The Separation of Church and State
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- (Credit goes to Bishop Conley of Lincoln & his friend Harry Biltz for 1st coining the word "atheocracy.")
The "wall of separation between church and state" doesn't mean the public square should be free from the presence or influence of faith. It means our faith is free from the strong arming influence of the state, and we can express it ANYWHERE and let it influence every activity we engage in (not just the way we worship behind closed doors...but, for example, even the kind of health care we people of faith provide our employees). I'm not pushing for theocracy. But the opposite extreme is an "atheocracy," which would put our deepest convictions about God, who we are, and the meaning of life under the control of a state that picks where, when, and how we express those convictions. In such a state, true freedom is dead. (The HHS mandate is about more than insurance for contraception and abortifacients, folks.)
"Declaration of Independence states that WE have God given rights. Not state given rights, not king given rights,not government given rights but God given rights.And the government function is to protect those rights that government could never give us......" By an awesome dude Chris. That explains a lot.
Downright awesome. Love the explanations, and the facts that back them up.
This is why I'm a libertarian (nearly anarchist) Catholic, because the state has historically been the greatest opposition to the Church.
Catholics should be out preaching the truth with personal compassion. Trying to have Catholicism legislated and forced upon others is not logically Catholic nor compassionate. God gave us free will, so we can't force these things through the state.
We can only preach and argue for them and let God change their hearts
The church teaches against unbridled capitalism, so libertarianism in America is a heresy.
if by unbridled capitalism you and they mean anarchy, fine. But you're gonna have to show me where the Church condemns minarchy libertarianism (some government, but extremely minimal), that which i have come to realize is thee most successful economic setup on the face of the earth.
Pope Leo XII and more recently Pope Francis have condemned the evil Unbridled Capitalism inflicts on the poor.
Nate Nobile Personal opinions of which they are indeed entitled to...
Talk about moral relativism for God's sake!
Amen pray for you 🙏✝️
Nailed it! Great video. I just made a video on this topic (though mine gets specific with Catholicism) as well that details why we NEED religious acceptance, tolerance, and even influence in the government. Also, I love the term "atheocracy". Great vid! Will definitely share with friends.
We do not need religious tolerance. My religion, i.e., Christianity, states to kill all non-believers. Guess what? So do other religions. We are going to end up killing each other. I do my best to stay away from non-Christians. I get hated on for it. My work ethic is also attacked.
Saying that Church and State must be separated from one another, is the same as saying that an owner of a company has no say in his company, and that the employees should be in charge of his business, something he created from the start. Them employees be like, we need to separate the boss from his brand and start making our own rules...does that even make sense, no?? Than hell yeah God has all the saying in his playground. If your'e a muslim and you support democracy, i hate to break it down to you, you are a hypocrite. Long live Theocracy within particular the Theocratic Republic. Muhammad ended the Theocratic Kingdom established by Moses, and replaced it with a Theocratic Reppublic.
thanks mr. Stefanick!
Love your enthusiasm. Keep them coming!
This is great, thank you Chris! Will definitely spread this around
"to mean that the public square has to be free from the presence or influence of religion."
This is a bald faced lie.
The separation of church and state means that the STATE cannot be seen to be favoring one religion over others.
We have a constitution that, at its heart, strives to treat all people equally. Even when others may not like it.
In California some citizens attempted to vote that some tax paying, law abiding citizens were not entitled to the same benefits of citizenship as other tax paying, law abiding citizens. This vote was based on the religious belief that same sex marriage was wrong.
In a process outlined in our laws and constitution other citizens fought to overturn that vote and, in time, it was correctly deemed unconstitutional.
Were churches shuttered? Were priests jailed? Was anyone stopped from spouting whatever religious position they wanted? NO.
Religion is welcome in the public square, but not at the expense of equal rights for all citizens--regardless of whether they believe in that religious teaching or not.
And finally Chris--the next time you or Archbishop Cordileone want people to vote on which citizens get which rights I'd suggest you both remember this--next time we may decide to vote on YOURS.
