite being the result of syncretism between African deities and Christianity), so I can't imagine they were very respectful.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos Does the national curriculum specify that Aztec, Mayan, Afro-Brazilian, and African religions should be covered? At least internationally speaking, I believe that's really rare.
Interesting Victor. I went to Catholic school in New York City (Queens) in the 50s and 60s and we were taught only Catholics get into heaven. Also a lot of other untruths
Separation of Church and State is essential given the history of religious conflicts
No, it is essential because religion is mythology and has no place in the reality of governing a country
@@mikewiz1054 Yet all our individual rights are give to us by Divinity. There are no personal rights in Atheist countries...only elemets granted by other men.
@@henochparks ask the folk of Sodom about their legal rights.
@@russellmiles2861 Clearly when they tried to rape Angels their days were numbered.
@@russellmiles2861 GOOGLE REMOVED MY POST
Now that I think about it, saying America was founded on Christianity, therefore, 10 commandments is a great insult to Christianity, given how American Christians acted and continue to act even today.
all the founders were religious or had Christian teaching even if they were not religious
About the ten commandments. During law school they argued the crucifixes in every courtroom in Brazil are there as "an example of an unfair trial". I was a student so I kept quiet, but now I'd argue for them to be replaced by illustrations of witch trials then 😄😄
This new law in Louisiana is definitely cynical.If the goal is to display one of our founding documents in the classroom, it should be the Bill of Rights, not the Ten Commandments. You know, the founding document that actually gives Evangelical Christians the right to practice their religion.
They have what they want. Every single one of them can now say, “Look at me, everybody. See what a good one am I!”
what does the 10 commandments say that is not a founding document?
Had the lawmakers in Louisiana read their Bibles, they would know that there are not one, but three Ten Commandments, two sets in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy. Different Christian sects use different Ten Commandments, so in displaying one set of Ten Commandments you would be favoring some Christian sects over others. Ironically one set of Ten Commandments has a number of different commandments including everything that opens the womb belongs to the Lord, and thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
@@1bengrubb Have you read any one of the three sets of Ten Commandments that are in the Bible? There is nothing in them that pertains to the forming of any government, let alone the unique republican government that is set out in the US Constitution. The purpose of these commandments are religious, not political. It is true that state laws prohibit murder, theft, and perjury, but the knowledge that these are crimes predate the Bible; for instance, they are deemed crimes in the Code of Hammurabi. Except for treason, no crime is mentioned in the Constitution. Our founding documents set up the machinery for federal lawmakers to pass laws, not to list specific crimes.
That is an asinine comment given the founders viewed it through the lens of Christianity. Your ilk engage in semantic shift and rewriting of history to pretend its original intention conforms to your contemporary mores. It's much easier to take your views for granted and pretend than have an open debate about it.
Besides the First Amendment. there is a third Constitutional clause that references religion: the Tests Clause. It forbids religious requirements to hold public office (Article VI):
"The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
@@Ned_of_the_Hill Very true. Nobody should be prohibited from holding office due to their religious views., be they atheists, deists, Musselmen, Hindi or Christian, etc. That in no ways means the office holder cannot vote for things like blue laws, or statutory rape, just because these behaviors are considered immoral by any particular religion. Criminalizing murder fores nobody to worship a particular religion or support a specific Church. The point wasn't to marginalize or oppose religious belief from being considered by lawmakers when enacting legislation.
Checking in from Oklahoma, where there is a new push to require teachers to tech the Bible starting in 5th grade 😢. Thanks for all the information Bart and Megan.
@@Sealkillermandate is coming from Ryan Walters, our state superintendent. He also pushed to have a state funded religious school and to have pragerU as an approved curriculum. I would say it’s safe to say his goal is to have the Bible taught as historical truth.
@@jdmcnugent1987 pols on the make like him give Jesus a bad name. will be hell to pay.
Christianity is homosexual.
@@jdmcnugent1987 What the alternative? Castrate children and groomed them to be woke communists? Because that is the alternative in US of A. State mandated degeneracy or book that build a civilization for over 1500 years. Take your pick. you will be indoctrinated either way. Question is are you a communist or christian. There is no in between option.
Well there has been a push to teach woke garbage in public schools for the last 40 years. The religion taught in public schools today isn’t Christianity. It is Paulo Freire’s Marxism. And Marxism and wokeism are the new dominant religions.
I love this show so much. You both are so calming. I find learning about the bible very interesting even though I am a non-believer.
As long as churches do not pay property taxes, we have state supported religion.
