What the fuck is this? An interview with Burr sponsored by Kellogg's, and General Mills, and Pepsi? (Yes, Pepsi owns Quaker Oats.)

Was Bill told that he was going to be in a Big Sugar ad for breakfast cereal masquerading as an interview?

I hope he was paid for appearing in that *commercial.

Crass Quakers Oats product placement!

Wait a second, there's no Meeting of Friends in this video, no protesting social injustice. I'd hardly call these people Quakers.

OMFG... really bob... really... It's people like you that made me ashamed of being a Christian when I was a Christian. Completely believing anything they are told or read from someone with supposed authority without actual critical thought of the original source themselves.

I've hear that Jefferson never meant to exclude religion from politics and believed and repeated it myself for years. Then you know what I did? I actually read the letter that Jefferson wrote. I could have my son, who's going into 6th grade read it and he'd tell you the same thing I'm about to tell you. It's about keeping religion from unduly influencing politics. Especially when you read it in context with the letter that the church sent him that he was responding to, and it becomes more apparent if you read his drafts which were much more to the point.

Yes the phrase "wall of separation" does come from the letter and not the Constitution, but the 1st Amendment includes an establishment clause that prevents the government from favoring one religion over the others. Remember the pilgrims came here to escape a Christian nation that favored one form of Christianity over all others. Admittedly they were more about the fact they couldn't persecute others the way they thought they God wanted them to, but it was the government's church that prevented them from doing so. You can't even be King or Queen of England unless you belong to the Church of England, and if you were Catholic at some point in your past, you are disqualified, even to this day. Yeah, the Church of England no longer has as much influence over the laws as it did when the pilgrims and other early settlers escaped England to come here,

And if the only reason Christians are good is because of fear of punishment or hope for reward, then they are horrible people. Millions of people are good because they are good people without their faith dictating to them to be so. Most people of other faiths are good without the racist brutal Abramic God of the Bible. Most atheists are good without any god. Most pagans are good with their various gods. This insane all morality comes from God alone didn't make sense even when I was at my most evangelical, Fox News watching/defending mode. There were too many people in the world who's good without God and even in those days the concept that somebody would be good only because the Bible tells them so, or they are afraid of God's wrath if they don't is backwards. And as I read the Bible more and more, it became apparent that the far rights obsession with people's sin over love was misplaced (though the far right's sickening defense of Dugger shows a great deal of hypocrisy since if Dugger was on the Left, they'd be all about his sin rather than showing any sort of love, it's when others sin differently than they do they get upset, like at the gays). It was reading the Bible that moved me to the left as the clear Christian way, since the right defends and loves the people Jesus condemned and shames the people that Jesus defended and told us to love and help. It eventually got to the point I couldn't hold onto faith when over half the Christians of this Nation just blindly follow what they are told in church and on Fox News over the truth that Jesus and the Bible was teaching and thinking they were doing the Christian thing at the same time. I then began to do a critical analysts further and eventually became an atheist, because they are all equally bad/good. There is nothing new or original in the Abramic faiths that wasn't there before or since either in the same region or elsewhere... all those other elsewhere's where Jehovah somehow couldn't make himself known, as if he was just a figment of one small regional tribe or worse a racist jerk not worthy of following.

Anyhow, the best way to maintain Christianity is to keep it out of politics. Because what happens if you set things up to let religion influence politics and the Muslims gain power? Then you'll be crying how religion shouldn't influence politics. Or perhaps not that extreme, perhaps some form of Christianity that other Christian's don't agree with gains power and influence? Perhaps the Morman's or the Catholics or the Jehovah Witness? At what point does religious influence stop? When laws are passed that any church that doesn't practice or allow the speaking in tongues is outlawed? The 1st Amendment is designed to keep religion out of politics in order to protect religion.

Let's break that last sentience out again. The 1st Amendment's establishment clause is designed to keep religion out of politics in order to protect religion. The whole point is to keep one form of one faith from dominating all other forms of the same or other faiths. It protects those other forms Christianity and other faiths.

Finally there is no war on Christianity. I admitted that long before my fall from faith. I was there with it all, with how it was targeted, but the reality is there is no war on Christianity here... all that's happening is specific forms of Christianity are loosing their influence on other Christians and society as a whole, and they are very vocal about how it's persecution, because like the pilgrims, they are no longer allowed to persecute others the way they want to. Maybe if the people screaming about how Christianity is being persecuted while they try to deny equal rights to others because they sin differently than us, would actually show the love of Christ and behave the way He actually would have in modern society rather than trying to show how Christian they are, then perhaps Christianity wouldn't be losing the numbers they are. I know I, and many other atheists, likely wouldn't have had at crisis of faith if it wasn't for the far right. I never would have explored the logical and theological problems with Christianity and the Abramic faiths... I'd probably eventually found a more Quaker, left leaning (most the Quaker "Friends" related churches in this area are the far evangelical right Fox News types) type church that seems to be more in line with the Bible and teachings of Jesus, but the far right pushed me into a far more critical mode than I would likely ever have gone to on my own. So keep it up those on the far right, you are the ones destroying and making a war on Christianity. You push more and more people away, and more and more people stop seeing any difference between the far right and radical Islam.

i had a quaker that went batshit crazy when a bowl of water was put on the ground. I'd have water in a 10' radius around it as he splashed around.

