Jefferson wrote about a wall of separation, not a one way door. "Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God" means just that. Note that the government is not mentioned in that relationship. Further, the idea that homosexuals can't serve in the military has nothing at all to do with the Bible. Even if we accept that the Bible says that homosexual feelings or activity is a sin, there's no mention in the Bible that I'm aware of that says that sinners can't be in the military. If the military wishes to exclude all sinners, then according to many Christians no one could serve at all. But regardless of all that, the Bible is indistinguishable from fiction, and deserves to be treated as such.

As for whether or not the founding fathers were mostly deist, I do need to do more research. Some of your claims point to you being correct. Others aren't relevant.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?
This is what Jefferson wrote, which was not an official government document:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
What that obviously means is that it is protecting the church from the government, not the government from the church. The original intention of the establishment clause was to prevent any denomination from becoming the state religion. Since then it has been selectively interpreted to exclude Christianity from public affairs, mostly due to the inclusion of the case law standard.
Where do you get this idea that "so many of the founding fathers" were Deist? You could make a strong case for perhaps 2 or 3 of them. The rest were practicing Christians for which there is ample evidence. 24 of the signers have seminary degrees and one of them was a practicing minister. They opened the first session of congress with a 3 hour prayer and then a bible study. Franklin proposed that they open every congress with prayer at the first constitutional convention and since that time, every session has opened with prayer (until the last few years)
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Do you think Jefferson is a Deist? Why did he write this?:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
Why did he hold church services in the house of representitives?
These were the three main reference materials cited by the framers:
king james bible
spirit of the laws
commentaries laws of england - blackstone, based on ten commandments
The rule of law is based on Gods natural, unchanging law. James madison had the idea for our three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22. The reason we have checks and balances is because man has a sinful nature and they didn't believe any man could be trusted with power.
The liberty bell is inscribed with leviticus 25:10. In the battle hymm of the republic: "as christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"
our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
John Adams
the bible is the rock on which our republic rests
andrew jackson
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
Newsweek 12/27/82
>> ^DrewNumberTwo>> ^DrewNumberTwo

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?

This is what Jefferson wrote, which was not an official government document:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"

What that obviously means is that it is protecting the church from the government, not the government from the church. The original intention of the establishment clause was to prevent any denomination from becoming the state religion. Since then it has been selectively interpreted to exclude Christianity from public affairs, mostly due to the inclusion of the case law standard.

Where do you get this idea that "so many of the founding fathers" were Deist? You could make a strong case for perhaps 2 or 3 of them. The rest were practicing Christians for which there is ample evidence. 24 of the signers have seminary degrees and one of them was a practicing minister. They opened the first session of congress with a 3 hour prayer and then a bible study. Franklin proposed that they open every congress with prayer at the first constitutional convention and since that time, every session has opened with prayer (until the last few years)

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Do you think Jefferson is a Deist? Why did he write this?:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson

Why did he hold church services in the house of representitives?

These were the three main reference materials cited by the framers:

king james bible
spirit of the laws
commentaries laws of england - blackstone, based on ten commandments

The rule of law is based on Gods natural, unchanging law. James madison had the idea for our three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22. The reason we have checks and balances is because man has a sinful nature and they didn't believe any man could be trusted with power.

The liberty bell is inscribed with leviticus 25:10. In the battle hymm of the republic: "as christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"

our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

John Adams

the bible is the rock on which our republic rests

andrew jackson

Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document

Newsweek 12/27/82

>> ^DrewNumberTwo>> ^DrewNumberTwo

>> ^quantumushroom:

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.
2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.
3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?
Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.
>> ^jwray:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.



Being tall is a bona fides requirement to excel in basketball. Heterosexuality is not necessary to do what the boy scouts do.

I have no qualms with calling the BSA leadership bigots because they are fucking bigots. Nothing's wrong with pledge refusers. Unison recitation of anything is appalling and reminiscent of the Borg, Nuremberg rallies, and church.

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.