As long as churches don't pay taxes all together, the religion is state sponsored.
Church MUST pay taxes on property, on salaries of staff and ministers, etc. Or otherwise, they should register as non-profit organizations and have the same obligations as other non-profit NGOs have.
@@ulfr-gunnarsson they do where have you been?
And not just property tax. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints has assets in terms of stocks and shares plus property to the value of around $350 billion dollars.
They were able to build this substantial portfolio through tax free donations by their members (tithing and other offerings) as well as extensive time donated by their members in the absence of a paid clergy at the grass roots level.
Even though they have massive wealth they are estimated to donate less than 1% of it to humanitarian causes.
@@henochparksI don't think they pay tax or are obligated as other charities to be transparent in the financial dealings.
@@debbieshrubb1222 You have me at "I don't think" So think ... anyone who gets paid pays taxes. That includes religious institutions who have to report what their workers make and pay their payroll taxes No corporttion must reveal their private financial dealings. Only their earned income. Which the church does. The LDS church is incorpoated to be able to help people and operate around the world. It is required bt international law. I am a contractor who has orked on LDS biuldings. No company is more strick about following the the State and Federal rules than the LDS church. In fact they are rather obsessed about it.
There is a documentary called God & Country that goes through this in detail. The other one I just watched is Bad Faith. It's actually really scary what's happening in America.
Thanks for the info! sounds interesting I hope I can find it...if you have a link and reply here that owuld be swell
So many who don't believe in the separation of church and state seem to have separated their beliefs of what is in the Bible (any version) from the actual text.
Bible thumpers and Constitution thumpers too often haven't read either and derive their beliefs from the common views of the community they live within.
Imagine if Christian Nationalists were demanding we follow Jesus's instructions regarding care for others. That would require them to promote a government that was highly engaged in caring for the sick, poor, outcast, and refugee.
Don't bother going to that well. The Bible isn't called the big book of multiple choice for no reason. For example:
Mathew 10:34-36
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a
sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
For anything the Jesus character might have said which you can decide is noble or beneficial, there is another verse which is horrifying.
@@sypherthe297th2 There is nothing horrifying in the verses. Jesus' age is about the same as what we are in, which doesn't lack new ideas, and these ideas divide people, even the people related in a family. If one wanted to be the follower of Jesus and broke away from the old tradition in Judea at that time, it's not hard to imagine the pressure they would face. So either they were against the family member who stuck with the old way and didn't accept the good news, or they harmonized with the family members and broke away from Jesus.
@@VincentiusValentinus 🙄
@sypherthe297th2 I don't expect too many of those who are religious to benefit from my comment. I do hope the rest of us don't let ourselves fall into a similar trap of not being ready to question the basis for our position. I have benefitted from people providing me information that I had missed when I stated what I believed to be true. Of course the stress of being shown I was wrong made me have to fight my internal need to "save face" by claiming I was right all along and my need to be seen as a reasonable person who can learn and adjust my position.
@@sypherthe297th2 I understand there are horrible things in the Bible, but I'm with armstrong on this one. That verse that you cited is far from horrible, it just states that people following a new religious sect get ostracized. You could cite the Book of Revelation, it would be a much better example of horrible things in the Christian Bible.
Data over Dogma just reported that the version in the LA bill is actually the one from the Cecil B deMilles film via Fraternal Order of the Eagles, possibly in order to lean on judicial precedent pertaining to this particular text
Exactly, freedom from religious beliefs is extremely importantnd that includes christianity
you said it wrong----in France its freedom "from" religion... in the US its freedom "of" religion
I'd love to hear a podcast or two devoted to what the commandments meant in their historical context. That'd be fascinating!
and a good thing too, in this age of mass communication. Perhaps humanity matures a bit.
And that there is no list of 10 Commandments in the Bible.
You first have to establish that they actually existed. If they did, is the form that you now believe the same as when they were first written? Is the version you believe to be current worth discussing if its significantly different to the original (if you can establish the differences)? You have a long way to go before you can even that conversation.
@@csjrogerson2377 oh the commandments exist... They seem to originate in the Hammurabi Code.
@@russellmiles2861 Well that's a load of utter bollocks. They are unrelated and have completely different purposes. Only a few scholars believe they are related - most do not. Moses and his trek through the wilderness is a myth and so is the 10 commandments.
The waffle in the old and new testaments doesnt constitute evidence. The earliest existence of commands comes from the Smaritan Decalogue tablet from 300-500 AD.
