The Supreme Court and the Ten Commandments: A Close Look at One Weird Case | Big Joel

[@BigJoel]

Hey everyone, just a slight clarification. When I talk about the prosecution in this case, I end by saying something along the lines of “if the essence of this display cannot be changed, then why does it matter if the court takes down the display.” Now, of course, even if the McCreary courthouse could never stop advocating for the goodness of religion, there’s still a good reason to take the display down: because they acted illegally, in violation of the establishment clause, and the goal of the government is generally to stop illegal things. Now, this answer is certainly true, but still, I think it’s clear, given the arguments of both the lawyers and the justices, that at stake in this case is more than ending illegal action. The court (most of it, at least) ACTUALLY wants to maintain religious neutrality here through the censoring/not censoring of the courthouse display. And this is the point I’m referring to with my second part. Hope that made sense!!

[@cavalrycome]

The ruling against the display added something to the meaning of that blank space on the wall though even if the meaning of the original display also persists in some form.

[@TheSheath63]

cavalrycome I agree. Just the act of the court deciding to take it down adds meaning to the wall. That meaning being that the commandments were here, and now they are not because the court decided that it violated church/state. The court added the meaning that the state should not mingle with the church, and action will be taken if an attempt is made to favor one over the other.

[@Powerofthewaaagh]

I think your interpretation of the prosecution's argument is missing part of his point, which (to my reading, at least,) is that the meaning will live on even when people have forgotten the context. To support my point, I'll compare to the so-called "confederate monuments" scattered across the US, mostly in the southwest. While a portion of these statues and memorials were built after the civil war, most were built between the 1900s and the 1920s, during the Jim Crow era, with another spike during the civil rights movement. These statues were not built with the intent to remember or memorialize anyone from the civil war, but with the intent to push back against black people asking for civil rights. (At least in part, anyways.) Today, most people do not remember this history, and even those who do might struggle to tell the difference between a monument built in earnest and one built out of racism. (Unless they knew by whom or when it was built.) And yet, the effect of these statues is still present to this day, (lessened, but still present) even when the memory of its intent is all but forgotten by most.

[@BigJoel]

To power, The effect point is definitely something I didn’t have time to talk about. Whether the third display, on its own, was actually constitutional is a whole other can of works haha

[@BigJoel]

To sheathe and cavalrycome, yes, definitely the court’s taking down the display added to the meaning of whatever display came after. Whether that means the post-case display was actually religiously neutral is another question, though. And, assuming the third display would have been fine if not for the history, it’s hard to see why the fourth display is an improvement.

[@LackingSaint]

'The ten commandments "WERE" proudly displayed here.' there is so much salt packed into those quotation marks that I immediately suffered heart failure

[@Huntracony]

I personally find the word 'proudly' more interesting. That changes it from an interesting historical note to a statement that they'd like it to be there, a statement that they'd like to show a religious text, which to me seems just as unconstitutional as the original display.

[@stitchedwithcolor]

@@Huntracony Yeah, i can't help but see that "well, here's what WAS proudly displayed here" as a big fat FU to the higher courts--a third attempt to get as close to the line as humanly possible without actually inciting another lawsuit. I wonder what it was that made the ten commandments display so important that they were looking for any possible camouflage or justification that would keep it up, just so long as the mention stayed there.

[@alexquinn2390]

@@Huntracony Not really, it's just a statement of the opinions held at the time it was put up. Though I think it's inarguable that the existence of this display isn't an obscured religious exercise. Big Joel makes the case that if essences depend on the intent and not an essentialist view of their content separated from history, then the essence of the action can extend, and if this display was taken down the wall would have to be taken down because it has been tainted with the essence, and the courthouse, and the state. I disagree. I believe that it's only a problem if the action is a continuation of a previously fully religious action. When the state built the courthouse, because the state had the intention here to endorse religion, you could say part of the intent in creating the courthouse was religious, but I believe you can't deny that mixed with the religious intent was secular intent, therefore the essence isn't completely religious unlike the 10 commandments display. Can the building be tainted with the religious intention if it wasn't originally intended as a purely religious act? Yes, but it also exists as a symbol of American law, and I believe that intention overrides the religious one in the case of the courthouse. It can be tainted in that it can become a symbol for certain groups of people, theocrats for instance, but only for them. The building itself isn't an endorsement of religion by the state but it can be a symbol of the attempt to do so and as such as a symbol for groups other than the state that wish to do so. Meaning while there may be protests by theocrats here in the future I believe this display should go, but the building should stay.

[@jaybee4118]

Just a thought I would think it’s important because they believe god’s law is more important than man’s law and that man’s law IS god’s law.

[@Gr3ypsTFT]

@@alexquinn2390 I think that more interesting is the idea that maybe the essence will disappear but only if it becomes non-apparent. Only once people stop being Christian would the 10 commandments lose their religious value. Similar to how ancient Greek or Roman religious artifacts would not be there to spread the religion. The 10 commandments would forever have their meaning as long as the people in the county are religious. However people will forget the meaning of a blank wall over time. In the situation where they claim a religious document used to stand there it will remind the people of the county that the courthouse wished for it to be there.

[@MrYelly]

"Mom, can I hang overtly religious texts outside of an educational facility?" "No honey, education is secular." "Ill better ask dad then"

[@Tirgo69]

"Mom, can I hang something in my courthouse?" "For education?" "yeeeeees" ACTUALLY DOES IT FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES LIKE A BOSS

[@CoryMck]

_"The Ten Commandments 'were' proudly displayed in this frame"_ Is the pettiest sentence I've read all year

[@spitfire184]

I'd also argue that it's unconstitutional and that they should be hauled before the court again.

[@davidcharles9325]

Use single quotes when quoting something in a quote.

[@JustinMoralesTheComposer]

David Charles second pettiest...j/k that was actually super helpful.

[@TaCo0oCaT]

@@davidcharles9325 Is that how you are supposed to do every time? ""The Ten Commandments 'were' proudly displayed in this frame" Is the pettiest sentence I've read all year"

[@sundayschoolflunkie3979]

it just oozes contempt for the people who don't want to be indoctrinated...just like Christianity.

[@DanThePropMan]

I know you said you're not a legal scholar, so I can give you some constructive feedback on some of your terminology? You talk about the "prosecution" and "defense", but those terms only make sense within the criminal law context. McCreary County wasn't being prosecuted for a crime, they were being sued in civil court. And in civil law, the appropriate terms are "plaintiff(s)" (the ACLU) and "respondent(s)" (the county). This doesn't really change any of your analysis or conclusions, but I know there's a lot of confusion out there about the differences between civil and criminal courts, procedures, and so on, so I think it's important to be accurate when talking about matters of law.

[@BigJoel]

Hmm maybe it would have been better to get it “right,” I chose to call them defense and prosecution cause I thought it made things easier to understand

[@gregorybrian]

@@BigJoel Perhaps "plaintiff" is a better term to use than "prosecution."

[@internetuser8922]

@@BigJoel in the end, that's your decision. In my opinion, I would recommend using the proper terminology, but provide a clarification of the words you're using that may cause confusion. Unfortunately for me, your use of the terms defense and prosecution really distracted me from your otherwise good video that I like.

[@supitschillbro]

@DanThePropMan The county was the appellant, not the respondent, at the Supreme Court level b/c they sought cert. I thought you did well as a non-lawyer Henry. @Big Joel You pronounced Justice Souter's name wrong, but I don't think that was a gross error. I also think you should go to law school, because jurisprudential q's like the ones you're asking are really being shaken up in light of POTUS et al making the court out to be primarily another partisan institution. ex post facto opinions, judicial pragmatism, all sorts of good stuff. If you've ever asked yourself "what does it *really* mean to own something?", I have several 1000+ page books written by long dead people who try to explain it.

[@stephenleblanc4677]

@@BigJoel In cases like this, just don't use generic terms. This is a general rule in all writings and discussions and applies to pronouns and other generic terms. Why not say, in all cases. "the county" and "the ACLU." I am a lawyer, and lawyers and judges often get "respondent" and "appellant" or "plaintiff" and "defendant" WRONG because it is often hard to keep track of which is which. Even if a tobacco company is in a lawsuit with the American Lung Association, it can be either way in both cases and can CHANGE during the long life of many legal proceedings. This general rule can also avoid the gendered pronoun problem. If John identifies as a woman and uses some unknown preferred pronoun "they." then say "John's family" or "John's sibling Mary." It can at times get clunky, but clarity and precision over anti-clunkiness.