2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.

3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?

Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.


1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.

2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).

3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.

>> ^gwiz665:

Establishment clause.
He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.
He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.


One--Texas isn't even really a state... Two--does he actually propagate or just ask for a gathering? Propagating would be specifically arguing for a religion of his choice or religion at all. You know, I have prayed in the past. Sometimes it was necessary for me. This, even though I am atheist. It was about the psychological effects (Although when I pray it is a rare thing indeed.)

I know there is no God and I don't pray to one. So if I would, for whatever reason, ask for a prayer day, even for spiritual things, I am not necessarily propagating anything more than a state of mind. That's spiritual to me. My wife breastfeeding was spiritual to me (The first two babies... the third, I was like 'Fuck it.')

Of course Rick Perry is sliding a disingenuous motive in there. But what the heck. He didn't, in this video, advocate for anything inappropriate.

Also, the first amendment is at odds with the establishment clause anyways... And even if it is not--are you suggesting that the literal interpretation should always be followed in the constitution like atheists are demanding are followed in the establishment clause? That's dangerous. "The right to bear arms" has no limitations whatsoever. You couldn't argue that times have changed because the law has not. And before we get into the term militia, I will explain it. Back then it meant, "all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service." Dictionary.reference.com

So yeah, let's err on the side of reason.

Establishment clause.

He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.

He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.

I disagree with Paul on his interpretation of the 1st ammendment, particularly the establishment clause, and probably some other things that I can't think of right now.

However, that said I still think that Paul & Kucinich or Kucinich & Paul would make an excellent presidential run.

That is, if voting actually mattered and Obama's liquidation of Bin Laden didn't clinch his, most assured, victory in the 2012 elections.

In reply to this comment by RFlagg:
The lies are Barton's mouth having words come out.

In part 2 he purposely misrepresents the National Day of Prayer case as if it was an attempt to stop Christians from praying, or having an organized day of prayer. That wasn't what the case was about, it was about the government sponsoring it, and John should have called him on that one.

In part 3 he noted, wrongly, that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states, just the Federal Government. But the 10th Amendment doesn't mean that the states are excluded from the establishment clause, otherwise states could ignore all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, although he seems to try to make that argument.

Add to this Barton's general lies outside this interview and revisionism.

>> ^Morganth:

Where are the lies? Did you even watch the other two parts of the interview?


right on.

The lies are Barton's mouth having words come out.

In part 2 he purposely misrepresents the National Day of Prayer case as if it was an attempt to stop Christians from praying, or having an organized day of prayer. That wasn't what the case was about, it was about the government sponsoring it, and John should have called him on that one.

In part 3 he noted, wrongly, that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states, just the Federal Government. But the 10th Amendment doesn't mean that the states are excluded from the establishment clause, otherwise states could ignore all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, although he seems to try to make that argument.

Add to this Barton's general lies outside this interview and revisionism.

>> ^Morganth:

Where are the lies? Did you even watch the other two parts of the interview?

I'd rather watch Democracy Now or The Real News Network.

The country is secular in policy but practice, hardly. There are numerous cases where religious acts are being invoked politicians and government organizations in power, and the rare occasion where the rule of law takes place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h7ekCD6uE4
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13569794

Don't lecture me on the Establishment Clause.

What the right thinks is an immutable document is just that a document that is subject to the opinion of the reader; which therefore must be debated upon by the people. I said that in my comment above.

However equating the constitution to a fetish is horridly disturbing. It breathes an air of, "it's just a piece of paper," or it's just a vice to be used when you need it but when you don't just put it back in the cabinet; which is exactly what the right does when they need it. This whole piece was just a jab at the short ribs of those less educated to understand what was taking place.

We differ on many things. What we consider to be good reporting or news may be completely different. However I maintain my position that the guest speaker had very good points that were done a disservice by a crude and tacky quip by what I would guess was a news-reader's utterances read from a teleprompter.