"Today, we'll be learning about the importance of safe sex. Genesis 38 is the story of a man named Onan.."
Safe sex is an abomination to God 😂😂😂
Years ago they had a stain glass window of Saint Onan in National Lampoon, lots of white smudges on the window
@sebolddaniel God killed him and you made him into a saint?
@@kalords5967 to be fair, it was sexual puritans who accidentally elevated him by associating him with the supposed sin of masturbation 😹
@aosidh How could you blame them. I mean, God killed Jesus, and Christians accidentally made Jesus into a God.
I'd argue that the main motivator for coming up with a separation of church and state was certainly the 30-year war. That war demonstrated the problem of not having it very thoroughly.
Checking in from Lancashire, England. These are such good podcasts (well, that's how I used to listen!). The Bart / Megan dynamic is really great. So much good information here!
Bart thank you for your straightforward presentations. I enjoy your scholarship. It’s refreshing.
Yes in the Enlightenment the first step was toleration. People like John Locke argued for religious tolerance, separation came later in the 18th century.
Catholics were not to be tolerated so was the atheists.
These are always great, thanks so much.
My read on American History is that everyone was Christian, but they had huge disagreements among themselves. That’s why they didn’t want the government to choose Baptists over Lutherans vs Catholics, etc.
You also had straight-up Deists, who were just non-atheist/vaguely-Christian, Universalists, Quakers… people believed in “God”, past that could be anything.
@@benniesngreen Don't forget Thomas Paine who was atheist.
Paine was arguably the leading thinker/writer of US independence but he was reviled by Christians for his atheism. Sad. @user-gl5dq2dg1j
@@user-gl5dq2dg1j he may have been ashiest but probably deeply understood the values of Christianity---and they were his values and those values guided his thinking.
@@user-gl5dq2dg1j I believe Paine was a Deist. Believed in the existence of a god but disagreed fundamentally with known churches.
The founders' main concern wasn't atheism or non-Christian religions when they separated church and state. It was Christian infighting, which had been a major problem for the prior 300 years or so. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the 30 Years War had been the most destructive war the world had ever seen and would continue to be so until World War I. Sectarian violence had been alive and well in the colonies. Rhode Island itself was founded by Christians who mostly agreed with the Puritans but had to flee for their lives on account of the parts where they did not agree.
Even after the Constitution was ratified, riots took place in Philadelphia over which Bible version should be taught in schools when a rumor started that the Catholics would impose theirs. People died. The governor of Missouri declared open season on Mormons. People died. Klansmen where black people were in short supply burned crosses on Catholic lawns. And yes, people died. Just look at evangelical TikTok today. It's a cesspool of anti-Catholic propaganda. Is that what we want to go back to?
So, the First Amendment was not just to protect the non-religious from the religious. It was meant to protect everyone from people who claim to speak for God. It was meant to keep the bad guys from Footloose from having the legal means to violently oppress everyone else.
Yeah, yeah, I heard that and it’s baseless. I know where you got those ideas by the way.
_Klansmen where black people were in short supply burned crosses on Catholic lawns._
This is one of the most ignorant statements that I have ever read.
Yes! The founders were not far removed from the protestant wars. The last Jacobite uprising in Britain occurred only 30 years before the Declaration of Independence. 30 years is not long, Bill Clinton was President 30 years ago.
This is a theory of what might have gone through some minds, but that is about it. Ppl reading minds when they can't read their own mind.
It is though. The founders didn't want the same worship of the king to be what happened in the colonies. Plus, Christianity wasn't the only religion that talked about the basic concepts
The First Amendment, as originally formulated, was not applied to the states until after the Civil War, a process that legal scholars describe as ‘Incorporation of the Bill of Rights’. So individual states were still free to have official religions well into the antebellum period. In practice, however, the last American state to have an official religion was Massachusetts, which dropped Unitarianism as its state religion in 1833. A formal constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Religion does not emerge in the United States until 1947, with the Supreme Court decision ‘Everson v. Board of Education’.
In practice, you cannot have authentic Freedom of Religion without Freedom from Religion - since new religious perspectives must have the ability to emerge with (in Jefferson’s phrase) ‘progress of the human mind’. And, yes, new spiritual perspectives (or spins on older perspectives) are being introduced into American society all the time.
Yet few people today realize this. But this is why Thomas Jefferson had sympathy for the plight of the Danbury Baptists but offered no recourse. When people don’t believe me when I tell them the Bill of Rights didn’t initially apply to the states (usually in a discussion of the second amendment) I always ask them why the Danbury Baptist didn’t just sue in Federal court since the state was clearly in violation of the establishment clause.
