Congratulations! Your comment on Jean-Luc Picard's response to Rick Warren has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on Jean-Luc Picard's response to Rick Warren has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on Jean-Luc Picard's response to Rick Warren has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I don't care about the Trinity, or whether anyone believes it or not.
But, I know for certain that Rick Warren is a lying piece of shit who is wasting our oxygen.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Picard, Star Trek, Rick Warren, Barack Obama, inauguration, next generation' to 'Picard, Star Trek, Rick Warren, Barack Obama, inauguration, tng, supershort' - edited by gwiz665

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Rick Warren has no clue how complicated the modern intellectual world is. He should give it a try. It might change his life.

My top 5 before the siftsplosion (vote tallies as of March 7 according to google cache):

1. http://www.videosift.com/video/Firefly-proves-darn-is-more-badass-than-This-is-Sparta (214)

2. http://www.videosift.com/video/The-WTF-blanket-Snuggie-parody (185)

3. http://www.videosift.com/video/Jean-Luc-Picard-s-response-to-Rick-Warren (184)

4. http://www.videosift.com/video/Obama-apologizes-for-being-a-cockblocker (176)

5. http://www.videosift.com/video/She-USED-to-be-a-lesbian-now-look-at-her (150)


Out of these I would have to choose Jean-Luc Picard as my favourite, since he in only a couple of seconds describes so eloquently how I feel about secularism.

Takk!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*promote

You know I've been thinking about the Establishment Clause for a while now, and I'm really starting to wonder if it means what we think it does.

We assume that it means that the Federal government can't form a national religion, but I'm thinking it's a lot more simple than that. The words "respecting an establishment of religion" could mean exactly that. I think it might have meant that the government should not endorse any actions or tenets of any religion, and that in doing so they are in violation of the constitution. Making federal funding of faith based programs, bans on stem cell research/human cloning, abstinence only sex ed, "in god we trust" & "one nation under god", the whole myriad of things that are only based on religious dogma unconstitutional.

And yeah, by my interpretation, having an invocation prior to the inauguration would only violate the first amendment if it was a requirement of the ceremony. Which to my knowledge it is not.

I've never minded the invocation before, the choice of Rick Warren though infuriated me. It was blatant pandering to evangelical Christianity, a group that after the last 8 years doesn't need any more encouragement from our Presidents. And sadly it made me think less of Obama for it.

Christians gang up all the time, no worries there?

>> ^rasch187:
Atheists makes me want to be religious. Especially when they gang up.

>> ^rasch187:
Atheists makes me want to be religious. Especially when they gang up.


Sort of like how Christians make me want to be gay.

Oh, and, for the record, I'm a Scientologist so my post isn't technically part of the gang up.

>> ^Retroboy:
>> ^dragonfriend85:
Wy would any rational person want to hold office in Arkansas?
Fixed.


Because if wise men and women don't hold public office, the unwise will?

>> ^MarineGunrock:
I'll let wikipedia do the talking.


Of course you will. Sheesh. You really have no clue what the Establishment Clause is or refers to, do you? Just another self-righteous Wiki-jockey. "Keep trying". LOL, that's rich!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

That's it (at least the religious portion). Everything else... the Lemon Test, Souter's opinion, etc., are interpretations of the clause and the subsequent laws/decisions based upon them. The contents of EDD's comment violate exactly the same thing as prayer does. The Lemon Test is an Establishment Clause test, as far as it refers to religion. "The opposite of what prayer violates"? Clueless...

Stick to your strengths, hero. Guns, patriotism, toadying, and early release from active duty.

>> ^dragonfriend85:
Wy would any rational person want to hold office in Arkansas?
Fixed.