[@raddestoflads7771]

Dude, that animation was fire. Nice work.

[@BigJoel]

I didn’t make them haha, a channel named mothcub did

[@raddestoflads7771]

Nice work to them then lol

[@iwanttobelieve2]

Best crossover

[@koboldcatgirl]

@@BigJoel As a friendly recommendation, I think it'd be a good idea to explicitly mention the channel at the start of the video-just because of how rough things are for animation channels on KZbin, and how large your following is. :)

[@dyb368]

@@koboldcatgirl I think he does this in all his videos now so you mightve inspired it a bit :)

[@dreamthief286]

I'll leave here a phrase a law student friend said to me once: "Laws exist to maintain the status quo, not to define what is just"

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

Then why do laws change?

[@jackkendall6420]

@@IkeOkerekeNews Because the status quo changes.

[@johnjaremchuk5935]

"The appearance of law must be upheld, especially when it's being broken."

[@jackkendall6420]

@@DembaraLemoon Because it's a simplistic analysis of that period of American history to see only the increased use of drink without also taking into account the parallel growth of the temperance movement... there was massive pressure from religious movements and secular activists like Carrie Nation to make drink illegal.

[@LancesArmorStriking]

@@jackkendall6420 But the status quo is _established_ by the law- ignoring the fact that the term is extremely vague anyway, the normalcy of a given situation doesn't appear in a vacuum. If by the status quo you mean public opinion, then that change would indicate a shift in what is seen as just, and the law changes to reflect that. The status quo cannot exist for its own sake, what is it based on? Usually, a social contract that compromises between the needs of a society and its government. In short, I don't believe OP's comment, and I don't buy your explanation.

[@timothymclean]

16:20: This sounds like a "Have you stopped beating your spouse" question to me. "Yes" and "No" are both problematic, but there are other answers-answers like "It doesn't make sense to ask if an unconstitutional act would become constitutional decades after the fact". That strikes me as equivalent to asking if an act of vandalism would become legal after everyone forgot the window was broken; it probably wouldn't be _prosecuted,_ but that doesn't make it _legal._ Look at it another way: If I smoked genericum yesterday, and then two years later genericum becomes an illegal drug, my smoking of genericum is not a crime. Why would this be different in reverse? And how could this be inherent to the action or the law itself, rather than changes in the law? It makes no sense to me.

[@oceanusprocellarum6853]

Well kind of. You're still arguing in an essentialist point of view. Regardless of the feelings of society, breaking the window is ESSENTIALLY illegal. (Or at least illegal in the context of the law, which makes no discernable difference in regards to your argument). These displays are ESSENTIALLY religious. Thus the law is being broken in both cases, regardless of the context of the society around them, and you want to prosecute on that basis. That's what I read your argument to be, and Joel addresses this essentialist point of view in the video. I think the better resolution is to accept the first option: That the displays will become constitutional if their religious context does fade with memory. This admission doesn't at all put the prosecution in dangerous or uneasy territory. It resolves a lot of cognitive dissonance, especially if you want to prosecute from a non-essentialist point of view. (This following long-ass paragraph is copied-and-pasted from my other comment on this video lol) Isn't it intuitive that, if Christianity were to die out as a living religion and become a mere relic of history, then it would no longer be treated as a religion and more of a historical artifact? Thus any government display that includes elements of Christianity would truly simply be only an educational and historical statement, bearing no religious significance, and thus the display would not violate the Establishment clause. That's a fair conclusion to draw. The display's meaning derives from its context. If the context no longer recognizes Christianity as a religion, then the display is no longer religious. If you shift the analogy away from the contentious religion of Christianity, it makes even greater sense. Let's say hypothetically that Western legal ideas were greatly influenced by some ancient, long-dead Indian religion that no one takes seriously anymore. I find no reason to believe that the government would be supporting the establishment of that long-dead religion if it had a display including that religion's elements. Now of course, the prosecution's new argument would be this: The context in which we currently live gives the display a religious significance that violates the Establishment Clause, therefore we must take down the display. But I think that would make the prosecution all the more straightforward. Christianity is the most populous religion in the world. There's no doubt that at least some of the citizens of McCreary County can testify as Christian. Thus, the context gives the display religious significance. They win the case or something like that. And I don't think that it's fair at all to say that the display would be constitutional in 15 years or something. Christianity is a powerful force that's hard to get rid of. It's lasted for millennia. All the atheist thinkers so far, like Voltaire, that have predicted the death of Christianity have been wrong. Furthermore, the percentage of religious people in the world, like Christians, are actually outgrowing the atheists. Christianity will continue to be a part of the context into the unforeseeable future, and thus the display will continue to be unconstitutional into the unforeseeable future. I don't see any imminent threat to government religious impartiality until the time that Christianity dies out, and by that time, it wouldn't even matter to us anymore.

[@termination9353]

"HOW DO WE READ STUFF?" ! If you count 'I am the Lord your God" as a commandment [0.03] instead of as a statement of fact then YOU @Big Joel don't know 'how to read stuff'.

[@diegog1853]

But the purpose of the question was to challenge the importance of this "essence". And history was established to be an important part of this essence not by the defence but by the prosecution. Remember that the final display was considered to be acceptable, but because of the past history of the display, it was deemed that the essence was still religious enough to be unacceptable. And it was argued that this essence has this unacceptable religious meaning only to the people that know the history of the display, like for the people in the courtroom and whoever put them up. But for the rest and the vast majority of the people, this display would bed considered acceptable. Furthermore, given enough time, not even that short history of the display will be important. As the people who saw the originals forget it, and the ones that put them on leave office.

[@KanderUdon]

Not really. The question was very legitimate and it was in response to the argument about essences. The point of the question was to clarify the prosecutions argument. I.e since you believe that objects have essences defined by history and collective memory, does that essence disappear over time along with the collective memory. Its a very relavent question because as Big Joel outlines, it potentially presents a logical contradiction in the prosecution’s argument.

[@PixelSwitch7]

@@termination9353 what does this even mean

[@CupOfCozy]

I love that this is like a real world "God's Not Dead" scenario and you're taking it on. Also the animation work is incredible!

[@cQunc]

Funny you say that--I just got a pureflix ad on this video

[@TazTheYellow]

If anything, it's basically an inverted "God's Not Dead"--the Ten Commandments have significant religious meaning, and therefore they are unconstitutional for the government to display and should be taken down.

[@Knightmessenger]

Its a much more believable and realistic example of a case than any gods not dead movie

[@an8strengthkobold360]

Except that it's not persecution. It's just being held to the same standards as everyone else.

[@oceanusprocellarum6853]

Haha I do wish "God's Not Dead" had realistic scenarios like this that evoked thought instead of just "oh no I'm persecuted." Then the whole false "persecution" narrative wouldn't be so pervasive. Though it's a bit of a reach to say that Pureflix would want their audience to think at all.

[@verager2493]

It's interesting to see a good faith reading of the religious arguments, here. However, I don't think any of those arguments were made in good faith. The past, and context, are important because they provide a data set. When a lot of religious groups make these arguments, they argue that they are the "default" and thereby the correct option, effectively a traditional bias fallacy. Some cases are undoubtedly legitimate, and just placing some history. That sign at the end, though... That's some salt, right there. They got pissy that they didn't get the initial display, and their legal dodge didn't work. And, for the record, I agree with Scalia that the government still has a bunch of religious trappings. I just think they need to be removed.

[@westworld237]

...there are many religious people who genuinely make these types of arguments in good faith :(

[@JacobGeller]

Awesome step up in production quality, this is really fantastic.

[@silverXnoise]

Nice to see you here. I’m a big fan of your work, as well. In particular your piece on art theft genuinely moved me. Impressive young minds, you define what I believe is special about this stage of media’s evolution. Keep it up!

[@Emily-l1r1m]

can’t believe jacob geller and big joel are besties

[@TheQueerTailor]

I also want to quickly point out that the term “judeo-Christian” (a term often used in these discussions) is deeply problematic as it erases the important differences between Judaism and Christianity (as well as historical persecution of Jews under Christian rule) and erases both faith’s connections to Islam and other religions. The better term is Abrahamic religions.

[@EJAnonymus]

Although I agree Judeo-Christian is problematic, I don't think "Abrahamic" is necessarily appropriate in this particular case - it's pretty clear the motives behind the display(s) were specifically Christian, so just "Christian values" probably would be the most accurate to the discussion at hand.