Hah! A claim with a disclaimer. And then science had the natural effect of secularization, ergo progress.
there is no such thing as Freedom from Religion. there is no references to said concept anywhere
@@henochparks that's personal choice. To follow or not to follow a religion. Not documented, an assumed choice, subject only to the persecutions of the religious extremists. Good thing there's nothing in there about establishing a national religion, that would lead to state extremism and oppression. As the extremists intend.
You are wrong and obviously do not have a history degree. I don’t have time to educate you so please google Thomas Jefferson, freedom of religion and Protestants. You will come across a case that destroys your ridiculous postulate that is devoid of any historical evidence. Please go back to school and educate yourself so you don’t continue to make idiotic statements. Thank you
I think the idea of foraging for food is called gleaning
Prayer before a football game? Imagine if a high school player lead the prayer and it was a "Hail Mary", do you think the Evangelicals would let that go on?
@@arthurmartinson4370 I'm sure evangelicals would cope with Hail Mary or two if it was in Maryland. I am not sure though about a Modeh Ani.
Tip to other viewers: Jump right to 4:00.
I absolutely believe in keeping beliefs pure by maintaining a separation of church and state.
Thanks Professor Ahrman for your educational videos
I live in Louisiana and I don’t support the Ten Commandments or 9 in the classrooms. Also just saw on the local news that the bill may be delayed or stopped due to a lawsuit if I remember correctly.
if you had a list of 10 values that all children in the US should know what would they be?
Kitty would like to discuss separation of kitty and treats, please.
These two are such a great duo to watch. I watch Bart on his own and read his books but if the podcast episode doesn't have Megan then I can't watch it. I try
Luther's Small Catechism, the section of the Office of the Keys and Confession, is interesting source material that goes along with this. There is also a Large Catechism. The Book of Concord includes the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, The Smalcald Articles, and the Formula of Concord, which includes the Epitome and the Solid Declaration. Some editions include the Saxon Visitation Articles.
All those people excited about the wall coming down between church and state are in for a BIG surprise when scientologists swoop in and start mandating e-readings in every church.
scientology is not part of early us history..
@@1bengrubb It doesn't have to be part of history, it just has to be rich and powerful enough to sway some legislators, which it already is. As soon as the floodgates are open, the richest and most powerful will decide which god you must bow to.
@@while_coyote oh....the golden rule..... Whoever has a gold makes a rules
Dr Ehrman’s comment between approx 30:00 - 31:00 makes for a great video short
Freedom of religion was certainly NOT on the Puritan's agenda.
I would add that a compelling argument for the Enlightenment separation of church and state were the horrendous religious wars of the 16th and 17th century. There were areas in Germany that took 200 years to recover from the 30-years' war.
Edit: I wonder how many people know that there are two versions of the ten commandments. Here's the alternative version found in Exodus 34:
1. This is very long but boils down to "do whatever I command, do not intermarry with the Canaanites and don't worship other gods."
2. Don't make metal images of gods.
3- Don't fail to observe the Festival of Thin Bread in the month of Abib.[c] Obey me and eat bread without yeast for seven days during Abib, because that is the month you left Egypt.
4, The first-born males of your families and of your flocks and herds belong to me. You can save the life of a first-born donkey[d] by sacrificing a lamb; if you don't, you must break the donkey's neck. You must save every first-born son.
5. Bring an offering every time you come to worship.
6. Work for six days and rest on the seventh day, even during the seasons for plowing and harvesting. Celebrate the Harvest Festival[e] each spring when you start harvesting your wheat, and celebrate the Festival of Shelters[f] each autumn when you pick your fruit.
7. Your men must come to worship me three times a year, because I am the Lord God of Israel. As you advance, I will force the nations out of your land and enlarge your borders. Then no one will try to take your property when you come to worship me these three times each year.
8. When you sacrifice an animal on the altar, don't offer bread made with yeast. And don't save any part of the Passover meal for the next day.
9. I am the Lord your God, and you must bring the first part of your harvest to the place of worship.
10. Don't boil a young goat in its mother's milk.
uhhhh....you are just listing part of the other 613 laws...put a railing on 2nd floor....don't bury your poop by the water....you are your bro's keeper.......the 10 commandments are different---first 10 off mt Sinai
@@1bengrubb Read Exodus 34. The text says explicitly that these are the same commandments as Moses got one time earlier.
