While their allegiance with the tea party isn't in dispute, this argument would be more effective if you pin it on the individuals, not the party. Each of the candidates is up for their respective race individually, not collectively. When it's labeled "tea party blah blah" you immediately alienate anyone that identifies with the tea party and condemn it to support all candidates in a reactive fashion. I propose we tone down the rhetoric and call these folks out directly as individuals for their lack of constitutional understanding.

That said, I agree with Cenk's points, I'm just asking that we refine the presentation to be less adversarial.

>> ^Truckchase:

While their allegiance with the tea party isn't in dispute, this argument would be more effective if you pin it on the individuals, not the party. Each of the candidates is up for their respective race individually, not collectively. When it's labeled "tea party blah blah" you immediately alienate anyone that identifies with the tea party and condemn it to support all candidates in a reactive fashion. I propose we tone down the rhetoric and call these folks out directly as individuals for their lack of constitutional understanding.
That said, I agree with Cenk's points, I'm just asking that we refine the presentation to be less adversarial.


Tea partier's identify with Tea Partiers, and for good reason. Why can't the rest of us commentate on general political movement?

So you are saying tea party types will be alienated. Why? Because they are unable to reasonably respond to a well thought out - fact laden argument? Or is it because they experience cognative dissonance between wanting to belong to the Tea party movement and seeing how hypocritical the whole movement is?

You seem to be saying, please tone down the passionate and robust discussion because the truth hurts.

*religion + *fear

Adding video to channels (Fear, Religion) - requested by jimnms.

Man, if Cenk Uyger wholesale signed on with MSNBC, I'd lose what shred of respect I have left for the guy. NPR, fine, at least they show some independent thought, but really... MSNBC? He's gonna join the proud ranks of Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann? Weak sauce Cenk, weak sauce.

Sigh - typical MSN hack job. The Tea Party guys saying "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution are absolutely correct, especially in relationship to how left-wing douchebags like the YTs perceive the issue. Cenk is an idiot. The 1st Ammendment is there to prevent the Federal government from establishing a state religion. At the time of drafting, the individual states had official STATE religions, and the states were worried that the establishment of a federal government would create a national religion (which they were against). To the Founders, the 1st Ammendment was a simple limitation put on the FEDERAL government to stop it from making a law establishing a state religion, and also to stop it from passing ANY law that limits the people's right to exercise whatever religion they had in any way they see fit. The problem here is that the far left's interpretaion of the 1st Ammendment in regards to religion is very different than that, and they keep trying to convince other stupid far left fools that their idiot vision is the one the founders had.

Who do you think you're fooling WP? This is videosift, not youtube and most sifters are well informed and certainly know the proper reasoning of the first amendment. It's correct interpretation is exactly how Cenk stated, which makes perfect sense since many of the founders were agnostic at best.

As far as Cenk being on MSNBC I really don't mind. I watch shows not the channels.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Sigh - typical MSN hack job. The Tea Party guys saying "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution are absolutely correct, especially in relationship to how left-wing douchebags like the YTs perceive the issue. Cenk is an idiot. The 1st Ammendment is there to prevent the Federal government from establishing a state religion. At the time of drafting, the individual states had official STATE religions, and the states were worried that the establishment of a federal government would create a national religion (which they were against). To the Founders, the 1st Ammendment was a simple limitation put on the FEDERAL government to stop it from making a law establishing a state religion, and also to stop it from passing ANY law that limits the people's right to exercise whatever religion they had in any way they see fit. The problem here is that the far left's interpretaion of the 1st Ammendment in regards to religion is very different than that, and they keep trying to convince other stupid far left fools that their idiot vision is the one the founders had.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Sigh - typical MSN hack job. The Tea Party guys saying "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution are absolutely correct, especially in relationship to how left-wing douchebags like the YTs perceive the issue. Cenk is an idiot. The 1st Ammendment is there to prevent the Federal government from establishing a state religion. At the time of drafting, the individual states had official STATE religions, and the states were worried that the establishment of a federal government would create a national religion (which they were against). To the Founders, the 1st Ammendment was a simple limitation put on the FEDERAL government to stop it from making a law establishing a state religion, and also to stop it from passing ANY law that limits the people's right to exercise whatever religion they had in any way they see fit. The problem here is that the far left's interpretation of the 1st Amendment in regards to religion is very different than that, and they keep trying to convince other stupid far left fools that their idiot vision is the one the founders had.


