https://www.facebook.com/TheGospelStation/videos/10154434329520448/ I have seen that video before. Thought I'd seen it months ago, but maybe not. Looks like it was just published June 29th. This video was created to make a furor, to make Christians feel discriminated against, to feel persecuted. I have done a little research on what is going on with this issue. On June 30th, the next day, East Central University of Ada, Oklahoma, put out a press release: "CHAPEL TO REMAIN UNCHANGED WHILE ECU REVIEWS REQUEST" here: https://www.ecok.edu/article/chapel-remain-unchanged-while-ecu-reviews-request . That press release said, " ... the university will immediately begin convening a committee of students, faculty and community members who represent a diversity of viewpoints to study the issue." A few days later, on July 6th, ECU issued another press release, evidently to disclaim any authority by University people, but I am not sure. This 2nd press release was to indicate that they were accepting the Oklahoma Attorney General's office's desire to become involved with this issue: "STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKES UP THE CROSS ISSUE; ECU TO FOCUS ON EDUCATION, STUDENTS" at https://www.ecok.edu/article/state-attorney-general-takes-cross-issue-ecu-focus-education-students . Now, as you might imagine, the organization that raised this issue in the first place, which is depicted in this video as being a "hate group", might have their own opinion on the matter. And they do. On July 7th, 2017, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State organization (au.org) put out their own take on the matter, titled "A Cross On A Public University Building Is Causing A Fury In Oklahoma", you can find it here: http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-cross-on-a-public-university-building-is-causing-a-fury-in-oklahoma . Au.org says, "We’ve received many hateful emails, social media messages and phone calls since – and they are still pouring in. Yesterday, Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, clearly seeing an opportunity to grandstand, sent a letter to ECU officials that accused AU of misleading the school and inviting officials there to refer the situation to his office. In a July 6 statement, ECU announced that it was handing the case over to Hunter’s office." Further, they state, "The thing is, AU learned about this from a member of the community who was rightfully concerned about the cross, which is permanently erected atop the chapel, and Bibles at the Kathryn P. Boswell Memorial Chapel being non-inclusive to other religious and non-religious members of the community. AU did not send the letter to intimidate or “dictate” how Oklahomans live their lives. An Oklahoma resident was concerned about inclusivity since the cross is an exclusively Christian symbol." Perhaps this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps it is much ado about something, though. Personally, I value the First Amendment, which as least implies freedom of religion. And perhaps freedom *from* religion, for those who are offended by religions. And I sometimes am, myself. Personally, I think nothing of there being a cross on a chapel or Bibles arrayed in a chapel at a public University, but then I am prejudiced in my believing that Jesus Christ should be made as publicly available as possible. But I feel that AU has a point: "The bottom line is that public universities should be a welcoming place for people of all faiths or none. These taxpayer-funded institutions should not feature religious symbols that clearly prefer one religion." I conclude, therefore, that this video incites hatred. Religious hatred against this AU organization, which is not a proper thing for we Christians to be doing to them. I honor the separation of church and state we have embodied in the Constitution, and I feel that the AU organization is doing its best to try and keep government out of the religion business. ---------- Richard Garza had this response: 3 big things: 1 separation of church and state isn't in any of the founding documents. 2 it was originally used to assure a Baptist minister that the state wouldn't meddle in church affairs NOT the other way around. 3 the nonestablishment clause was to prevent any particular church from being the law of the land NOT to disallow Christianity/Judeo-Christian symbols & values priDr of place.