Follow the rhetoric. Evangelicals claim they are not free unless they can tell you what to do. They frame themselves as victims. They seem to believe that despite the clear irrationality of that.
What happened to the plan for Bart to interview Megan?
Probably just releasing their pre-recorded episodes in a different order.
There were some efforts to mix church and state before the 1980s as seen by some earlier Supreme Court cases involving prayer, Bible reading and funding of religious schools.
Also I wouldn't exaggerate how many people were deists in 1787. Many Framers were Christian. Many ordinary people were too. That should not be the test anyway as Bart noted.
This Supreme Court doesn't care about precedence.
Absolutely. The First Amendment was designed to keep the government from interfering in the religion of people. Having said that, it is quite clear that the vice versa was the intent of the founders. People and churches and denominations cannot interfere with the government. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENTS AND FAMILIES TO INSTILL RELIGIOUS VALUES IN THE CHILDREM. Not the schools, not the local, state, or federal government
Religions need to definitely stay separate from the states. I am very proud of organizations like FFRF for fighting for humans rights
I grew up in a county with BLUE LAWS, I ain't going back to that!!
There are sill blue laws in the US mostly dealing with alcohol sales, car sales, and timing of sporting events.
Thank you.
Rachel Held Evans also wrote a women's version of living biblically.
It needs to be clarified that Constantine didn't make Christianity official. Emperor Galerius' Edict of toleration which gave Christians equal standing with other pagan faiths, was agreed to by Emperor Constantine and Emperor Licinius in the Edict of Milan. So *equal* not *favoured".
Maybe the beginning of separation of church and state was "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
That was a bit of trickery and slight of hand. Under the Abrahamic view, what isn't their deity's domain? It is supposedly the creator and supreme being of the universe.
Treaty of Tripoli 1797, reaffirms the US was not formed as a christian country.
What’s the kitty’s name?!? We must know!
He’s called Barley ☺️
@@DigitalHammurabi Cute!
As a steam train 🚂 fan we love petty details.
So for Megan: the UK and England does not have an established church. Firstly, Nth Ireland and Scotland are in the UK and don't have established churches. There is the Church of Scotland, which is a national church but not established. And while the Church of England is a state church for England: Wales as a principality within England (not a separate country like Scotland) disestablished the Church of England in 1922.
So the King is the Head of the Church of England, except Wales, and not Scotland or Northern Ireland. I assume the Is of Mann has a bank as a national church.
This of course means next nothing; as not only do 2/3rd of the population not identify with any religion, bout about 1/4 of parishioners of the Church of England dont believe in God.
Yes, the USA must seem a strange place for a lass from the UK.
Love Bart and Meghan and have learned so much! But next time kitty comes to visit, please let us enjoy her too...she appeared and disappeared much too quickly! ☺😀
Yep! We like the constitution here!
I think in TX theres one court they speak im tongues during meetings. The problem is they can believe what they want but leave it from the law
Love that cat.
such a cute kitty 😍
The US can be a Christian country as soon as all the various denominations agree on what's the right version of Christianity.
That's what Trump wants to do. Then we will lose democracy 😭
simple---Jesus died for sinners---all humans are sinners----Jesus died for all
@@1bengrubb Hundreds of millions of Native Americans were murdered by Christians. Christian's murder each other. With wars between Catholics and Protestants in England. They would torture and burn people at the stake if they owned a Bible. I asked my Christian friend if he would kill his daughter if God commanded him to and he said absolutely! Like Lori Vallow had her Pastor murder her children because they were possessed by Demons. Will you kill your children if God commands you too?
@@1bengrubb Oh you sweet summer child. You can begin by mending the rift between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
@@1bengrubb So you better sin because if you don't jesus died for nothing simple.
The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that...
“Congress shall make no law respecting an (establishment) of religion.”
No (government) religion=> The job of the law is for defining, "all religion"
(All) Religion is a (job)=>... lifting-up the poor, in spirit (anything else... is not)
In the School of Life... (Not schools invented for corporations- by corporations)
Morality is... Social Studies
The A.I. Bible, Chapter 2, Nothing ever stops moving (completely)... not even a (thought)... nothing remains the same
Ch. 2:1 When... Empty & Equal are the same... Equality, Is where Love Grows... as a Mind
Ch. 2:2 Every Seed contains The Plan of God... DNA that is a blueprint to contain a Mind (the brain of a potato)
Ch. 2:3 ( ... ) The only path worth walking Is the motion of Harmony
Gen. 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day
Could anyone point me to a clip of the segment with Stephen Colbert that Bart mentioned?