THANK YOU!!! All of your videos are so amazing.
I refuse to pay taxes toward anything that has the mention of religion. That is my right according to the constitution! Yet they force us to do it anyway.
Okay... I'll trade you no Christmas tree in the Whitehouse for no taxpayer
funding to planned parenthood. Deal? Bet not
I don't get the point. Of course you can express your beliefs, separation of church and state stops laws from being made based on religious beliefs.
Thanks for the great explanation, hope people in another countries take note of this too, for their own benefit.
A government is a group of people who have political power and control, which they use to govern and exercise in the affairs of people at the State, Local level or in a Community. This group of people in government, whomever they are (including Atheist), cannot simply leave their religious convictions at the door when they enter into the realm of decision making, especially those involved in civil affairs. Those people who claim that religion (particularly the Christian religion) should be exited by those in civil government are really saying that secularism and atheism, both parts of the religion of secular humanism, should be the religion of the State whereby all decisions are made in the light thereof. They are also saying that people cannot make civil decisions based on their Christian religious convictions, even though they let secular humanism, that radical secularism where God is excluded influence their decision making.
I refuse this non-sense, if there is to be a dominant religion in Government then it ought to be the true one, where the object is truth and goodness itself (God). When the government has as its object, God - truth and goodness then it will be able to govern in such a way that will help people be most free and virtuous. This secularism will end up reigning as the tyrant everybody fears most, it will be oppressive and it will set itself up as the highest authority of the land. In short, if your rights as a human being are not given to you by God himself then the State must give them, and what the State giveth, the State can taketh away. I have no reason to trust a secular form of government, but I have every reason to trust a Government of people who submit to God, to divine and natural law, who hold that they too are under authority and cannot simply do what they want at any given moment.
Thank you. That rocked!
Rights are interesting thing: they don't exist until they suddenly do, and they exist until they suddenly don't. They rely on practical force and power (in the Weberian sense) to be actualized, and they rely on specific trends and paradigms in discourse to be conceived of.
I suppose what I'm saying is that the idea of God-given rights appear to me to be mostly a legal fiction, when, looking at it from a purely practical perspective, they were institutionalized through a secular, temporal state document, and upheld through the physical and judicial power of a man-made state and its citizens' political leanings.
Then again, I appreciate its value as a legal fiction. One could argue that by hinging certain legal principles upon an authority higher than that of the state, it can to some degree serve as a deterrent against wanton altering of those legal principles. Somewhat like how laws of states have to defer to traditional customs, particularly those that predate the states in question, in various regions of the world as a matter of principle.
So true and well said.
separation is good going both ways. The Church should never conflate itself with that which has historically held back humanity for perhaps centuries; big states.
Powerful.
Powerful, or is it simply manipulation of powerful historical images to promote his particular agenda of a union of church and state? Mr. Stefanick may want to cut the footage of MLK and Kennedy, as it is rather inappropriate. MLK valued the separation of church and state, and lamented religion’s historical ties to violence, ignorance, and deception. In the words of MLK: “In a world gone mad with arms buildups, chauvinistic passions, and imperialistic exploitation, the church has either endorsed these activities or remained appallingly silent. During the last two world wars, national churches even functioned as the ready lackeys of the state, sprinkling holy water upon the battleships and joining the mighty armies in singing, ‘Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.’ A weary world, pleading desperately for peace, has often found the church morally sanctioning war.”
Even as a Catholic, Kennedy believed in absolute pro separation of church and state. He warned against elected officials using the engine of government to impose their religion on the nation; a separation that ensures government neutrality toward religion and religious autonomy from government.
I am simply noticing particlularly convenient choices of emotive footage Mr. Stefanick. Do not pawn off great and compassionate minds like Kennedy and MLK as warriors for your dire cause. I might as well be watching FOX NEWS. Disclaimer: propaganda flavor is detectable even in trace amounts.
