@Yogi

I'm sorry my fellow sifters advocate "offing" these guys. These guys work seven days a week and they work to make a profit - just like every other business.

J.P. Morgan Chase was the go to entity to take over Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual when they failed. Why? Chase was strong enough to bear the burden.

Regarding TARP money Chase never wanted it or needed it. Link

The Dodd Frank and Consumer Protection act is a poorly written gargantuan hydra of a bill. I know this because the small community bankers I know are saying they are not going to be able to stay afloat.

My companies president - someone who I know for a fact has voted as a democrat for over 40 years - told me yesterday he will vote against Obama in the upcoming election. Why? We work in real estate and the paperwork needed to finance a project has multiplied - and with it the number of lawyers and legal hours required - that is if we can get something financed period. Good for lawyers - bad for anyone who might want to work building a new shopping center(architects, tradesmen, engineers, etc) or working there in the future.

Make the rules simple, make them fair, and enforce them effectively.

Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect

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.

What I was doing was attacking the foundations of your argument, and providing evidence for my positions. What you have provided is a lot of speculation based on loose interpretations of our history through a secular lens. I would say I have had some success being that the claims you are making have become progressively more modest:

first post: "Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men"

second post: "I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians."

third post: "Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied)"

first post: "Yes, our government was intended to be secular."

second post: "More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government."

I'm going to be sparse in my reply. Since you have seen fit to do a hit and run, I don't intend to spend much time on this.

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.

No, my main point was that the establishment clause does not mean seperation of church and state, which is the basis for all of this hullabaloo. You've basically conceded this point to me:

"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."

You're admitting here that the purpose of the establishment clause was to keep one denomination from gaining control over the others. It wasn't to protect the country from Christian theism, it was protect the country from a particular flavor of Christian theism from gaining power. What "religion" meant was denomination religion, not doctrinal religion. So if this was the purpose of the establishment clause, it can't mean what you argue it does elsewhere.

"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


This is a bizzare comment and it shows you still haven't grasped my point. If you knew what you were doing, you would known that the whole idea of "seperation of church and state" is based on that letter. Obviously I was well aware of that, and fundementally disagreed with that interpretation, which is why I was busy providing you evidence that proved that this was a misinterpretation of Jeffersons intent. If he meant what you and others say he did, then he wouldn't have acted so contrarily to it during his time in government. Barbar got it; he knew exactly what I was saying. It has apparently gone completely over your head.

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.

When I say "shocking moral decline", I am not talking about womens rights or homosexual rights. I am talking about degeneration of civil society, the increase in crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, and many other factors which paint of picture of a country that is morally debased and getting worse by the year. I'm not saying it was ever perfect, but it had a foundation; biblical morality. Now that the foundation has been removed we are in a moral free fall.

Here are some statistics:

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html

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.

Perhaps you're just very young and have no context, but in my observation things in this country have gotten palpably worse in the short time I've been alive, and most of that time I have been observing this I was agnostic. Worse yet, this effect appears to be expodential. Not only is America losing its place on the worlds stage, but internally it has become something like babylon.

The bible doesn't say you need to be a Christian to be moral. It says we all have a god given conscience that tells us right and wrong. This relativism that you're talking about is exactly the problem. If its your truth and my truth, then there is no truth, and no one has a rock to stand on. The thing about Truth is that it the same regardless of when it was written or where it came from. It is the same regardless of what people believe. And the bible is true. There is a God, and He has imposed a moral law, and those who violate it will face judgement. That is why Christ came, to save us from our sins, because all have sinned and fallen short. Are humans smarter? In terms of knowledge, sure. In terms of wisdom? Not a bit. Human beings are no more wise than they were when the bible was written. The words of Christ are wise and they are for all time. In them, there is life, and that abundantly.
>> ^LukinStone:

>> ^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.

@ghark, at least there is permeability of the soil. Better than concrete everywhere....

Although sad to know that no one will sit as envisioned by the architects.

Any architects here? Is prefab really the future of architecture and is it safe?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't like clutter. I don't like victorian buildings with fretwork, cornices faux columns etc. Nooks where dust collects and never leaves. Long planes of molded concrete surrounded by trees appeal to my aesthetic sense. >> ^kymbos:

As an architect's son and a former Canberran, I can only disagree with you on the architecture front. With the notable exception of the members bar of Old Parliament House - that thing is gorgeous.
Good luck in the Can. The place is empty over summer, as the public servants exodus to Bateman's Bay takes hold.

As an architect's son and a former Canberran, I can only disagree with you on the architecture front. With the notable exception of the members bar of Old Parliament House - that thing is gorgeous.

Good luck in the Can. The place is empty over summer, as the public servants exodus to Bateman's Bay takes hold.

From Lucifer, the Theosophical magazine:

"And, when God said: 'Let there be light,' Intelligence was made and light appeared.

"Then, the Intelligence which God had breathed forth, like a planet detached from the Sun, took the form of a splendid Angel and the heavens saluted him with the name Lucifer.