[@TheQueerTailor]

EJAnonymus I would agree in this case, as well, I more meant broadly speaking

[@laughable6650]

Doesn’t Abrahamic have a similar problem, as it would erase the vast differences that all three major Abrahamic religions have, and their historical animosity for eachother?

[@thehuman2cs715]

The people that use the term "judeo-christian" are mostly conservative or further right so they're probably excludding Islam on purpose

[@sam-wt1gq]

@@laughable6650 I think it might depend on context? Just speculating but I think when referring to an issue that "Abrahamic faiths" all face, it's ok to use that term. Whereas, when referring to issues that one faces and another does not, or when specifically talking about the conflicting values, it would be more appropriate to just list them.

[@KirbySaxton]

Holy shit holy shit please actually do make a video about Hoodwinked

[@KirbySaxton]

btw I liked the video even though it doesn’t have any hoodwinked content

[@notnotkavi]

that was one of my favorite movies!

[@blindey]

He is. It's the third in the trilogy of trash dreamworks era that he's covering. Very entertaining and enlightening.

[@Odinsday]

blindey That movie is a masterpiece of cinema.

[@KirbySaxton]

blindey Uh... Hoodwinked isn’t a dreamworks movie. And it’s also not at all trash

[@Vysetron]

The simultaneous push for religious neutrality and dependence on religion of the SC is fascinating stuff. They can't favor a religion over others openly because that would go against the very basis of what it was built on/for, yet they need religious authority because (in Scalia's POV anyway) the masses respect it implicitly. neat

[@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7]

The Court may need more than just the respect of the public to maintain legitimacy, I think the Court also needs God--though not any specific god. The western perception of authority is ingrained in its religious history; our own government functions on the "secular" idea that the Constitution adheres to "higher principles." But in an atheist universe, how can higher principles exist? How can inalienable rights exist? Who has the authority to objectively decide on what these are? I think the only way we can argue for the legitimacy of specific higher principles and even objective truth is by the conceit that an authority exists that CAN make such rulings. Our courts, therefore, are an attempted approximation of that objective truth. If the Courts and society existed in accordance with the truly atheist and nihilistic philosophy that there is truly no theoretical set of "inalienable rights", then the Court has no legitimacy. Its rulings are, by definition, arbitrary.

[@nicholasmitchell6025]

Grimm Atheism and nihilism are not the same thing. We create our own objective morality from our perception of injustice based on an evolutional tendency towards the good of our species. I believe in the exact opposite of what you’re saying. If the only motivation to us is eternal salvation, how can there be objective morality? Is there no room for selfless action? And how can you reconcile your perspective the nihilistic views contained within Buddhism? Are you just assuming that all religions are like Christianity, providing a series of religious principles that act as moral principles? Plus there are many inconsistencies in Christianity, like the paradoxes that come with omnipotence, the many popes advocating for violent action, the existence of evil in a world made by a perfect creator (how was satan made then?) and the potential for universe to create itself.

[@Dorian_sapiens]

@@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7 🐱‍🐉

[@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7]

​@@nicholasmitchell6025 I'm not saying atheism is nihilism, I said "atheist and nihilistic", the two are separate conditions. But you said something interesting: "We create our own objective morality from our perception of injustice based on an evolutionary tendency towards the good of our species." What makes evolutionary morality objectively moral? Evolution would produce morality arbitrarily due to the happenstance of competitive advantage. Those "morals" are not, necessarily, "moral". The success or failure of our species is not objectively good, and evolution doesn't care if we go extinct. I don't think objective morality can come from evolution. I'm also not saying anything about "eternal salvation". I never mentioned heaven, I mentioned God. I also didn't mention which god. By God I mean any abstract entity that could theoretically discern any objective fact about the universe, ethical fact or physical fact. So I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm not saying that any religion (like maybe Christianity or Buddhism) gives the court morality. I'm saying that the concept of objective truth and objective morality is implicitly dependent on a theoretical non-denominational God--some entity that could decide what is and is not moral.

[@Basko234]

@@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7 I think what you are talking about is less related to God and more to mythology in the sense of Joseph Campbell. We need a coherent structure of what is wrong and right that can be understood and told to future generations. There's a bunch of stuff concerning that topic in "The Power of Myth" which you can also watch online as an interview

[@rjr81]

The central problem with monuments like these is that they are created (implicitly or explicitly) as an act of dominance of one group over the other. This can be seen in how they are erected during periods when that dominance is threatened (see how most Confederate monuments were erected during the Civil Rights Movement). Removing such monuments is essential to making the government and the community welcoming to the whole rather than the privileged few.

[@xRaiofSunshine]

Sadly, with that in mind, the commandments *did* actually provide a bit of historical context of the US :/

[@Murtage33e]

@@xRaiofSunshine I don't understand how the ten commandments could provide more historical context in the American South than a Confederate general. Not that I belive either should be on display.

[@huntercurry8604]

It's absolutely reductive and divisive to say all of these such creations are expressions of dominance. Are you projecting that you are in a constant battle of ideological combat? Most people accept and respect monuments from other cultures without feeling threatened.

[@rendomstranger8698]

@@DemonicRemption Because we don't want the government promoting *your* religion and forcing *your* religion on us. Just like we don't want them promoting Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religion. You don't get any preferential treatment, nor do you deserve any.

[@DemonicRemption]

@@rendomstranger8698 Oh I get that Christians shouldn't get any preferential treatment. But every person I've seen make that argument is some privileged white person on the opposing side and not a lower middle class blue collar racial minority like myself or a blue collar caucasian worker. So forgive this humble house nigga, if I'm ignorant of this preferential treatment you speak of... Hell if you want me to be honest ever since I became aware of that argument a few weeks ago, all I see is both sides privileged atheists and theists arguing over who's the most oppressed. But we're talking about a display on a court house wall you only see in passing. How is a mere glimpse of something religious on a public building offensive to one who doesn't believe in any deities? It holds no bearing or concern on you or your principles, so why so triggering? And don't tell me it implies that God exist or that a mere display on a wall in public view is forcing a religious doctrine on you! It's a poster, you see it, you move on.

[@Dachusblot]

Hmm, I don't think that the "10 Commandments used to be here" sign says the same thing as the first three displays at all. This whole case definitely doesn't take place in a bubble, but I think the context is even bigger than you acknowledged in this video. See because, IMHO, the only types of religious people in America who actually care about whether or not that courthouse displays the 10 Commandments are the people who are already convinced that the government is trying to persecute them for their religion. You couldn't prove this, but I am 99% sure that choosing to display the 10 Commandments in the first place was deliberately meant to be a statement not only of faith but of defiance against secularism. They may pretend that wasn't their intention, but I betcha deep down that was exactly why they did it: as basically a giant middle finger to the big God-hating government. Putting up a sign afterwards that says, "The 10 Commandments used to be here," to me, pretty blatantly means "The government is persecuting us for our faith." It is a signal directed specifically at that one group of religious people, letting them know that the folks running the courthouse are 1) "one of them," and 2) being oppressed by the government. In other words, both the original display and the new sign signal to the target audience (Christians with a persecution complex) that the people in the courthouse are part of their in-group, so in that sense they _are_ sending the same message. But the first display was more a plain declaration of faith, meant to make other people in the in-group feel comfortable and proud, whereas the sign is meant to stir up anger and feelings of victimhood. But anyways, great video, Big Joel! Love your stuff. And your sweater looks very cozy.

[@Dorian_sapiens]

I think you're totally right. And, if so, losing that court case was a bigger victory for them than winning would have been.

[@ultratankie]

Dachusblot I fully agree with your analysis, but to me that’s the reason why the current sign also shouldn’t exist. Granted, if the establishment clause doesn’t have a specific goal in mind beyond “no religious endorsement” for its own sake, then the sign is fine. But I believe the establishment clause is a means to an end, that end being to prevent the state from treating Christians differently than people of other or no faiths; and as such, the current sign being a dogwhistle to Christians that says “we hate secularism” is also a very clear sign to non-Christians that they are not welcome and their religious freedom will not be upheld as strongly in this particular courthouse.

[@SJNaka101]

So, what you're saying is, the county courthouse did this out of self preservation, to maintain its legitimacy and therefore its power within its community?