as per your usual, you cherry pick the factoids that promote your philosophy while ignoring the other half in order to call people "fools" and/or "stupid".
your single-mindedness becomes tiresome WP which is a shame because i find you an intelligent person to discuss issues with.
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?
it means..quite simply...that there will be no deference or special consideration in regards to any established religion.
so while your comment does refer to the government staying out of peoples faith and religion it totally ignores the other side which is to keep the influence of religion out of the business of government and lawmaking.
cenk's point on the threat of theocracy was accurate.
unless that is what you are hoping for WP and if that is the case and it is a theocratic USA you seek then i recind any objection to you manipulating the argument in order to better become united states of jesus.

This is videosift, not youtube and most sifters are well informed and certainly know the proper reasoning of the first amendment. It's correct interpretation is exactly how Cenk stated, which makes perfect sense since many of the founders were agnostic at best.

I think the general demeanor of VS is that its denizens are "well informed" in the sense that they carefully follow the far-left blogosphere's opinions as doled out by HuffPo, Kos, et al. I am pleased to introduce actual facts and history to an audience with a rigid and limited mindset.

Cenk and others on the left very much desire the "wall of seperation" to be defined in 'their' way. Problem is that defining it their way requires the burial of facts and history with the substitution of personal interpretation and more than a little willful miscontruance.

For example, just because "the right" doesn't agree with the radical far-left's interpretation of the 1st Ammendment does not mean that they want a 'state religion'. The left for many years has trotted out this crazy 'either or' vision of the right on the issue of seperation of church & state. The level of intolerance inherent within such a view is what makes people protest such innocuities as christmas trees in schools, or the 10-commandments in a courthouse.

Most other folks are far less (for lack of a better word) insane when it comes to the 1st Ammendment. They don't want the states or the Feds imposing a religion on them, but they don't mind innocent, harmless displays OF religion in government or public life. This is where the left totally loses the issue. The right isn't and never has advocated the far-left's racial fear based vision of state-mandated religions. And yet in their fear of such a vision, the neo-lib left has to wrest the 1st Ammendment, Madison, Jefferson, and a host of other things in order to paint the "wall of seperation" in such a way as to advocate their radical interpretation. And so whe Tea Partiers CORRECTLY frame the issue, they flip out as if the TP guy was saying, "And we'll force you all to go to church after we're elected..." because that's how neolibs see it. Craziness.

...And this is where you lose the arguement. What constitutes an 'innocent display' ? How 'innocent' is any religious icon in a court of law ? Doesn't it seem far more reasonable to just take a pass on displaying ANYTHING religious and be done with it ? What real benefit are we missing out on by allowing it that is worth the very real slippery-slope risk that it poses ?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
They don't want the states or the Feds imposing a religion on them, but they don't mind innocent, harmless displays OF religion in government or public life.

To be perfectly honest - I doubt the so-called "tea-baggers" are all uninformed silly wing-nuts. Some of the founding principles behind the tea-party and some of their representatives are quite sound.
The problem is that the "party" has created such momentum that it carries with it a whole slew of unreflected ideological baggage which "usually" gets sorted out in a political process, but until then is highly susceptible to manipulation and over-legislation.

While a "state-religion" is not necessarily the dawn of fundamentalist super-creationism (Germany is an example where it somehow "works" with religious-themed charities contributing MASSIVELY to social services), I doubt the principles of the tea-party would encourage the actual bureaucratic paper-wars (church-tax anybody?)... Also- I doubt any devout "christian" would like the infighting which would tail such a decision. Like Cenk mentioned, it would also require a LOT of the "foggier" aspects of religious belief to be fitted into a legislative framework (monogamy/polygamy, abortion, creationism, the theory of origin, interpretation of the testament(s), what actually constitutes christian belief).