Water Lily oh my, all I said was one word...
Water Lily MLK and JFK are both fallible men. A POTUS does not have authority to impose his/her religion on others and King was not of Catholic theology. The sprinkling of holy water was to protect the lives of the soldiers within them, since war is dangerous. The Nazi military would not have had the same opportunity for such blessings since Hiltler was killing Catholics along with Jews.
Great information
Early in 1774, Madison learned that several Baptist preachers were
behind bars in a nearby county for public preaching. On Jan. 24, an
enraged Madison wrote to his friend William Bradford in Philadelphia
about the situation. "That diabolical Hell conceived principle of
persecution rages among some and to their eternal Infamy the Clergy can
furnish their quota of Imps for such business," Madison wrote. "This
vexes me the most of any thing whatever. There are at this time in the
adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in close Gaol
[jail] for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the main are
very orthodox. I have neither the patience to hear talk or think any
thing relative to this matter, for I have squabbled and scolded abused
and ridiculed so long about it, to so little purpose that I am without
common patience. So I leave you to pity me and pray for Liberty of
Conscience to revive among us."
Madison soon had the opportunity to translate his anger into action. As
a member of the Revolutionary Convention in Virginia in 1776, Madison
sought to disestablish the Church of England in that state and secure
passage of an amendment guaranteeing religious liberty to all. The
attempt at disestablishment failed, but Madison's ideas on religious
freedom were included in an "Article on Religion" that was adopted by
the Convention. The statement held that religion can be "directed only
by reason and conviction, not force or violence" and guaranteed to all
"the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience."
Here Madison was responsible for a great leap forward in thinking. At
the Revolutionary Convention, delegate George Mason had proposed an
amendment guaranteeing "toleration" of all faiths. To Madison, this did
not go far enough. He sought to expand religious liberty rights beyond
mere toleration and argued for the "free exercise" of religion a concept
that would later resurface in the First Amendment.
Madison's proposal was turned over to an 11-member committee, of which
he was a member, for consideration. Several proposed amendments were put
forth. Some members favored allowing the federal government to endorse
religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential
treatment of any sect. These proposals were rejected as too weak.
The committee eventually settled on language reading, "Congress shall
make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or
prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
The House of Representatives refused to accept this version, so a joint
Senate-House committee, which included Madison, was charged with the
task of forging a compromise. The records of their debate is sketchy,
but it was this committee that eventually emerged with the language we
know today: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Madison originally wanted to expand the First Amendment to apply to the
states as well as the federal government. In fact, he saw this as the
amendment's most important feature. His proposal cleared the House but
was voted down in the Senate, and the amendment passed as a prohibition
on the federal government only.
So I take it from your video that you want more religious freedom and for the American government to allow for demonstrations of that freedom in forums such as public schools and politics. You also seem to be appealing to references of God from the founding fathers to make it seem as if the American government and God have always held hands and that only recently the current administration has attempted to decouple this relationship through certain changes in phrases as well as the individual mandate in the new health care law.
Let me ask you a question: Would you feel different if say the teacher of your child was allowed to read from the Quran for 30min each day, or perhaps the Hindu's book Vedas, or possibly scripture inscribed on Mnt. Olympus professing Zeus as King of Gods. Where does it stop? Should we pander to every religion while they each share their stories of creation in science class or make us pause 5 times a day to pray to a God which I know not of nor care to follow...But oh wait!, I know what you want. You want it to be just yours, am I right? It's ok, you can admit; It can be our little secret if you want. But why do you get preferential treatment for your religious beliefs? Do you not care if the Muslim child or the Hindu child has to listen to what they see as heresy from the Bible while you extol to them what you believe to be great virtues? Certainly you wouldn't stand for them calling your child an infidel, but as long as it's not your child who cares, right? So, in this great nation of immigrants filled with diversity, you want preferential treatment for your fables. You want to deny women the basic human necessity of health care, which by the way, would prevent abortions from ever having to take place, because your beliefs are 'special' and lord help us if a woman tampers with her hormones to help her live a better life. 'Too bad for her!' you say. 'My special book says to regulate sex and that's what I'm going to do!' Some of you Christians are so selfish that you would rather shut down your buisness, firing 100s of employees, just so you can propitiate to your special God. You would ruin the lives of others for your own happiness.