[@rosemali3022]

I had very much the same thoughts. The only saving grace is that for people who do not have a persecution complex, the sign says that the city is a sore loser. I would laugh my ass off if I saw that sign.

[@beccak8166]

I think one thing you're missing with the persecution analysis was how many fundamentalist Christian scholars HATED the McCreary County legal arguments. Many of them felt really uncomfortable with the argument that the Ten Commandments were inherently secular, they wanted them to be religious and they wanted to be able to display that religion. They WERE in defiance of the secular state, as you said before. They felt very uncomfortable when this high profile case twisted that intent. That's why I think the new sign is a continuation of the original defiance, the Christian Right often doesn't use this case to drum up feelings of sympathy, because they are embarrassed that the argument in their favor was also an argument against the meaning of one of their most sacred religious texts.

[@clementinedanger]

I think a big oversight, in this court case and especially in this video, is the question as to WHY separation of church and state is fundamentally important. I think the argument of "essence" is interesting but incomplete without the acknowledgement of the experience of the individual walking into this particular courthouse, or any courthouse in a country like the US where the separation of church and state is performative at best. Those citizens who have been hard done by, by both church and state (such as those betrayed by the church hierarchy through different forms of abuse, those whom the state has historically disenfranchised) get a very powerful message in every American courthouse: you will likely not get a fair shake here. This system is stacked against you. This is true whether there is a display there or not. But to erect a display that reinforces and even celebrates this fact is an extremely intimidating gesture and a slap in the face of the disenfranchised who may be walking into that courthouse knowing that the deck is already stacked against them. To them, it is a celebration of their disenfranchisement and a signal that the lopsided system is working as intended by those with power over them. Now obviously the Supreme Court has a sworn duty to stick to law and precedent, but this video has no such obligation. And while these questions are supremely important and intellectually stimulating, I think no answer can be complete without a consideration of the very real human cost of a system that signals that the disenfranchised are there because historical systems put them there. It borders on salon intellectualism, divorced of the individual price paid by those who have been victims of this system. Which is not a problem in and off itself, but this video does go to great lengths to emphasize the value of context, so I think it's worth making a point of mentioning this rather than leaving it implied.

[@pinklabrys1938]

I know I'm a year late but I'm glad I took the time to read this comment! These were exactly my thoughts. It seems ill-advised to end a video of this sort with a kind of theoretical pontification on the nature of objects and the value they have while the church actively oppresses millions of people and is at least in namesake separated from the state for these reasons. To be a bit curt I found myself screaming "so what" for a lot of the video. Looking at it from a straight forward point of view, a religious monument was erected in front of a courthouse. I frankly do not care about the philosophical implications of religious artifacts and how humanity changes alongside them, I care about the separation of church and state and the courthouse is clearly in violation of this principle.

[@sweatyslapfight7900]

@@pinklabrys1938 I like Big Joel for the fact that he care more about philosophical implication and ideas over the actual politics or effect of things. I don't know many that do this, so i enjoy the variaty.

[@babahu15]

You see, it's the Horseshoe Scalia: He asks why does the court favor religious neutrality in some cases and not others. He means they are going too far, I'm thinking they've not gone far enough. Much to think about.

[@floral_stone]

Definitely a very interesting case. As much as it pains me to admit it, I think Scalia is onto something when he says the court acts out of self preservation. Fundamentally the State has to maintain the illusion of it's legitimacy above all else, because if the contract it holds with "We The People" is known to be broken, that legitimacy dies, and with it, the power the State has to enforce itself and the systems it upholds. So the court, as an instrument of the State, works to this same goal of self preservation above all else, even if that goes against it's stated goal or purpose.

[@garrett2439]

I agree, but I don't think that is quite what Scalia meant, I think the point he was making was narrower than that.

[@keenanmccarty9925]

Scalia was a very smart man with a very strict view of the world, it’s why he was so damn good at arguing. You’ve gotta respect him even though he was wrong about... most stuff. Like I totally agree with his argument, but my conclusion is the opposite: the court’s instinct for self-preservation leads to a selective enforcement of a controversial law. My conclusion would be to enforce that law universally; and allow democracy to decide the value of the law or repeal it, but his conclusion would be to declare that the law is unenforceable, and as such unconstitutional. Same valid argument, different conclusions.

[@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7]

The Court may need more than just the respect of the public to maintain legitimacy, I think the Court also needs God--though not any specific god. The western perception of authority is ingrained in its religious history; our own government functions on the "secular" idea that the Constitution adheres to "higher principles." But in an atheist universe, how can higher principles exist? How can inalienable rights exist? Who has the authority to objectively decide on what these are? I think the only way we can argue for the legitimacy of specific higher principles and even objective truth is by the conceit that an authority exists that CAN make such rulings. Our courts, therefore, are an attempted approximation of that objective truth. If the Courts and society existed in accordance with the truly atheist and nihilistic philosophy that there is truly no theoretical set of "inalienable rights", then the Court has no legitimacy. Its rulings are, by definition, arbitrary.

[@Dorian_sapiens]

@@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7 🐱‍🐉

[@danielheflin6658]

@@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7 What gives God that authority? If God murders a city, is it now a just act because he's God? God doesn't actually simplify any of these questions. It just adds a layer of abstraction. Ultimately, if God won't enforce the law, then 'God given rights' are a moot point anyways; whether or not they are God given, they are court enforced. And the courts already act selectively at this. So, whether a court chooses to enforce a 'God given right' determines whether or not we have that in practice. Why then do we need God's input?

[@cavalrycome]

22:44 The self-preservation thing is interesting. I think legal culture has all kinds of rituals within it that are actually more about preserving legal institutions than anything that we'd normally think of as the function of the law. Funnily enough, the law is a bit like the ten commandments in that respect. About half of the ten commandments set out rules for things that have nothing to do with religion (murder, stealing, adultery, lying, coveting), but the other half are all about respecting the institution that the ten commandments belong to, namely the church. The court system can't serve justice if it doesn't exist so its continued existence is itself an issue of justice, and on that score it does make sense to be sensitive to any threat to its perceived neutrality or credibility.

[@nicholauscrawford7903]

The church did not exist when the Ten Commandments were given. God was telling mankind to respect Himself as the Heavenly Father, not as a body of born-again here on earth.

[@alexwyatt2911]

It’s been 5 years since your comment regarding the neutrality and credibility of SCOTUS and I’m incredibly curious if your thoughts have changed considering the unhinged actions and rulings made by the conservative SCOTUS justices.

[@cavalrycome]

@@alexwyatt2911 I think the only honest way to shore up the perception that the supreme court is neutral and credible is to make it as neutral and credible as possible, and I think Trump's frenzy of partisan appointments did damage its credibility because it's clear that he did that to repay support from evangelicals who were willing to forgive his lack of Christian credentials to get what they wanted on the abortion issue. The fact that the justices can be expected to vote along party lines on certain issues means that ideology and not evidence or argument is the main determinant of those rulings. That delegitimizes the court because it suggests that complex legal arguments are just sophistry designed to provide intellectual cover for political loyalties. There are still a lot of rulings that are unanimous or nearly so, though, and we can have more confidence in those.

[@alexwyatt2911]

@@cavalrycome First, thank you for taking the time to reply. Second, I wholeheartedly agree with your reply. I’m wondering if the current conservative justices simply don’t share the sentiment expressed by Scalia (in the video) regarding the importance and necessity of the Court’s self-preservation efforts. Or if the current conservative justices believe their partisan supporters will adequately insulate them as well as the Court, as an institution, from the diminishment of the perceived credibility and neutrality of SCOTUS.

[@CynicalHistorian]

When Scalia is speaking of self preservation and the interpretation of the law, he is referring to the court itself. SCOTUS is constantly having to justify their ability to rule on constitutionality, since judicial review is not actually in the Constitution. He is saying that if they impose neutrality, other branches may ignore their ruling, causing a precipitous decline in the Court's power, harming the potential of judicial review. Reading their decisions even in the last few years, there is almost always included a pint justifying their ability to rule on this or that matter. He is not speaking of the government as a whole, but SCOTUS on its own

[@sprout_gen]

Ultimately, the SC is an instrument of the government, and (argubly) the most incredibly powerful one historically. I see it as the arm of government that has the most impacts the long-term. It's effects on law, history, culture, and society are long-lasting. Without the SC, government, and ultimately the State, ceases to be. By speaking on the self-preservation of the SC on it's own, Scalia is by extension also speaking on the self-preservation of government itself, even if he didn't intend to.