If you as a "tea-partier" dislike government intervention so much and value your spiritual belief to a similar/equal/higher degree, would you really want to mix those two?

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.

The absence of religious icons, or the absence of religion in general, is by no means an establishment of atheism. It's a false equivocation, and a plainly easy one to spot at that.

This fixation on the term 'establishment' and the most narrow definition of it is your problem here. If you insist on ignoring the actual issue and focus on semantics, you're wasting everyone's time.

It's funny you mention Themis; only with the advantage of hindsight over a long period of time can we all agree that it's mythology and not a religion. We all perceive it has an aid to intellectual debate, we can universally agree of it's inoccuousness. Perhaps when today's religions have the same benefit of hindsight we have with the Greeks, I can reach a consensus with you.

quote from WP
"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."

this conversation is over WP due to your entire lack of understanding and desire to project what you WISH the founding fathers intent to be rather than paying attention to what they actually said.

...didnt want forced church attendance.../snort..
here WP..here's a quarter..go buy a clue.
or reside faithfully in myopialand.
i dont really care because once again you blew a great opportunity to have a great discussion so you can play letscallpeoplenames.
but you did manage to make me laugh.

>> ^Raaagh:


Tea partier's identify with Tea Partiers, and for good reason. Why can't the rest of us commentate on general political movement?
So you are saying tea party types will be alienated. Why? Because they are unable to reasonably respond to a well thought out - fact laden argument? Or is it because they experience cognative dissonance between wanting to belong to the Tea party movement and seeing how hypocritical the whole movement is?
You seem to be saying, please tone down the passionate and robust discussion because the truth hurts.

I suppose it depends on what your motive is; if you would like to undermine the entire tea party movement in the eyes of those who are not likely to be supporters anyhow then showing a consistent trend of poor performance in debates, etc. then the strategy would be effective. I would argue that that goal has been accomplished for the most part already.


If your goal is to potentially impact any voter's opinion, regardless of their political affiliation, why these beliefs are dangerous for our country, then I assert that it would be more productive to focus your criticisms on the individual(s). Arguments are generally more effective if one strives not to alienate the audience, even if the audience isn't one that you would agree with on most issues. While a troubling % of tea party candidates subscribe to this insanity, I think it de-values our argument to attribute that to the movement rather than the individuals.

I'm not saying tone it down because the truth hurts, I'm saying let's tighten our focus to reach a broader audience. Either way though, I want to be clear that you and I are (I believe) on the same page on this, so be assured I'm not against you in any way.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I think the general demeanor of VS is that its denizens are "well informed" in the sense that they carefully follow the far-left blogosphere's opinions as doled out by HuffPo, Kos, et al. I am pleased to introduce actual facts and history to an audience with a rigid and limited mindset.

You continue to prove with your own words who possesses a rigid and limited mindset.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Sigh - typical MSN hack job. The Tea Party guys saying "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution are absolutely correct, especially in relationship to how left-wing douchebags like the YTs perceive the issue. Cenk is an idiot. The 1st Ammendment is there to prevent the Federal government from establishing a state religion. At the time of drafting, the individual states had official STATE religions, and the states were worried that the establishment of a federal government would create a national religion (which they were against). To the Founders, the 1st Ammendment was a simple limitation put on the FEDERAL government to stop it from making a law establishing a state religion, and also to stop it from passing ANY law that limits the people's right to exercise whatever religion they had in any way they see fit. The problem here is that the far left's interpretaion of the 1st Ammendment in regards to religion is very different than that, and they keep trying to convince other stupid far left fools that their idiot vision is the one the founders had.


That's contrary to basically every supreme court precedent on the subject in the last 230 years. Your same bullshit argument could be used to say that the 1st amendment protects free speech only from acts of the FEDERAL congress, not from the states.

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?

When candidates that are being pushed as big names by the Republican party/Tea Party people are the ones saying this retarded crap, you kind of have to mention it as a problem with the party in general. See: Sarah Palin. Despite the fact that she likely lost the election for McCain more than anything else (I damn well hope, at least), they're STILL using the same strategies with her and similar people. No, actually, they've taken it a few steps FURTHER down the road of stupidity.