In reply to this comment by Jul210s:
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It has no providence other than the opinions of the author and signers. It accomplished nothing.


Pretty asinine comment. Tough to be a legal document before there was a country...though I bet the British government thought it wasn't legal either.

I'm not big on overstating the significance of any person or document in history, but to say it accomplished nothing makes you either overly literal or looking for an argument. Which is it?

>> ^kymbos:

Can I be unkind and say this is why SNL is so rubbish? Penis joke plus celebrity plus lots of money equals banality.


You can say it, but you're wrong.

I was skeptical, but the ending makes it worthy.

Boo. You know what would have made this movie great? Car chases. 1:38 is about right to show you nearly all it had to offer. There's a good one at the very beginning and this one near the end. The entire film is terribly paced. Really over the top violence kicks in way too late, to the point where folks in the theater I saw it in were laughing.

You want good car chases (an not a bad film overall), rent "Ronin."

Oh, and while I'm at it, the new "Gone in 60 seconds" also had crap car chases. The movie consisted of characters looking at cars, admiring them, then cutting to the scene after they stole them. Lame.

Sorry, a pet peeve.

"Babbling and stuttering"? Really? I don't want to defend this as anything spectacular, but it's good for getting a little insight into Ryan's political BS-ing.

I don't know what world you live in, but to me, these guys were having a calm discussion about a news story.

You can be a theist or an atheist if you are agnostic. The terms deal with different ideas. In short, atheism says "I don't believe" and agnosticism deals only with what you can actually know. It's actually a pretty smart way to sidestep supernatural claims all together. I would think atheists who try to make agnosticism seem like the same thing as atheism (or a sort of weak atheism) are actually doing themselves a disservice in the long run. People don't tend to change their minds when you're shouting: "you're wrong!" It doesn't really matter if you're saying they will go to hell or they are stupid.

People don't like being told they are going to hell or that they are stupid.

Gameplay, please.

Damn it. Now I feel too funky.

Letterman: "Do it again."

Taking skeptical thinking to an idiotic extreme.

That was delightful.

Video Game media hype is useless nowadays too. There's pretty much an article or video every few days now documenting how game "journalists" are in cahoots with publishers. Pretty obvious when you check out a game site and see it framed by characters and scenes in ads for recently released games...

On top of that, responses to subjective reviews are polarized. Maybe its due to the mix of demographics that are into games that makes it seem so jumbled, but for every glowing review there's a counterpart saying "oh, it wasn't that great."

I agree that demos would be a good partial step to fix this. Be also people should start expecting game criticism to look like (good) literature and film criticism rather than just a collection of numbers. The industry has matured enough for that. A number rating isn't intrinsically useless, but if that's all you look at and don't have a demo, you're flying blind.

What's more, Harris actually discusses the spectrum of that comment (muslims more likely to be terrorists) in the context of the discussion. They are having a discussion about racial profiling, privacy and security. His point isn't that all muslims should be subjected to intrusive searches at airports, just that the current system isn't doing much to prevent an attack. The old woman being frisked thing was an example of this failure.

I like Hedges, but not on religion. And, whenever he engages with Harris, he seems to pull the same crap of quoting him out of context.

I made it about 2 hours into the video and thought Rogan was pretty effective at calling out Harris when an exaggeration was made.

This makes me feel better about being the only one I know who says: "Yeah, it was pretty. No, it wasn't a good movie."

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care.

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

@shinyblurry

I can go one more round, just don't have time today...hope that's intriguing...