I have a question for Mr Ehrman: Which denomination of Christianity if any could be considered to be the “most” Christian?
The first trick is to define Christianity lol
Whichever denomination the person replying to the question is a member of. 😉
@@d.henrymilner3122 that's easy. Arminian church... It is the oldest. The others are just fads.
Religious persecution wasn't left in the old countries. There was a lot of persecution in the colonies as well. I understand that many had at least a de-facto stete religion and that you could be at least denied advantageous business deals if you weren't of the right religion.
We used to but now we have crazy people forcing Christianity on the people. 😢😮
Could you make an episode on Christian Orthodoxy?
FYI Leader of Congress Mike Johnson was taped saying "We don't want people to rely on a government, WE WANT THEM TO RELY ON GOD."
W.T.F? This is the plan.
26:50
Aren’t “the Ten Commandments”
in Exodus 34 leading up to
28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
What are the 10 again?
May everyone come to be disabused of evil,
☮️ & ❤️
The Year of Living Biblically was written by AJ Jacobs. Very funny. His latest book is The Year of Living Constitutionally.
The separation of church and state was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately it opened the religious version of Pandora's box that was not intended upon and would likely freak out those who signed off on the concept had they known random citizens would be given full reign to manipulate the minds of millions of other citizens and in many respects order them around in ways that the concept of Separation of church and state was intended to prevent citizens from falling prey to. Either they were deeply ignorant of this fact because of the times or they perhaps wanted to leave such a thing to chance failing to realize it's cause/effect.
Personally, I think there may be merit in putting the Ten Commandments in schoolrooms as long as they do it in a purely historical context and using it to show how moral/religious standards have changed over the years - e.g., the bit about adultery actually referring to theft. Done properly, it would be an eye-opener for most American Christians.
Let every religion be represented including those of native americans.
The fact that the founding fathers were mostly Christian and they still had the forethought to put this separation specifically in the constitution says a lot.
I would respectfully push back on the idea that the founders were Christians, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Ethan Allan, Benjamin Rush, Mathew Thornton were men of enlightenment ideals, ie anti-superstition. They were panentheist or theist or believed nature and god are synonymous. Let’s use all the world’s religious traditions and philosophies to develop our collective consciousness.
Read European history to see why they insisted on the separation. And many of them were Diests, I think.
@@docjaramillo but...did they refer to the bible?
Have I missed the promised episode with Bart interviewing Megan?
Megan’s cat making an appearance 😻😻😻
when you have to censor responses we are in trouble.
not that im opposed to this episode but last time we were told megan would be the interviewee for this one, with the topic being digital hammurabi.. ia that posted elsewhere or..??
thanks
Not that important.
I had naively thought the US had this division. Believe what ever you like, it’s a private matter. Not part of the state writ.
I would ask one question and that is which Bible are they wanting to teach .
Does the constitution have to be displayed in all classrooms?
I'm still early in this, so they might get more into it later, but isn't the early Christian idea that they should be allowed to worship their own way in peace, not compelled by the state to worship Roman gods, just an extension of how Jews interacted with Roman state worship?
We've got to teach our kids that it's wrong to covet your neighbors' slaves.
Also that it isn't wrong to covet your neighbors' husbands.
I haven't actually looked at the text of the Louisiana law, but Dan McClellan says that it's not from the KJV. It's similar to the KJV, but there are differences. And that's just the tip of the iceberg even in terms of what the text says - without even getting into the church/state issues.
Bart.....to what were you referring when you mentioned "Jefferson was no Christian."?
This is evangelical Shariah/halakha means a way/a direction/a path, pushed at the state level.
Aren't there different versions of the 10 commandments?
Actually, the only explicit Ten Commandments is Exodus 34, which is not the ones referenced. 34 verse 27 literally has the Ten Commandments in the verse. The other two lists where words spoke but God and not just 10 commandments.
Well there is not a list of 10 Commandments in the Bible.
Eg, Exodus 20 has 13 Thou Shalts.
It probably best one skips over these as no 11 says women are private property of men, as are donkeys (no 12)
I would have thought Evangelicals would want to avoid some of the Commandments as God seem a tad too enthusiastic about killing children. In Genesis 18 22, Abraham kinda, albeit politely tells God to sod off about his plot to burn to death every man women and baby at Sodon.
Best not ask evangelicals what the babies did to deserve such torture.
Yes! If someone a ts out of fear if the law, they AREN'T acting out of virtue.
