Tags for this video have been changed from 'jello biafra, dead kennedys, punk rock, pmrc' to 'jello biafra, dead kennedys, punk rock, pmrc, tipper gore' - edited by xxovercastxx

Plenty of douches have caused girls to cry recalling sex with them, especially when they lost their virginity to them. Doesn't make it rape, though.

>> ^DuoJet:

This was rape. The woman still cries when she recalls it. I know that if I were behaving this way, I would feel like a rapist. Then again, moral turpitude kinda seemed to run in the Kennedy family.
And I'm betting she was neither the first nor the last.

This was rape. The woman still cries when she recalls it. I know that if I were behaving this way, I would feel like a rapist. Then again, moral turpitude kinda seemed to run in the Kennedy family.

And I'm betting she was neither the first nor the last.

I'll see your law and raise you a mechanism for mass!>> ^tymebendit:

it's the law of gravity.
he might have better luck with theory of relativity.
and in science, a theory is verified by experiments and observation, and withstood challenges to disprove it.
for brain dead creationists, "theory" is more like 2nd shooter for kennedy.

it's the law of gravity.

he might have better luck with theory of relativity.

and in science, a theory is verified by experiments and observation, and withstood challenges to disprove it.

for brain dead creationists, "theory" is more like 2nd shooter for kennedy.

>> ^rougy:

Does anybody know which secret society in particular he was talking about, or was this a generalized plea for a more transparent government?


This was in April 61 only a week or so after the Bay of Pigs..

>> ^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.

>> ^bobknight33:

No conservative gives a rats ass if the President is black or for that matter anything else. We care about being conservative first. Obama is as left as they come. That's why we oppose him.
He is not center left. He is to the left of the left.He makes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry look ok. >> ^VoodooV:
proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man



Did you just admit that conservatives care more about conservatism than they do the country? Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but it's hard to take anyone seriously who thinks Obama is left of left.

Or are you just trolling like QM, spouting stuff you know isn't true just to rile the sift up?

Or are you so deep in the bubble just nothing is getting through.

But by all means, keep painting this absurd picture of left wing radicalism and slippery slopes to socialism. You're just fracturing your party even more and ensuring Obama's re-election. The more you double down on this personal vendetta against Obama, the more you ensure you're going to lose.

As for your 2nd quote. Maybe you're right, but in your utopia, the EPA would be gone, thus ensuring that no one would be safe to fish Or maybe I could just buy fish from a corporation, but with no gov't oversight, the fish will probably make you sick, thus ensuring you're bankrupt for life and can never improve your life. Right Bob?

No conservative gives a rats ass if the President is black or for that matter anything else. We care about being conservative first. Obama is as left as they come. That's why we oppose him.

He is not center left. He is to the left of the left.He makes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry look ok. >> ^VoodooV:

proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man

Obviously a response to last week when Kennedy said Atheism IS a religion and Maher didn't want to get into it then. I wonder why he didn't mention her? Perhaps he felt she already got enough shit for it online...

I actually have The Quantum Thief on my kindle, and started one or two chapters, but put it down for some reason. I'll have to start it again, then.

I've been reading a couple of biographies: Mao: A Life, and Chris Matthew's new book on JFK, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero.

Was Ted Kennedy a staunch supporter of "family values" and "family this" and "family that" and "morality", etc?
So you're saying acting like a person on a fucking pedestal telling others what to do or think in their lives, and then acting a lot worse than them is somehow acceptable?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Paragons of virtue like...Ted Kennedy.
>> ^EMPIRE:
the difference is republicans act like the owners and defenders of moral integrity. They are not. In fact, they are the opposite.

Paragons of virtue like...Ted Kennedy.

>> ^EMPIRE:

the difference is republicans act like the owners and defenders of moral integrity. They are not. In fact, they are the opposite.

I'm sensing a theme here. First we had John F. Kennedy fighting an Egyptian Mummy in "Bubba Ho-Tep". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0281686/

Now we've got FDR fighting Werewolf Nazis in this flick http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1811315/

And opening soon is "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/

What is it with Dead Presidents and undead monsters?

Well, Kennedy's father (Joe) was a bootlegger of booze during prohibition with strong ties to the mob. I'm sure John and Bobby had some outstanding debts, as well, and their policies could likely be a red herring as to the reason for their assassinations.>> ^Sagemind:

Of course what he says makes absolute common sense, but what he says about being sat down and told, "No that's not how we do things" is also absolutely true.
In fact, I believe that's exactly what Kennedy tried to do is fix things and go against the establishment. Which would be why he was executed - and in such a public way - as a message to anyone who tried to do it again.