"Dominic: What do you think will happen?

Finch: What usually happens when people without guns stand up to people *with* guns."

My history teacher in high school was very civic minded. He was a Quaker too, but I believe he converted after serving in the army during Vietnam. I will never forget that he us that protesting is important, but if cops/national guard/ people with guns show up - get away. It creates a dangerous and volatile situation.

I really don't believe that the majority of police or protesters are bad people and want these kind of things to happen. In the heat of the moment things escalate rapidly and get out of control. People make bad decisions - now we capture them and put them on youtube.

For the sake of the simplest of glaring facts of the American paradigm surrounding firearms comes this thought:
To radically adjust laws and regulations concerning ANY type of weapon or firearms (including those black-powder boom-sticks that don't fit the definition of firearm) in the U.S. would mean that the criminal class which legislation and laws have CREATED through years of designed manipulation of systems, would now become an empowered and an immediate threat to the average law-abiding citizens of cities of a million or more and their outlying areas, OVERNIGHT.

Stop creating hind-brained killers, return critical thinking and common sense to one generation, and people will begin again to motherfucking govern their goddamn selves, or be planted. If Quakers and Shakers can do it, anyone can.

America can't have sane gun legislation while the prison industry, law enforcement, and all the special interest associated are being stroked by the fucks they put in places of power to perpetuate the force and violence.

Guns are tools, period. Humans are capable of using tools and have free will. Period. Laws are for monkeys to control through force, other monkeys. Period.

>> ^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.

@jbaber

"Truth for authority, not authority for truth."


The facts are that religious institutions, specifically the many denominations of Christianity in the United States, supported the status quo in regard to slavery, women's rights, birth control, evolution, and tried to censor free speech.

See the following, Slavery - 1 Timothy 6:1 as used by southern ministers promoting slavery, the Comstock Laws( and Anthony Comstock on wiki) and their abuse in regard to 1)atheism (which was labeled obscene) 2) birth control 3) free speech.

While I think the abolitionist movement specifically owes more to Enlightenment philosophy - not atheism or Christianity, I believe it is justified to point on the specific failings of religious institutions.

Were some Christians abolitionists? Of course. John Brown was as were many of the delegates to the 1840 convention (many were Quakers) which also denied women delegates the right to vote.

But other important leaders such as William Garrison and Henry Stanton were anti-clerical.

In closing, religious institutions, as a whole, were not and have not been the catalyst of change, but of upholding the status quo.

Ah Christians.

Rewind around a hundred years and you were all frightened of one another and never called yourselves christians. What you say? Methodist, Baptist, Quaker, Catholic, Lutheran - all these different groups thought of themselves as distinct and regarded the 'others' with suspicion. This was one of the reasons they all agreed to a separation of church and state to begin with.

Most of the 'Christians' fought against things like birth control (not just catholics - protestants of all ilks too), women's right to vote, the end of slavery, and tried to censor free speech.


If there is anything to be admired about Christianity is that it is amazing in its ability to adapt to the times. That is - completely contradict most of what it used to say.

Well that's just the puritans. There were also a whole bunch of other religious factions (quakers, protestants, etc.) really just looking for "space" to practice their own faith in private and America provided the vast amount of space needed (except for some pesky natives...)

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^residue:
Wasn't part of the reason for initial colonization of America (by Europeans) to escape religious prosecution? The thought that America has to be an entirely Christian nation is in direct opposition to the principles of freedom that the country makes its stance upon...

I think that's not true. The puritans went to America to escape persecution of their particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity. In today's terms, the English got sick of these bible bashing morons, so they shipped off to become the American Christian far right.
They didn't want freedom from religious persecution; they wanted religious persecution - but crucially, their religious. Exactly what the Christian right want to do now.

OK...so when do you think it began?>> ^Diogenes:

>> ^Grimm:
If anything that wiki page "confirms" what he was saying. Those are the religions that they were affiliated with...but they did not make it part of their campaign because all the different sects looked at each other the way they now look at the Mormons. That is...disn't matter if you believed in Christ (were a Christian) if you belonged to one of the other religions you and your group had it all wrong. What are the odds that a devote and outspoken "Quaker", "Theist" or "Unitarian" could get nominated these days?

yes, exactly!
like i said previously, penn's right in saying this happened... but his assertion that it began ~40 years ago... that's where i think he misspoke

>> ^Grimm:
If anything that wiki page "confirms" what he was saying. Those are the religions that they were affiliated with...but they did not make it part of their campaign because all the different sects looked at each other the way they now look at the Mormons. That is...disn't matter if you believed in Christ (were a Christian) if you belonged to one of the other religions you and your group had it all wrong. What are the odds that a devote and outspoken "Quaker", "Theist" or "Unitarian" could get nominated these days?


yes, exactly!

like i said previously, penn's right in saying this happened... but his assertion that it began ~40 years ago... that's where i think he misspoke

If anything that wiki page "confirms" what he was saying. Those are the religions that they were affiliated with...but they did not make it part of their campaign because all the different sects looked at each other the way they now look at the Mormons. That is...disn't matter if you believed in Christ (were a Christian) if you belonged to one of the other religions you and your group had it all wrong. What are the odds that a devote and outspoken "Quaker", "Theist" or "Unitarian" could get nominated these days?