[@Chimera-man-man]

That was dope as hell please do more of these I actually felt my brain cells shuffle on this one

[@RealLukeWilson]

UGH. I'm from Kentucky and lemme just say: we have a long, weird history of weird political/religious scandals. We have not just a Creation "Museum" right across the river from Cincinnati's Natural History Museum, but we ALSO recently got a Noah's Ark theme park right next door (funded with state government allotted money & tax breaks). The CEO of the company that owns both had a televised debate against Bill Nye in 2014 to completely pointless results. In Lexington, my hometown, Mary Todd Lincoln's childhood home is just a couple blocks away from the house of a Confederate doctor who experimented on his slaves. Kentucky never officially seceded from the Union, but one of the stars on the Confederate flag is for Kentucky, and during the Civil War, we had a capital for both the Union (Frankfort, the current capital) *AND* the Confederacy (Bowling Green, of the infamous Kellyanne Conway "BG Massacre" that never happened). Kentucky has many "dry counties," which means that no alcohol can be bought or sold within the confines of the county limits. And I used to work for a nonprofit in the education field, of which every meeting by the state education department began, ended, and lunched, with a prayer. PLUS, just this week, we learned that our governor had secretly given the state historic park for Daniel Boone's family home to a Baptist church without any explanation or announcement. He also came out in support of the Covington Catholic Scumbag Brigade. And in a previous scandal, the state campaign manager for Trump (a preacher) was arrested for child pornography less than two months after the 2016 election. The Kim Davis story is STILL ongoing here, too, but I really dgaf about that anymore.

[@anthonybowman3423]

You know when you say all that back to back, Kentucky lives up to it's reputation. I have some cousins I'm less than proud of who regularly vacation to Kentucky to go see the ark or museums or whathaveyou. People who unironically argue that Christians are the most persecuted group in America. It's fun being from the South.

[@joshwilkins9138]

I don't know much about much of that, but both the Creation Museum and the Ark were privately funded. Neither received funding from the state

[@anthonybowman3423]

@@joshwilkins9138 I think he's referencing the fact that they both received millions of dollars in tax breaks for being a religious institution. 18.1 million during construction of the ark specifically.

[@RealLukeWilson]

Josh Wilkins the Creation Museum was privately funded, yeah, but in addition to the millions of dollars in tax cuts, the Ark also got some state funding for tourism based off of fudged yearly revenue projections. Which was bad, though hard to substantiate; but since they blatantly stated that they fully intended to discriminate on the basis of religious views when hiring, they legally shouldn’t have been allowed to get any of that. (Obviously they discriminate on the basis of sexuality too, but unfortunately that isn’t illegal in Kentucky.)

[@Underqualified_Gunman]

one point to note is that the covington students did nothing wrong

[@Apankou]

So... Scalia arguing 'we don't enforce the establishment clause consequently anyway' is an argument in favor of LESS enforcement?

[@mrlost279]

I would totally be down for more video essays based on strange court cases.

[@lauratidwell2563]

That made my heart so happy to see a whole 360 around a particular issue. Thank you so much!

[@willowneedles4061]

Thank you for answering my question!!! (I promise I'm actually the same person lol) This was a really cool video, I would love to see more of these Supreme Court videos (or at least videos where you analyze real life events like this)

[@johnchessant3012]

This case is kind of unsettling to me as well. I'm no legal expert either, but something feels wrong in permanently ascribing an irrevocable intent to every action. Also, if we make the assumption that the same thing can mean different things to different people (e.g., the sign advocates religion to one person, but simply acknowledges its historical role to another person), how does the Court choose one meaning over another? I think these are legitimate concerns because this is exactly what I would have said had the Court decided the wrong way.

[@raintalonxOc]

Much prefer this to hoodwinked. I'm really glad that you are doing supreme court cases. Keep up the good work.

[@Akumu74]

I’ve missed you big Joel. I love you big Joel.

[@PanicbyExample]

"part of our history" is pretty reductively monolithic

[@McSwagBurgerXL]

Sharks are just another kind of fish.

[@theletterm1787]

Shark facts at 5

[@frorencenightingale1217]

I call it the Sargon Defense :D "Show me one law that tells women not to go into STEM fields" Nice to see the historical precedent :D

[@ddh-o8s]

Yeah, it sounds radical, but the thing is legally having this precedent is very important, although critics may say it allows courts to assume cultural context in a legal context.

[@djaevlenselv]

Also know as the Air Bud defence: "Ain't no rules says the dog can't play basketball."

[@tirone7520]

Happy Birthday Lilly Ashton! And thank you Big Joel for the video. Really thought provoking.

[@IAmAlgolei]

When we talk about the separation of church and state, the existence of gods is irrelevant. What's relevant is the existence of religion. If we accept that no gods exist, those religions still exist. One problem with Christianity (and Islam and at least some other religions) is the inherent property of advocacy of their religion(s) against all others. As long as the person presenting tenets of such a religion is also a practitioner of that religion, such advocacy will always be apparent.

[@glassoforangejuice6675]

I'm so glad you decided to go ahead and talk about interesting Supreme Court cases!

[@mothcub]

Hey good vid who did the animations and would u give that person a kidney jw

[@lunabellsprout]

mothcub I heard a rumor that the animations were done by baby Jesus

[@betchaker21]

Happy Birthday here from Australia, good job in the animation

[@minivergur]

Happy birthday mothcub.

[@doveinthesand]

Real good animations. Definitely worth a human kidney. Happy birthday. 😊

[@mothcub]

thank u love u

[@FluteWarped]

The Hidden 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not dislike a Big Joel video.

[@lolcatjunior]

@@Nikkis_Archive Heretics.

[@100billionsubscriberswithn4]

Why the double negative?

[@elijahpadilla5083]

@@100billionsubscriberswithn4 It's not a double negative. The option exists to acknowledge something exists without either liking or disliking it.

[@kayladean597]

@Alan Crane I like PewDiePie and BigJole sue me

[@termination9353]

"HOW DO WE READ STUFF?" ! If you count 'I am the Lord your God" as a commandment [0.03] instead of as a statement of fact then YOU @Big Joel don't know 'how to read stuff'.

[@Mcampbell1297]

This was amazing I would love to watch more of this

[@hollxws]

2:36 I can’t believe you STILL haven’t done Hoodwinked

[@stardoogalaxie9314]

You're such a pleasant video essayist ^^

[@xovvo3950]

This video is a little weird for me because there so much focus on essences when the issue is pragmatics. The plaintiff argued what they argued, but we don't need to get into the secret essences of objects when it can be shown that the display is part of an effort to propagandize (and part of a larger Dominionist movement!), and only had changes made when it absolutely had to, only to the degree it had to, to see what could be gotten away with. Moreover, Scalia is telling convenient lies about Government endorsement of religion, pointing to examples like tax-exempt status of churches and invocations, while ignoring that the invocations have to be pretty neutral and open to be given by any religious leader (as The Satanic Temple has gleefully made a point of doing) and tax-exempt status is given to churches regardless of religion/denomination; and further would like the reader to believe that any unconstitutional practices not yet litigated (like churches not losing their tax-exempt status when they become explicitly political actors) are Good Actually rather than what they are: cases that haven't come before the Court yet. (completely leaving out that even if Scalia would have liked to point to a decision that supports his point, we have a plethora of other decisions that the Court later overturned because they were the wrong decision, e.g. Plessy v. Fergusson).

[@oceanusprocellarum6853]

I think the purpose of this video was to explore the plaintiff's actions and the ideas behind them rather than lay out a legal argument against the McCreary Courthouse that uses pragmatic and non-essentialist arguments. Because you're absolutely right. The meaning of the display absolutely does come from context. And that context is part of the Dominionist movement or at least the power or prevalence of Christianity in modern society. This is a non-essentialist and contextual argument that I agree with and that I'm sure Big Joel would agree with as well. Why would the plaintiff choose an essentialist stance? Isn't it unproblematic to admit that the display would be constitutional in a hypothetical context that all of society has long forgotten about Christianity and Christianity holds the same significance as something like Greek mythology? Isn't it more problematic to argue that the displays have an essence that is fundamentally religious and that would never change even if the context was different? The video only appears weird because it tries to dive into the weird arguments that the plaintiff and respondents made.