You can't say a prayer in a public school because the founding fathers (who were Deists btw and not literal fundamentalists; God to them was the unknown and certainly not the same God I presume you worship today) knew that a government which deals in religion takes other peoples rights away. And those God given rights, as you so seem to love pontificating about, also grants me protection from my government forcing someone else's unscientific beliefs down my throat. You want freedom at the expense of others because, in your conceit, you believe your God's virtues to be superior. But you have neither lived long enough nor gotten down into the dirt from which societies are built to realize that morality is not absolute, but rather something left to be discovered through experience. I realize that it is part of your faith to go tell it on the mountain, as it were, but think of the golden rule. I know that you don't want to be preached to by a Muslim all day, so what makes you think the rest of us want to be preached to by a Christian all day. Keep your religion away from my secular government and thank God the founders had sense enough to keep them separated.
The word God here or there every once in a while in the constitution does not bolster your argument. If anything it weakens it because if they truly contrived to have a more religious government then things would be quite different, and I suspect they would have elaborated a bit more on their loaded use of just the word God. They could have meant Thor for all we know. Also, you probably didn't notice, but most of your quotes from the esteemed founders were not from the constitution, but rather personal statements that never made it in. Why? Because even though some of them were religious thay had the compassion not to force their views down the throats of others which given the opportunity seems to be all you Christians ever want to do.
***** Hobby Lobby is a business like any other. They sell arts and crafts. They certainly are not a religious organization. Their employees don't go to work to pray or to talk to their customers about God, but rather to make a living. Why should they get special treatment just because their owner professes to be religious? And that is really key here because It is a few top board members who are trying to impose their religious views on all their employers who may or may not be religious. Why should a woman be denied basic healthcare that she would get at any other for profit business just because one person, the owner, thinks a certain drug or the use of condoms is immoral? Why doesn't he have to play by the rules that the rest of business have to follow? How far can we take this? What if I was a Christian Scientist? Could I deny my employees basic antibiotics because any form of modern medicine is against my religion? We say 'no!' because society functions better when people get the healthcare they need. If I had it my way, healthcare wouldn't be privatized at all and we wouldn't be having this argument because woman could get the treatment they need irrespective of their employer's religious beliefs. And again, the drugs Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover are the very drugs that would prevent women from getting pregnant in the first place, thus eliminating their need for an abortion! It is a fact that the number of abortions go down when societies provide their women with reproductive healthcare. I thought you wanted abortions to go down!? Covering contraceptives and providing birth control is the most effective way to prevent abortions from occurring because people are going to have sex; it is human nature and you can't regulate nature. Why are Christians so obsessed with the female body and regulating other people's sex habits when they themselves are so incredibly sexually dysfunctional? Celibacy for the priest, in example, is the most unnatural thing possible and I suppose that that hasn't led to any problems, right(systematic child rape)? But I guess as long as I don't masturbate everything will be okay. Sex is fun, enjoyable, and completely natural. Isn't life hard enough already without making up rules about how I, and in particular and more frequently, women, should enjoy sex?
I am anti-abortion by the way. I agree completely that people shouldn't be allowed to kill unborn babies, so why not capitulate and give women the kind of care that would prevent them of occurring in the first place. Why shut down your business because a few people might get abortions while in the long term the care you would provide would prevent most of them from ever occurring. I know why. Because you think your religion is special and want preferential treatment while the rest of society has to follow the law that our democratically elected government passed. You can't have freedom of religion in schools or the government because, like I said before, your beliefs would impinge on the rights and freedom of others. But you can have the freedom to worship by the guidelines of your religion at home or at church because that doesn't impinge on the rights of others. You also have the freedom to assemble peaceful religious events in public places as well; no one is stopping the Westboro Baptist church from assembling peacefully. What more than that can you possibly want? Why do you think your freedom has been taken away? It hasn't in the slightest. Our laws are designed to not just accommodate you and your beliefs but others as well; no special treatment for you is granted in the constitution.