On a different note. I got an email for every quote and comment you made @NetRunner. The thought in my head was, "Ah shit, he saw fit to debate me three separate occasions on the same video!" That was until I came here and saw it was from the quotes you took and @ comment.

>> ^Matthu:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/AnimalsForCrackers" title="member since December 13th, 2006" class="profilelink">AnimalsForCrackers
Wait so the separation letter came after the first amendment? The separation letter is specifically meant to explain? Wtf are we arguing about? Damn sophists...


Err, wait, was the letter not written afterward with "seperation of church and state" subsequently becoming a retroactive shorthand for referring to the establishment clause, even though those exact words weren't actually in there? That was my limited understanding.

I'm confused now. And the quote function is acting weird.

As far as I know, these invocations (aka prayers) are not always given by Christians but other faiths as well.

So? They are fair game as well.

Per Matthu's wikiquote, the phrase "separation of church and state" ain't in the Constitution.

As if it needed to be in there to understand the historically intended meaning via the writings, private and public, of the founding fathers concerning this specific amendment, its purpose, and the implications of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"Seperation of church and state" was from Jefferson's own writings, in a letter attempting to further explain the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Baptists of Connecticut. Edit: D'oh! Should have read all the comments before commenting, Matthu was already there.

No – such a position is unrealistic to the point of being preposterous. The mere attempt to follow this concept is in itself an ‘establisment’ of religion. Atheism. It therefore becomes an equal violation of the separation clause as defined by the left. If it is a ‘violation’ of the establishment clause to put a manger scene up on a city park, then how is it not a violation to ban religion from all public sites? Does that not ‘establish’ a position by the state? Is that not “telling” people to be atheists just as much as a Christmas tree is “telling” people to be Christian?



You want to pretend it's impossible for an organization to be neutral to religion? Really? Are Science classrooms that teach evolution without mentioning the book of Genesis (or any other religion) also teaching atheism, by the same logic?

jefferson's quote is pretty self explanatory and while you do point out the one half concerning religion you ignore "there shall be no law respecting an established religion"-now what do you think "respecting" could possibly mean in this context?

The quote is “an establishment”; and respecting does not mean “no one in government is allowed to have or be influenced by religious belief”. The founding fathers expected government servants to be people of faith with all kinds of values, mores, and beliefs. What they didn’t want is for government to step in and impose church attendance. It really is that simple.

What constitutes an 'innocent display'?

Anything that doesn’t force you to attend a church.

How 'innocent' is any religious icon in a court of law?

Short answer? Completely.

Long answer? Should I be offended because an idol of Lady Justice is in a courthouse? Does it mean the STATE is going to frogmarch me to go worship at the local temple of Themis? Will it suddenly turn me and my family into Dikeists? Of course not. Likewise, it is a silly position to say the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is somehow an “establishment” of religion. Law is rooted in religious history. To display a religious symbol in a legal building is a tip of the hat to historical precedence. It no more violates the 1st Amendment than a public museum or library with a statue to the Muses in it.

Doesn't it seem far more reasonable to just take a pass on displaying ANYTHING religious and be done with it?

No – such a position is unrealistic to the point of being preposterous. The mere attempt to follow this concept is in itself an ‘establisment’ of religion. Atheism. It therefore becomes an equal violation of the separation clause as defined by the left. If it is a ‘violation’ of the establishment clause to put a manger scene up on a city park, then how is it not a violation to ban religion from all public sites? Does that not ‘establish’ a position by the state? Is that not “telling” people to be atheists just as much as a Christmas tree is “telling” people to be Christian?

That’s why the left’s position on this issue is so laughable. It is hypocritical and self-defeating in the extreme, like most leftist policy. The 1st Ammendment is supposed to keep government from making laws that force you to attend a specific church. Christmas trees, the 10 Commandments, the word “God” in the pledge, prayers in schools, and all the other stuff that left is so uptight over are not germane to the subject in any way. The left just WANTS them to be germane, and so they’ve come up with this idiotic position as a means to justify it.