[@phi-blue]

@@oceanusprocellarum6853 The thing with context though is that without the knowledge the display *was* at one point religious, then the context can be taken as it being a historical monument. The third monument doesn't have a significant context to prove it's advocating religion, it only does with the knowledge of the prior monuments. That knowledge makes it an essential one. What strong difference is there between a contextual and a essential argument? Perhaps you can make an argument that the context of the two prior murals proves the intent of the third one was to advocate religion, and therefore it violates neutrality. However, the intent behind the third monument and the current one is still the same-- it's still a message with religious intent.

[@georgeparkins777]

See, Scalia is, I think one of those conservatives at the far end of the bell curve. A lot of conservatives are really legitimately irrational people who don't see or care the contradictions in common conserbstive doctrines. People like Scalia on the other hand are very intelligent and capable of doing the mental gymnastics necessary to find satisfying resolutions to those contradictions. There's this term that we throw around on the internet: "a galaxy brain take." Ad near as I can figure we usually mean overanalyzing something to such an extent that you can come to a bizarrely irrelevant and usually wrong conclusion. I'm not trying to say that Scalia is too intelligent by half. He's genuinely intelligent and exceptionally educated, or so we would hope for him to jointly hold the highest office in the land. But conservatism, like the religion that so often underpins it, and which Scalia does hold, is presuppositionalist: as a conservative there are certain precepts that he can't challenge, to the effect that he is constrained to use his logic and his knowledge of the law to force the conclusion that he already believes in. And thus he can be an powerful force acting logically in service of sheer illogic, not just because he has truly immense lawful power but because he also has remarkable power to convince even fairly rational people by well-constructed arguments. Moreover if you read certain Christian and/or conservstive philosophers you will find that they are not only aware of but consciously in favor of this presuppositionalism. Some of them have the position that reason must subordinate itself to faith absolutely, and that reason ought to act only in service of faith. Wankers the lot of them.

[@Tirgo69]

The point with government and religion here isn't that all religions have tax exemption but that any of them do

[@archvaldor]

You are rocking that jumper, Joel.

[@maddoxorourke871]

I genuinely love your videos. like, video essay youtube is no longer a very niche scene, and hot takes abound on nearly everything, but I love your eclectic subject matter and the genuine hotness of your personal takes. good job dude. keep it up.

[@drshellkinggmailcom]

Dude, live in the Bible Belt for about a decade. Getting these out of government is important.

[@AprilTee]

My prediction for the rest of this video: Joel explains the case and then shows how it relates to the court case from the Bee Movie. Please talk about the Bee Movie, Joel!

[@andrewg3196]

It's really funny to me that the side which advocated for the preservation of the display used a logic that negated the purpose of that display in the first place. There's a huge disconnect there from the probable original purpose for the display and the eventual argument adopted to preserve it.

[@Fopenplop]

I mean, they had to make that argument, because the alternative would have been just admitting that it violates the establishment clause

[@andrewg3196]

Yeah I understand that. It's still funny though.

[@JJMcCullough]

Amazing work

[@Caekplz]

I just don't know if I agree that the third display is not still religious. Not because its essence is tainted but because the interpretation is still incredibly valid. The constitution is very explicitly a social contract, the underlying ethos isn't natural or divine law, it's that "we, the people" said it should be that way. Unlike the ten commandments which are quite literally handed to man by god. You create text by hanging these documents together and calling them "the foundations of american law and government", basically. And in turn the argument that the ten commandments are somehow at the basis of american (western?) law is uh... absolute bullshit to put it diplomatically. It doesn't make historical sense, and honestly, when like half the commandments are unconstitutional it's just generally a bit of a hard sell. Unless you're evangelical, and isn't that precisely the problem here. I liked your video. I'm not sure if I liked that you made me look up the philosophy of law.

[@nicholauscrawford7903]

The Ten Commandments did set a precedent for codifying morality, and by extension ethics and law, which was not dependent on direct consequences to self but on an objective standard.

[@cinammonstyx7622]

Also, the founders of the US were mostly Christian, it's not crazy to think they were influenced by Biblical tradition as well as Enlightenment ideals of religious freedom.

[@GetOfflineGetGood]

I was worried about where you were gonna go with this but you have delighted me with this video. Well done, Big Joel. This is great.

[@2-toner]

This is probably my favorite video of yours now. Thank you so much for making this video knowing it may not get you millions of views, but you made my day so much better. And the way you dissect the case and put your input is second to none, seriously, that was the shortest 25 minute video i’ve ever seen. I’d love to see more videos like this one, but at the end of the day make whatever your heart tells you to, and variety on a youtube channel is important so as to not become one-dimensional or stuck doing the same thing over and over. Having no experience with videos myself, i’ve had the idea of a channel that dissects what different large corporations/governments have done that hurts their workers/citizens/consumers as in the form of informative videos, i’d pay to hear you make a video like that despite it not being too popular. Thanks again man for a great video.

[@bidaubadeadieu]

returning here years later, this is still far and away my favorite big joel video

[@mothcub]

hey henry nice video did jesus himself animate it

[@SophiefromMars]

I heard the animations were done by a tiny baby

[@mothcub]

yes the tiny baby jesus

[@mirmalchik]

@@mothcub i heard they were done by a kidney

[@Theo_Caro]

Happy Birthday (almost) from Texas!

[@uneseulenuit]

Happy birthday, Jesus

[@steelepop]

Excellent and thought provoking.

[@blindey]

Not even a few minutes in and I'm super excited, as is my SO who is super interested in law and the SC and stuff.

[@fiduwarrior]

1 - Keep the videos coming! There is something unique about your delivery and presentation that threads this fine line between the intellectual and the Shrek that is incredibly entertaining and informative. 2- I feel that, as long as you keep talking about things that interest YOU, us your audience will always be with you regardless the topic of the video. I feel what is truly the most important part of a 'Big Joel' video is the passionate analysis and discussion of everything. 3- Jesus fuck that sweater looks comfy.

[@Jzphh]

Would you consider looking at the Barry B Benson V The Entire Human Race case?

[@a_doggo]

This is my favorite video of yours. Really good job.

[@colinmcom14]

I agree with Scalia, end arbitrary enforcement of the establishment clause, no more tax exemption for churches, no prayers in Congress, nothing!

[@elizabethnelson329]

This was incredible! Definitely didn't realize how crazy interesting this would be based on the title!

[@lachlanrussell18]

In terms of the decision to remove it, I think there’s a much simpler reasoning. Although taking it down does not change the context and therefore allows the meaning to still prevail, the display should not have been put up in the first place, and therefore should be taken down. Putting a murderer behind bars doesn’t bring the victim back to life, but it does allow due punishment in proportion to the crime committed, and it allows closure on the issue by those involved. Obviously an extreme comparison, but it’s the same process: not being able to undo a crime in the way you would by giving a victim of thief their belonging back does not mean that the prosecution and subsequent sentence should not be undertaken.

[@thatmanjames1647]

Watching you nerd out over an obscure court case for over twenty minutes made me very happy

[@ACuteLIttleGirl]

I really enjoyed this video

[@masterchris1013]

Excellent video big Joel I think you rock!

[@isaactfa]

Loved the video! You should maybe consider getting a lavalier microphone if you want to keep recording sound in an open space.

[@inventor1993]

This was excellent! Very thought provoking.