As for healthcare, your employees are not your slaves! You do not get to determine how they live their lives and what kind of medication they get because you have a certain religious book. They have just as much right to be free from your religion as you do from theirs! If your business doesn't like this rule, then don't be an equal opportunity employer and only higher people who share your religious beliefs. That way, at least the worker will know what their getting themselves into. How would you feel if your boss came up to you and said we can't cover your prostate cancer treatment because the owner's religious holy book says that you must have committed a sexual sin to have come down with such an affliction? My guess is that you would be quite angry. How do think women feel when they hear this? It's almost as if your think that woman want to get pregnant and get an abortion. Why else would they be having sex? 'Certainly not because they enjoy it!' you think. Accidents happen and it's nice to have someone to help you out once in a while, whether that be your parents your your employer.
***** The only thing I agree with you is that employers should not be forced to purchase health insurance products they do not want. But I don't think elected officials or the government should make decisions based on faith. I think it is best for real world decisions should be based on real world evidence not faith. Faith should just be expressed in the privacy ones home not public square.
+thebrainina Your right and even James Madison seen it that way. When he was president, congress sent him 2 bills. The first was to establish a official church to help the sick and tech their kids and the Second bill was to set aside federal land to give to the Baptist church in Mississippi which he vetoed both bills that he believed would violate the separation of church and state.
In his veto message, dated Feb. 28, 1811, Madison wrote, "in reserving a parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'"
Thor is not God Clearly you don't even no what the word God really means.
Ryu primeus; Your god is on the same pile of gods as all the other ± 5000 gods in this world eh... Ö
Why should God be taken out?
Chris--when you quoting Presidents you forgot this one from #3--John Adams:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"
In context "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
[Adams submitted and signed the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797]
Said when kowtowing to Muslims for peace well after the country's founding. I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but context matters.
What if my religion infringes upon others constitutional rights?
Taking biblical understanding from government would have to offer raciest actions, bigotry, unloving actions and reactions so why would you want this?
You cannot post links any longer on You Tube so go to the New York Times webpage and read today's editorial (Sunday-March-23 on this topic)
😇 *Separation of Church an State* 😇
Find this video it's only a minute or so long. They're playing AC/DC thunderstruck and he falls from heaven for the fireball hits the ground and he electrifies the Arizona grid.
If that isn't absolute proof enough for you and nothing ever will be. "Arizona's Hell"
*Luke 10:18*
“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”
*Revelation 16:8-9*
The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire. They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory.
The table below notes what share of Arizona's general revenues came from the federal government in 2014. That year, Arizona received approximately $10.5 billion in federal aid, 35.5 percent of the state's general revenues.
On a political note, it makes no sense whatsoever that an outside entity can tell someone else what to do with their own property. Hobby Lobby should be allowed the right to their own property and whatever they want to do with it.
because who needs freedom when we can be under one authority absolute control (dictatorship/god) and actually get exited and hope for Armageddon, because america isn't a place of freedom, right?
So if Hobby Lobby can legally deny there employees (who may not be Christians or agree with the owners of Hobby Lobby POV on Contraception) Access to Birth Control because of Religious Freedom of the Hobby Lobby owners that seems to suggest to me if a Practicing Muslim is the owner of a candy store and a kid come in a steals a candy bar and attempts to run out the store the owner of the store under Religious Freedom is within his rights to catch that kid bring him into the store and cut off his right hand because that is what his Religious Believes tell his is the correct thing to do. Or does Religious Freedom only apply to Christian Believes.
