What is LLM? Legal and Law Major?

Great speech and very educative.

Arab nations must also allow riligious freedom

I hope $300,000 didn’t change hands here.

Remember the 1st act of George Washington after he was sworn in as President was to consecrate America to God.

Any affiliation with Thom Gunn?

It is a privilege to have listened to same lecture by same lecturer during my LL.B years at Bauchi State University, Gadau - Nigeria.

Thanks @International Center for Law and Religion Studies for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action. 1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*. 2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally. 3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally. 4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional. 5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed. 6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair. 7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed. 8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences. 9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough. 10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race. *The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. *Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.

16:02 The worst things ever. A person who should be a custodian of African religion! Being touched by his subjects ekhanda! Kneeling to them!

❤what an awesome message I bless you thankyou for your heat of unity and a pure heart for God. ❤

Great person. We are proud of you.

I recommend everyone interested in this imprescindible subject the reading of the 1215 Magna Carta and the Edict of Torda, its precedent, to which both I wholeheartedly am grateful for their role in the establishment of rule if law and religious freedom.

May Allah open his heart to Islam. He talked so eloquently about it.

Deano Ware, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and all 9 members of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of Hosanna-Tabor Church, thank you for your heroic defense of religious freedom!

𝐩𝓻Ỗ𝓂Ø𝓈Ｍ

Very interesting point more especially on targeting the poor, it is difficult. Tithing should not be a scam.

Very good discussion and analysis

Good morning 💞

Very inspiring to listen to such well spoken panelists.

Divinely inspired by that thing that can't materialize.

Nonsense..

👏👏👏

Maravilhoso! Precisamos nos unir em prol de nossa liberdade de expressão religiosa no Brasil e no mundo todo, pois é um dieito constitucional de todos, a Bíblico também.

It will appear that in decades to come, Ukraine will adopt a more vast liberal religious stand point to opening up the nation to the larger community of national state to their long term advantage.

Thank you sir, for letting us know our history line from left to right side. May G od bless our islands. Thank you.

SHE IS JUST 3Foot 11 INCHES TOLL I REALY SALUTE DIS AMAZING LADY

SHE IS JUST 3Feey 11INCHRD TOLL AND IM KASHMIRA SINGH MAAN FROM BOMBAY SALUTE DIS AMAZING LADY

I am from Chile, I lived 8 years in the United States, there I knew the US Constitution and I fell in love with it. Now Im living in Chile, Im getting my law degree and let me tell you something, Elder Oaks speech was directed to every nation in the world, in fact Chile is now going through a contitutional process and those divinely inspired principles are nowhere to be seen so far. Pray for Chile!

Hola hna Juana ! Me gusto mucho , el tema de hoy como siempre lluvia de bendiciones , k Dios la proteja hoy , y siempre!!!

Felicitaciones!! Una muy hermosa ceremonia y muy organizada. Un saludo muy especial desde Boston a toda la comunidad de este colegio y en especial a mi querida sobrina Valeria. Muchos exitos en su futuro en Alemania.

muy bueno!!!

Que maravilloso escuchar a los expositores de varias religiones pero con un propósito en común....de socorrer a los más necesitados y fortalecerlos en su dignidad y fe !!

Muy Buena conferencia de derecho religioso y libertad de culto! Excelente participación del Vice Ministro Fernando Griffith!!!

You are a fantastic Human,my friend!💜

Importante que podamos difundir este video, para esparcir el conocimiento de que la religión es fuente de fortaleza y de bien para la humanidad y es fundamental conservar nuestra libertad de culto

Ojalá esto se extienda y permanezca por todo el mundo

Extraordinario !!

No leyeron ninguna pregunta relacionada con cultos no cristianos.....

starts at 22:45

You are a great man Prof

Prof. If every Namibian leader was like you, Namibia would be great.

Thank you SO much for this. My ears really pricked up when (please excuse me for not catching your full name) Christine postulated that the talk was aimed mainly at United States members. As an English Latter-day Saint, I am often discouraged when I hear talks extolling and sanctifying the Constitution. For many of us looking from the outside in, the Constitution seems to be like a millstone about the neck of progressive, relevant and contextually appropriate governance. The Constitution was (and is to an extent) required at the time it was drafted but the fervid rigidity with which it has been adhered to (even in spite of the Amendments) seems often to have stifled progress. As with many other prophecies, revelations and inspirations the Lord has spoken in terms relevant to the time in which He spoke. Obsolescence is and must be a part of growth and progress. I understand that the members of the panel are aware of these nuances but, having lived in both the USA and England (as well as other countries throughout the world), I am offended by the apparent privileged and arrogant attitude, found among many American saints, that democracy and freedom were neither practised nor even thought of in the rest of the world before they discovered them, perhaps it is a 'genetic memory' handed down by the Plymouth Brethren or those who fought in the war of independence! This assumption that 'every good thing EVER' was founded, formed and disseminated in and from the United States, is a damaging concept. Not to the rest of the world (we are quite happy and confident in our own capacities, thank you) but certainly to the thinking, intelligence and attitudes of the people who allow this perception to narrow and shackle their own minds. Thank you to all of you for your thoughtful, wise and open-minded views.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKXNhoCjrr6DfM0

I must ask.... If every nation strove to make themselves better would this not make the whole world better? Nationalism is only negative when it strives to tear down other nations instead of building up its own.

May god bless those who make us feel proud Sikhs!!!!🙏🙏

It sickens my heart to hear America described as a democracy. (@ 30:35) A casual difference? No! Founders called us a Republic, a Constitutional Republic. It is representative leadership bound by the terms of the Constitution. Democracy is majority rule. Mob rule. 51% can trample the rights of 49%. I want Church leadership to know these terms and use them accurately.

The Mormon church must STOP this attempt to rewrite the history of JS and the early church! JS was no fan of democracy. He appointed himself to ALL branches of Government: Mayor of Navuoo, He was the chief magistrate, General of his own Army, had himself anointed a King. He was creating a theocracy inside the US. He was arrested and taken to Carthage because he burned down the newspaper that was printing stories about his Polygamy, polyandry and going after young teen girls. He was definitely NOT a fan of the 1st amendment.

Excellent panel! Nuanced, thoughtful, and thought-provoking. Thank you Cole.

For a guy who researches conservatism, Whitehead is shockingly ignorant about conservatism. As a Trump-loathing, professional FoRB activist, political scientist by training myself, I find his research design and scale of Christian nationalism to be complete garbage. He calls Christians anti-science, but there is nothing more anti-scientific than biased research design. It would be comical if it were not so cliché for him to encourage open-mindedness in his opposition whilst so narrowly pigeonholing his opposition himself. He should listen to the speaker from yesterday and turn around to spend some time looking at and trying to understand what religious conservatives see.