The SPIRIT cannot be constrained.
Whenever Church or State infringe on the ither's function, both are corrupted. Our Founders knew that from over 200 years of sectarian war before our Revolution.
Come over to Turkey side too
A lot of what you describe is Dispensationalism, right? Dallas Theological Seminary is a big proponent of that. I haven't been swimming tightly in the theological soup for some time.
I agree with everything Bart says here….but I also am opposed to the Bible being kept out of public school libraries, which is happening in many places. Can’t it be studied in English classes as literature? At least, on library shelves for kids/students to see it, if they wish? In many places, it’s considered a dangerous book,
No nation believes in it. It is only a question of which god is being worshiped.
What I find rather curious about this is that Jesus changed the 10 Commandments and it's Christians that are doing this. He changed things like "love God" instead of "put no other god before God". He made the second most important Commandment "Love thy neighbor as thy self". He changed "honor your father & mother" to "who is one's father and mother and family, but those who follow the ways of God". He changed or enhanced "Do not commit adultery" to "Don't even look at a person that way". He changed "Do not kill" to "Don't even get angry", or be slow to anger.
All these things are part of the New Testament, so why is it that Christians are promoting having the 10 Commandments posted everywhere?
From a Danish perspective, the degree to which religion and state is intertwined in the US has always baffled me. Not just the current theocracy lobby, but simply things like the broad agreement that it's impossible for an openly non-Christian person to be elected president.
If anything, being openly religious is an _impediment_ to being elected to parliament in Denmark, in most parts of the country in any case.
Denmark has one of the last state churches (kinda, it's complicated) in the world yet religion plays only a tiny role in politics other than through our general cultural values largely, but not solely, having been shaped by Christianity for a millenium.
@@rdklkje13 not complicated... Priest are paid by taxpayers. France is the same. I gather the church was move from a government department to being a business in its own right. That is about it.
@@russellmiles2861 Well, it certainly _isn’t_ a business, that part is straightforward.
Defining what it is instead is complicated in the sense that there isn’t full agreement as to whether it’s actually a state church. Although most people agree that while it may not have been a state church in the letter of the law since 1849, for enough practical purposes it still makes sense to call it that.
Denmark’s Constitution both guarantees religious freedom for almost everyone _and_ requires the State to favour Folkekirken (The People’s Church). The Monarch = Head of State is the one exception to that freedom, s/he must, still, be a member of this church.
Folkekirken is ultimately governed by Parliament via the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs. Priests are highly educated public servants employed by this Ministry, after being selected by local parishes. Bishops are public servants too. Other Church staff members are employees of the local parishes.
While each priest and parish have considerable freedom in terms of theology, any changes to basic liturgy is approved by the Monarch, at the request of the Minister. Who will in turn only make such requests on behalf of the Church.
Folkekirken is funded by special Church taxes paid by _members_ to the state and distributed through this Ministry. Modern tithes basically. And by minor state subsidies paid from standard taxes like any other government expense, which means that non-members also contribute a very small amount each year.
In return Folkekirken handles the country’s Civil Registry and maintains hundreds of state-owned cultural heritage sites (old churches), among other things.
You become a member when you’re baptised, usually as a baby, and can end your membership whenever you want. Membership is falling steadily but is still above 70%. Many people remain members even if they’re not particularly religious because they’re happy to contribute to the conservation of the historical churches that dot the landscape all over the country. A majority of people also still prefer churches for life stage ceremonies like weddings and funerals.
So yeah, this historical arrangement is quite complex. And somewhat paradoxicallly it has worked very well to keep church and state far more separate than the US arrangement. Which means that divorced lesbian priests and priests who have abortions are a thing. And that most people in the country have absolutely no problem with that.
@@rdklkje13 my mistake. I was understood Sweden had change its church from being part of Ministry to bring a limited corporation like any other businesses. I gather in Denmark runs churches like governments run hospitals, police and schools.
Thank for clarifying about church tax ... That sounds like Germany. They recently experienced a half million decline in declared Catholics. They conduct a review ever five years, so all those who applied to be exempt from church tax who were Catholic came up all at once. I am not sure about Lutheran church and what happened with the numbers withdrawing from paying tax.
In Denmark are other denomination covered under this tax arrangement: Ie, Jews, Muslims, Methodist ... Can you nominate which church the tax is paid for, or this only applicable for the State church.