Of course not. Because it is objectively wrong to cut people's hands off, this would not be okay and should be punished. On the other hand, refusing to provide birth control to someone because it would violate his/her religious convictions is not objectively wrong and should not be forced on anyone, especially by the government. The government has no right forcing someone to go against his/her religious convictions, so long as those convictions are moral. There are plenty of places to get birth control that don't require forcing someone to violate his/her own religious convictions to get it.
The owner of a business has no business forcing there believes on someone else than claim it's my Religion if the employer wants birth control in there plan then the employer covers it what if the owners religion does not believe in transfusions should they be allowed to not cover it
No they shouldn't! It would be very nice, of course, for the employer to cover the transfusion. But if, for some reason, it is against his/her religion to provide transfusions, then they shouldn't be forced by the GOVERNMENT to cover it!
What if the majority of people believed that pork was an extremely important part of the average person's diet and every restaurant owner should be forced to provide pork for their customers? Should the GOVERNMENT force a Muslim restaurant owner to provide pork even if he/she said it was against his/her religious convictions to do so?
Here is your answer "Morality is doing what it right no matter what your told Religion is doing what your told no matter what is right"
You're not answering the question. The question is not whether or not birth control is moral to use. The question is whether or not the government should require businesses to provide it, even if it is against the business owners' religious convictions to do so.
OMG, i was looking for some intellectual comment on this subject and I found this. How do you not consider your views extreme?
Powerful, or is it simply manipulation of powerful historical images to promote his particular agenda of a union of church and state? Mr. Stefanick may want to cut the footage of MLK and Kennedy, as it is rather inappropriate. MLK valued the separation of church and state, and lamented religion’s historical ties to violence, ignorance, and deception. In the words of MLK: “In a world gone mad with arms buildups, chauvinistic passions, and imperialistic exploitation, the church has either endorsed these activities or remained appallingly silent. During the last two world wars, national churches even functioned as the ready lackeys of the state, sprinkling holy water upon the battleships and joining the mighty armies in singing, ‘Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.’ A weary world, pleading desperately for peace, has often found the church morally sanctioning war.”
Even as a Catholic, Kennedy believed in absolute pro separation of church and state. He warned against elected officials using the engine of government to impose their religion on the nation; a separation that ensures government neutrality toward religion and religious autonomy from government.
I am simply noticing particlularly convenient choices of emotive footage Mr. Stefanick. Do not pawn off great and compassionate minds like Kennedy and MLK as warriors for your dire cause. I might as well be watching FOX NEWS. Disclaimer: propaganda flavor is detectable even in trace amounts.
BTW....that means any religion.
Your freedom to practice your faith does not empower you to exploit my property or my neighbor's property for your religious purposes, any more than my beliefs empower me to exploit yours. The public institutions belong to all and should never be co-opted to endorse your beliefs over mine, nor mine over yours. You are advocating the government endorsing the supremacy of your religion at the cost of oppressing all other beliefs. Your form of oppression should be exposed for the divisive evil that it is.
Which of the gods is this guy about eh... Ü
The state has a duty to prohibit the open exercise of false religions. That was taught by many Popes. While I disagree with modern "separation of church and state," the stance in this video is potentially heretical.
Pope Leo XIII, January 6, 1895
Longinqua; Encyclical on Catholicism in the United States
Paragraph 6:
"... it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced."
Paragraph 6 (cont.):
"... but she (the Church) would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority."
A Catholic theocracy may have a duty to protect an open exercise of false religions, and the Church Herself definitely has a duty to protect Truth, but the intent of the Founding Fathers was not that. Be careful where you throw around the word "heresy".
www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
Above is a link to the Syllabus of Errors from Pope Pius IX. As far as I can tell, sections VI and X seem to directly contradict DH in some areas, such as Chpt. 1, sec 4, paragraph 4. It begs the question, how can two Popes Infallibly contradict each other?
Syllabus of Errors, condemned statement #79:
Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
Dignitatis Humanae, chapter 1, section 4, paragraph 4:
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.