[@AvatarOfDiablo]

While I overall thought that the video was very interesting, I do think that there is one key interpretation of Staver's argument that you didn't cover, which I personally find fairly compelling (accepting of course that my knowledge of this case only exists within the vacuum of this video since I haven't researched it myself): that Staver is arguing in bad faith. Put bluntly, I think that Staver is bullshitting, that he knows he's bullshitting, and that the Supreme Court's majority opinion is them calling him out for trying to bullshit them. A cursory glance at Wikipedia shows that Matthew Staver is a former Seventh-day Adventist pastor who later became a Southern Baptist and became a lawyer. In addition, Wikipedia describes him as a Young Earth Creationist who denies the Darwinian theory of evolution and supports teaching Intelligent Design in schools. From this description, it seems fairly unlikely that Staver would hold, or intentionally argue, the position that objects do not have essence, and that the display was truly intended to be solely for the purpose of historical reflection. His own personal beliefs, assuming Wikipedia is correct (which may, of course, be a massive mistake, given that Wikipedia is Wikipedia), seem to align pretty solidly with the ideal of "push Christianity on everyone," and pretty solidly against the ideal of "objects do not have essence, and you should read the Ten Commandments as solely a historical document since the supernatural doesn't exist." Given this, assuming again that all of this is true, I'd argue that Staver is basically attempting to have his cake and eat it too. His argument IS your argument from the video, but Staver himself doesn't believe it, and is largely using the facsimile of such an argument simply because it masks his own personal belief that the Christian bible is the one true word of God, and that this should naturally trump all human structures, such as the US Constitution and the Supreme Court. In short, his argument is bullshit that is simply constructed to look like a legitimate argument, something that it largely fails to do. I think that there is more meat to Justice Scalia's argument, though its core is still quite flawed. I think that he is quite correct that many aspects of US law flouts the spirit of the establishment clause, and that on some level a strict adherence to said clause would be damaging to the people of the US's faith in the US government and the Supreme Court. However, I also think that the actual number of people who would feel threatened by a stricter enforcement of the establishment clause is much smaller than Scalia represents them as. Scalia's interpretation seems to suggest to me that Christian (and possibly also Jewish and Muslim) Americans would lose faith in, or outright abandon, the US government if it truly was, and acted as, a secular force rather than a sometimes-quasi-religious force. Yet nearly everyone I have met, regardless of faith or strength of religious belief, has presented a feeling of "American-ness" as being nearly, if not just as, important to them as their religious beliefs. While I think that there would be a lot of people who would be dismayed if the US was to enforce a much stricter definition of the establishment clause than it currently does, I think that the actual number of people who would outright revolt, as Scalia seems to fear, is extremely small, and would likely be met with as much derision from their fellow religious Americans as from nonreligious Americans, or Americans from non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths. Thus, while I can see some of his point, I think his argument is actually only marginally better than Staver's, and is still fairly pants-on-head crazy. Also, happy birthday to Lily Ashton! Hope she enjoys her birthday.

[@NoiseKidd]

I really appreciate the range of your videos.

[@awah4676]

my day: >:( joeldad: hello everyone! *small wave* my day: :D

[@2-toner]

Stephanie Connor same here, my mood improved x100

[@eartianwerewolf]

The sweater and orange bg help too

[@cocococop6082]

Hello everyone and blessed be y'all honest and kind people of the world.

[@abugoha4793]

Fascinating topic. While I agree the case raises interesting questions about how to read a text and how we think about law, I disagree with the Defense's approach to textual interpretation. If any display can simply be interpreted as a statement of historical fact, then the establishment clause becomes meaningless. If for example, a courthouse put up of a quote of the judge saying "It is the opinion of the court that you should be a Christian," by the Defense's logic, that statement would simply be a statement of fact of the judge's words and nothing more even while it is obviously constitutes the government endorsing of religion. Of course no document's meaning is eternally unchanging, but we shouldn't simply ignore the context of what's being said, the intent behind the words, and how it is understood by the broader society. Furthermore, I disagree that an atheist approach to the text of the Ten Commandments cleanses it of its religious nature. If we stipulate that God does not exist, and that the document simply is a description of human relations, that does not negate the fact that people in our society treat it as a religious (divine even) document. By the same token, if a law were passed that restricted the use of God's name in broadcasts in a similar manner to cuss words, would it not be impossible to challenge that law on establishment clause grounds because, although it is based on the Ten Commandments, it wouldn't be by that logic a necessarily religious stance? Another aspect that struck me was the fact that even if we take the McCreary Court's word that they didn't intend to promote religion, it is interesting that they chose a Biblical document to display rather than another religious document that is of historical significance to American law. As has been said, it is questionable whether the Ten Commandments are really that significant to our legal system. Lastly, I agree that the Court has a vested self-interest in maintaining a semblance of legitimacy, and that there are instances where it has allowed religious expression in government. However, I wonder how much this precedent has been influenced by the partisan makeup of the court and the political atmosphere of the day. The law is meant to reflect our common values and beliefs and must respond with the current of our society. However, it is becoming clear that SCOTUS is increasingly a partisan institution that rules on law based on the political worldview of its constituent members rather than a neutral deliberative body. Great video Big Joel

[@fredomine]

I just recently found your channel. But i must say im thoroughly enjoying these highly well written, thought provoking arguments. They satiate that overly analytical, and frustratingly rational mind of mine, both philosophically and argumentatively. So thank you for being awesome!

[@philljrton]

The 10 commandments influenced law but only 2 of them are illegal lol

[@Murtage33e]

The 4th revision should have been the -ten- two commandments.

[@erraticonteuse]

Technically 3. People think "Thou shall not bear false witness" just refers to lying generally, but really it means perjury. You can lie in lots of other contexts under the Ten Commandments and it's cool.

[@philljrton]

@@erraticonteuse exactly, I can use my free speech rights to say whatever I want, it's only illegal if it's in court or deemed slanderous but that's super hard to prove. Just look at the Sandy Hook families vs Alex Jones they have been trying to press charges for like 3 or 4 years because it's so hard and complicated to prove something as slanderous and Alex Jones still has the free speech and freedom of the Pres on his side not that I agree with him. It's almost like the 10 commandments if all applied would be infringement against free speech, freedom of religion, the pursuit of happiness, and even have George Orwellion thought crimes. That's right thought crimes and wrong think

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@erraticonteuse It's not that it's otherwise cool; the 10 Commandments are not just a list of 10 things that aren't cool, but things thought to be most fundamental to society. The Bible contains many prohibitions against lying and falsehood in general.

[@b.l.8755]

The goal of our government, I thought, was to protect people and encourage prosperity. Laws of morality should be enforced socially, not in court.

[@Tchaikfan]

I’d love if you could do more of these kinds of videos, this video was very interesting.

[@john-ic9vj]

If Christians actually followed their golden rule, they would also not want the 10 commandments displayed at a government building

[@KenBellows]

I honestly loved this. One of the most thought provoking things I've watched in a while

[@rhidiandavies1991]

The argument for dimished meaning over time seems sensible, until you consider that the ten commandments have retained their meaning as religious principles for over 2000 years, while the service life of that plaque is probably 100 years at best... I hardly think it likely that the commandments will lose their meaning before that plaque requires replacing. Surprised you didn't raise that.

[@worthycawdor1824]

Fabulous work. Bravo!

[@austinray434]

COLLAB WITH MOTHCUB MORE (pls)

[@jamesteavery0]

This is my favourite of all of your videos, not for the animation, but for the interesting content.

[@infranaut]

An interesting point that could have been raised is simply; "we can't be certain the meaning won't dissipate over time". The argument the on Justice made presupposes a knowledge of how the piece will be interpreted in the future, which he cannot guarantee. This was a highly known and publicised case. It's entirely possible that, if the Court went with such a line of logic, the display would come to be seen as a religious victory - people might not officially refer to it as such, but it could get a nickname like "The Ten Commandments Victory Display" or something like that. It could even become such an instance where other Courthouses, wanting to display their love of Christiantiy, made similar displays and those "in the know" would know to look past the other documents and focus on the Commandments. What I would argue, Joel, is that that art was made for an audience. If it is taken down - or the sig is taken down - it will always represent a little Courthouse standing up to the Government in defense of Christianity. However, the actual display itself will not remain - there is a government appointed literal meaning (the support of Religion and State coexisting) and a symbolic meaning. The Court has no power over the latter, but it DOES have power over the pomotion of the former. Love your work Joel - you inspired me to take up the essay stuff myself - if anyone is interested, gimme a quick peek.

[@zharnotczar]

This is actually one of my favorite videos of yours. Im kind of a bit of a dork for random scotus cases and this was such a cool interpretation of this one.

[@loonachan]

This is what postmodernism does to you, forces you to agree with Antonin Scalia sometimes in principle.

[@colejohnston92]

One of your most engaging videos yet!

[@peripateticmind8461]

AHHH! Joel, please don't take your Anita Sarkeesian video down! The points you made were so precise and IMPORTANT for me as someone who's encountered such toxic people :(

[@BigJoel]

It was taken down for hate speech

[@peripateticmind8461]

@@BigJoel Thank you for posting it in the first place anyways :(

[@MadderCommotion]

@@peripateticmind8461 there are some mirrors already :) the far right snowflakes took this one down but thanks to mirrors i discovered some good left wing youtubers, so some more people will be exposed to Big Joel thanks to this

[@peripateticmind8461]

@@MadderCommotion So doing very little digging, I think a bunch of Sargon fans/trolls were behind the video's flagging after he posted a response video to Joel's, but Sargon himself has commented on his video that this is NOT okay. It's super ironic that this is even happening bc the comments in Sargon's response video are closer to hate speech than the video itself. IDK. I'm looking forwards to a potential live chat between the two to sort out stuff, hopefully in a respectful manner. Edit: also, thanks for telling me about the mirror!