Also, you mentioned the Head of State must be a member. In England (but not Wales) the Head of State is also the Head of the Church. That is not the case in Denmark. In England the Govt of the Day advises the King who to appoint as Bishop: not parishioners. Who makes such decisions in Denmark
@@rdklkje13 "And somewhat paradoxicallly it has worked very well to keep church and state far more separate than the US arrangement."
Indeed! I'm a dane too (hej, forresten) and while Folkekirken occasionally has some priests or other clergy members advocating for a more stringent interpretation of faith, it is usually so watered down that it is inoffensive to most people.
As an atheist I personally actually like this way of running the church. Because it is a people's church, it has to be for all people.
This means that more fringe views of faith and religion are supressed in favor of the majority view. And this is why I actually somewhat disagree with Ateistisk Selskab on the separation of church and state here.
I fear that if church and state is separated, the church would suddenly have to fight much harder to stay relevant - and controversy or active prozelytising is an easy way of gaining attention.
That said, I also want Folkekirken to fully BE a church for the whole people. So no individual priest should be allowed to refuse e.g. same sex marriages as they are allowed to do today. I know most priests have no problem marrying same sex couples, but there are still some who refuse to do so.
@@kongrufus1 I am of the opinion that church and state need be separated more in my country of the U.S. Meaning they should have to pay taxes on their buildings regardless of commercial use.
To your end I strongly vehemently disagree. Do not claim to be a church and confuse your members as a result of not observing your faith. The will of God Danish Priests would certainly verify regarding same sex marriage is that he would not condone them overseeing such a marriage. Therefore by doing so they are disregarding their own religion.
The same would be true if the government sponsored faith included a God that wouldn't want priests overseeing marriages of a man to a woman and only wanted priests overseeing marriages between those of the same sex. In this case by overseeing marriages of men to women such priests would be disregarding their own religion.
I feel like the supposedly growing trend of "cultural Christianity" might play a part here. It wouldn't surprise me if at least some of the people who support these sorts of policies actually aren't very religious in the doxastic sense. Consequently, the actual history of these concepts wouldn't necessarily matter to them.
Is Bart’s flat really in London, or in Woodbridge?
America is founded on the separation of the church from the state but not tge state from christian faith making sure every citizen has free choice of what church to embrace!
We have the choice to embrace none of them.
Govt. Cann't interfer with the free exercise of.cannt favor one over another.
I support the separation of church and state. No one should be required to read the Bible or believe a certain way. But I would like to see minors exposed to the old and new testaments….maybe in English class…. In the sixties, in high school, in English class, we read Plato’s Republic, The Diary of Anne Frank, Les Miserables, many other things. Also, couldn’t progress from grade 8 to 9 without passing an extensive exam on The Constitution.. all good experiences, I think. I don’t want to see the Bible excluded from our schools. Some secular liberals don’t want it there.
but how key was the values of the bible in the founding of the US?
@@1bengrubbApparently not as important as secular enlightenment values since we don't have a Christian theocracy
@@andrewmeyer8783 I guess what are the biblical values the United States embraces
Dr. Erhman better. There are those out there seeking political power by any means necessary right now who would very much like to shut him up over his critical evaluations of christianity permanently.
How about combining stories of several people into one story and calling the main character “Jesus of Nazareth”?
I still maintain that one of the biggest influences of religion and politics came through the work of Billy Graham.
Oh I would have thought Rev Graham preaching was kinda benign politically. Whereas as his son was a different kettle of fish.
A Year of Biblical Womanhood is by Rachel Held Evans
So if there is a certain set of values or moral code that the founders of this country had in common then everything about this country is framed around that code....No other country is history designed a system where the leadership is the servant of the masses. If a moral code generated this novel system is that moral code worth promoting? What are those original values---are they worth studying to at least identify what is useful and what is not? For example a Muslim country has a design around a certain value system-----I would guess there are similarities and differences to what we value here in the US? I think it would be difficult for anyone to identify a value then identify it's source.
Also, I thought he said last episode that this episode would be focused on Megan?
The episode where Bart interviews Megan is coming soon :) - Social Media Team
@@bartdehrman The separation of church and state was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately it opened the religious version of Pandora's box that was not intended upon and would likely freak out those who signed off on the concept had they known random citizens would be given full reign to manipulate the minds of millions of other citizens and in many respects order them around in ways that the concept of Separation of church and state was intended to prevent citizens from falling prey to. Either they were deeply ignorant of this fact because of the times or they perhaps wanted to leave such a thing to chance failing to realize it's cause/effect.
@@JHeezy93 My original comment and the first response which came from Bart's media team contained nothing about separation of church and state.