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

only in cmmunist counrties

@@henochparksas opposed to theocracies, the only two options for governments 😂

@@henochparks So I guess the Founding Fathers were Communist then lol 😂

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

@@MikeJJJemptybladdermandate 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.

@@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.

@@jdmcnugent1987 I think to these people the Bible is historical truth. I am actually concerned with the fact that how bible can be sexually explicit and violent. This is going to cause kids trauma.

all the founders were religious or had Christian teaching even if they were not religious

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.

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.

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.

@@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.

Thanks for the info! sounds interesting I hope I can find it...if you have a link and reply here that owuld be swell

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.

Catholics were not to be tolerated so was the atheists.

@@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.

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.

_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

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

you said it wrong----in France its freedom "from" religion... in the US its freedom "of" religion

@@1bengrubbfreedom of religion inherently implies freedom from religion and the constitution is very clear that you cannot be forced by the State into any religion, the government cannot promote or favor any religion, and the government cannot establish an official or state religion of any kind.

@@yallimsorry5983 well in France they ban you from wearing your religious paraphernalia in the workplace.... but in the declaration of Independence it mentions God and creator. Our national moto is "In God we trust" and every nickel, quarter, dime, penny, dollar has that imprinted on there----are you saying the moto and Declaration of independence are unconstitutional? I suppose its national promotion of a diety.... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gcWphpOJmtmUnKM.html

if you had a list of 10 values that all children in the US should know what would they be?

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.

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.

Probably just releasing their pre-recorded episodes in a different order.

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

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.

There are sill blue laws in the US mostly dealing with alcohol sales, car sales, and timing of sporting events.

He’s called Barley ☺️

@@DigitalHammurabi Cute!

such a cute kitty 😍

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Let every religion be represented including those of native americans.

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.

We have the choice to embrace none of them.

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.

@@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.

Also that it isn't wrong to covet your neighbors' husbands.