[@MadderCommotion]

@@peripateticmind8461 I'm pretty sure Sargon only said that because he doesn't want to be blamed for what happened, because Big Joel actually lost money because of his fanboys taking the video down. You've got lots and lots of people attacking him for his looks in Sargon's response (which, tbh Joel is a cute guy so I don't see that). the mirror i saw was kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqeomIKufZh8mKs I really doubt Big Joel and Sargon could have a serious civil discussion because Carl can't have a decent debate or conversation with anyone who isn't right wing. An example would be the times he's tried to debate Destiny, it always was a shitshow.

[@Skag_Sisyphus]

18:11 no, because the act of tearing it down also has meaning and communicates a message. Specifically the message that the state favoring one religion, is never okay.

[@Ponlets]

the 10 commandments are not really at the base of any law save for "dont steal" and "dont kill" the rest are useless

[@John-vs8pw]

whoa a great jump in production value, congrats

[@iainhansen1047]

Though shalt not boil a baby cow in its mother’s milk. Because that would be creepy.

[@colinwhitlock5148]

Theres something nice about listening to an old southern guy defend secularism.

[@kennethconnally4356]

Great video! The whole "essences" thing confused me though. If anybody believes that the meaning of a text is some kind of eternal essence, isn't it the person who says all we need to look at is the text itself, not the historical context? It's Friedman, supposedly the "essentialist," whose position requires him to admit that, given different historical circumstances, the same plaque would mean something different. That doesn't sound like the plaque's meaning is some immutable essence for him. Further, I don't think the opposing position, which you call "anti-essentialist," really makes any sense at all. What would it mean to interpret the plaque "purely on its own terms" and without reference to context? To start with, the words on it couldn't mean anything in particular (they would just be squiggles) without reference to our knowledge of what those words mean in the English language. This isn't just a cute objection; if you think it through it necessitates that the context of any text is needed to determine its meaning. The same letters in the same order often mean different things in different languages: a sign containing a single word obviously means something entirely different if posted in a country where the word means "Go" as opposed to in a country where the word means "Stop."

[@BigJoel]

For Friedman, it seems the essence of the display came into existence through its history and the intentions of its authors, not the display itself. That’s how the essence might never be changed

[@termination9353]

"HOW DO WE READ STUFF?" ! If you count 'I am the Lord your God" as a commandment [0.03] instead of as a statement of fact then YOU @Big Joel don't know 'how to read stuff'.

[@hairymcnipples]

@@termination9353 this is very cute but nothing he says or does implies that he thinks it *is* one of the ten commandments there. It's commonly included with the commandments and literally appears on the statue in question.

[@termination9353]

​@@hairymcnipples I'm a born and raised Orthodox Jew speaking to another Orthodox Jew. I know how Jews are enumerating the Ten Commandments that are depicted in every synagogue on the planet. They remove one of the actual commandments and replace it with a NON commandment to hide the fact that there are only nine remaining in THEIR version of the Ten Commandment listing. THE CORRECT ENUMERATION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS - (*Re-introducing the commandment that has been deleted from being taught) Deut 5:6 - 22 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 1- Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. 2 - Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 3 - Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 4* - And REMEMBER THAT THOU WAS A SERVANT IN THE LAND OF EGYPT, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. 5 - Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 6 - Thou shalt not kill. 7 - Neither shalt thou commit adultery. 8 - Neither shalt thou steal. 9 - Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. 10 - Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's. 22These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: AND HE ADDED NO MORE. = Compare this listing to the Exodus listing and see the 'commandment' I'm showing that is ADDED to make the ten.

[@chebghobbi]

@@termination9353 No-one gives a damn.

[@redoryx1872]

I've been excited for you to look at a supreme court case for awhile, so glad it's here :-)

[@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7]

On the day after Justice Scalia died my environmental law professor ran into class with party noise makers saying "Did you hear the good news?" I thinks it's funny how Justice Scalia almost always ended up on the wrong side of every case for which he made a ruling.

[@niteowl9491]

aw was nice to hear Ginsburg's lil diss haha

[@mothcub]

wow nice vid can't believe u animated the whole thing urself with ur butt

[@BigJoel]

Thanks I’m good at animating

[@theletterm1787]

This is so wholesome

[@portalbob340sc]

I had the same instinctive reaction as you did, and I found the additional question you brought up about what place the court has in ruling about the essence of objects to be really thought-provoking. Initially in my head, I jumped to the idea that the whole thing was more about intention than some sort of "essence", but intention is even more difficult to judge, since you can only really either have it stated outright or inferred from context, which brings us right back to the same issue again. Very well presented.

[@adammfontenot]

Interesting video! I think Scalia was ironically dead on in calling out the Court's interpretation of the Establishment clause as inconsistent, in that the straightforward conclusion to draw is that the Court was *wrong* to allow official exercises of religion in other cases. Surely the duty of the Court is to interpret the Constitution, not to "self-preserve", and statements like "one nation under God" are unquestionably violations of the Establishment clause. So Scalia's statement really underlines how the line taken by the Court in this case was insufficiently radical. Likewise, it's strange that the ACLU took the position that a similar display lacking the particular history of the Kentucky courthouse would be legal. Isn't the presentation of the Ten Commandments sufficiently religious - even without that specific context - to violate the Establishment clause? Even if not, surely the reasonable answer to the question about changing essences is "yes" - given enough time, the context of a display might change sufficiently to make that display legal. It would still have to be taken down since it is illegal *now*, so that wouldn't change the outcome of the case. But imagine everyone forgot where the display came from, so that it's actual effect on any who saw it was exactly the same as the theoretical display in another state... unless you subscribe to some theory where the meanings of things are irreparably tainted by their histories, I don't see how it could fail to be just as legal as that other display.

[@Rowan11088]

This man’s nonchalant brilliance makes me jealous. Very interesting video!

[@VirusMakerv2]

So, I'm not the smartest guy around, but I don't think I agree with you that just because there is no God, there cannot exist religious displays. Firstly, to the religious, there is a God. To the people who made that display, God is as real as you and I are, and the Ten Commandments are the actual word of God, passed unto Moses, yadda yadda. That display, therefore, seems to blatantly claim, "Morality comes from the Judeo-Christian God, and this courthouse will protect those moral laws." I don't believe that under the establishment clause this should be allowed. Secondly, I don't really buy the argument that after the display was changed, the Ten Commandments only represent a part of legal history, as a backbone for American law, because as far as my limited historical knowledge goes, I seem to recall that the founding fathers were not staunchly Christian at all. It seems like if you really wanted a display of legal history you would have The Code of Hammurabi or something like that. I don't know that the Ten Commandments played much of a role in world legal history at all. It seems pretty obvious that the courthouse just wanted to find a legal loophole to get their Christian display that they wanted. Also, what's the deal with Scalia's argument that because laws have been enforced inconsistently in the past, we should just disregard them now? That seems ridiculous to me. I like your videos a lot, Henry. I wish I was as intelligent as you seem about everything you choose to talk about. Keep it up, man. I envy you.

[@Murtage33e]

Idk, you seem pretty smart to me! The argument about God's nonexistence sounds to me like a man telling "fire" in a crowded theater, and then complaining in court that the fire was only imaginary, and he couldn't be blamed for the other Patton's ignorance on the matter.

[@andrewjohnstone7943]

Assuming not that there is no God, but that everyone is atheist. For instance, putting up the story of Zeus vs Cronus from Greek mythology is obviously not unconstitutional, because it is a document that clearly just represents an important story. Antonin Scalia's argument is stupid, but I like how he just offhandedly ripped every supreme Court case ever as nothing more than smart people in robes justifying the squeals of the masses

[@mandaloriancrusader3746]

Exactly what I was thinking when he said that

[@GelidGanef]

Yaaaaah I like how you could get away with putting up the ten commandments anywhere, if you just stuck Hammarabi and Justinian and the Magna Carta next to them. But these people are either too stubborn or too ignorant to do that. It's almost like they want to lose... and reinforce their own martyr complex

[@supme7558]

Why cater to there. Delusion

[@Tirgo69]

This is probably the most thought-provoking video you've done so far