"Intelligence awoke and it fathomed its own depths as it heard this apostrophe of the divine Word, 'Let there be Light.' It felt itself to be free, for God had commanded it so to be, and it answered, raising its head and spreading its wings, 'I will not be Slavery.'…"

"God then unloosed from his bosom the thread of splendour which held back the superb spirit, and as he watched him dive into the night, cutting in it a path of glory, he loved the child of his thought, and smiling with a smile ineffable, he murmured to himself: 'How fair a thing was this Light!'…"

"Perhaps Lucifer, in plunging into the night, drew with him a shower of Stars and Suns by the attraction of his glory?" (italics in original)

From Helena Petrovna Blavatsky the founder of modern Theosophy

"Lucifer represents.. Life.. Thought.. Progress.. Civilization.. Liberty.. Independence.. Lucifer is the Logos.. the Serpent, the Savior." pages 171, 225, 255 (Volume II)

"It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God." pages 215, 216, 220, 245, 255, 533, (VI)

"The Celestial Virgin which thus becomes the Mother of Gods and Devils at one and the same time; for she is the ever-loving beneficent Deity...but in antiquity and reality Lucifer or Luciferius is the name. Lucifer is divine and terrestrial Light, 'the Holy Ghost' and 'Satan' at one and the same time." page 539

Doesn't seem like Levay was too far off. Perhaps he was just taking this rebellion against authority to its natural conclusion, in which Satan is its grand architect?

In reply to this comment by enoch:
levay was a plagerizing,self aggrandizing twat.
the church may have taken his bullshit seriously but the esoteric community practically laughed him out of existence.
his theosophy was a joke.

I've booked ten films. Some of my choices had to do with staying at one location. The venues are scattered across town.

Brighton Rock
Eames: The Architect and the Painter
How Much Does Your Building Weigh, Mr. Foster?
Magic Trip
Melancholia
Sahkanaga
Take Shelter
The Hedgehog
The Mortician
Vigilante, Vigilante: The Battle for Expression

The other titles will go into my Netflix queue.

In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
There's some interesting looking films playing there -- are you seeing anything?

In reply to this comment by dotdude:
'Thought you might be interested in the line-up for the New Orleans Film Fest:
http://neworleansfilmsociety.org/festival/full/

Online Program:
http://issuu.com/shweikimedia/docs/neworleansfilm?mode=w
indow&backgroundColor=%2322222

I'm not going to spend more time than this on your conspiracy theories; the link is there, and that's only one of many sources. As for being intellectually disabled... if you can't tell wild conjecture and paranoid delusions from evidence and logic, than that insult coming from you weighs nothing at all.

>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
Oh yeah, the Arab Spring revolts were such a NATO conspiracy. They really had to spread it, topple a couple of other dictators peacefully, all that to be able to... whatever it is they're scheming to do.

Also: "It's already been admitted that NATO had special forces on the ground from the beginning of the "humanitarian mission"." --> [citation needed]
As for the WTC, people far more informed than I have debunked the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding it (first site Google offers, for some among many examples). But hey, those are all just guv'mint paid shills perpetuating the lies, and the evidence they present is really just very, very elaborate smoke screens, right?




>> ^marbles:

>> ^hpqp:
I already gave you links to journals debunking these 911 conspiracies, under one of your other vids. And yes, I did watch the video, although skipping through it, because I've heard all these conjectures before. Nothing new nor convincing has been added to the truther delusions so far.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
The tags are almost right: the claims made in this video are indeed lies and conspiracy theories, that have been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

Not that I actually believe you watched the video, but care to be more specific on what "claims" you're talking about and cite where they have been "thoroughly debunked over and over again"?


No specifics then? I didn't think so.
Run along now, no time for the intellectually disabled to start thinking on their own.

>> ^Fade:
Jeez dude you really have drunk the coolaid.
If there is evidence then why isn't it public? The video evidence and interviews, the photographs, all that stuff that the architects and engineers for 911 truth have access to?
NIST's model for the collapse is a secret. So you tell me, is that not the definition of a conspiracy? At any rate, their model doesn't even match the reality. there are plenty of videos comparing the NIST collapse model to the actual footage and it clearly doesn't line up.
fwiw, I have read the full report, everything that is public. I still don't buy it. Sue me.


Wait, what? You're claiming, "I have read the full report, everything that is public", but also "If there is evidence then why isn't it public?". Uh, dude, most of the evidence *is* public.

There are 3 reports specifically related to the WTC 7 investigation. The one I assume you've read is probably the NCSTAR 1A report. But I already pointed out, there are two others, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. The NIST NCSTAR 1-9 report is ~800 pages containing loads of photographs and stills from video clips on which they based on the investigation. On top of that, videos and photos from their collection they used for the investigation are also available on their web site.

The only thing I can't find are the interviews. I don't know if that means they are not public (although there could be any number of reasons for that, not necessarily "ZOMG it's a conspiracy!"), or if I just can't find them.

So yeah, I don't know what else to say. You don't buy it, that's your choice. You want another investigation, go help fund one then.

Jeez dude you really have drunk the coolaid.
If there is evidence then why isn't it public? The video evidence and interviews, the photographs, all that stuff that the architects and engineers for 911 truth have access to?
NIST's model for the collapse is a secret. So you tell me, is that not the definition of a conspiracy? At any rate, their model doesn't even match the reality. there are plenty of videos comparing the NIST collapse model to the actual footage and it clearly doesn't line up.

fwiw, I have read the full report, everything that is public. I still don't buy it. Sue me.>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
re. your point about evidence. I have read the NIST report. I trust you have too. If you can point me towards the section about evidence then I would be much obliged. All I am able to find are assumptions and estimations. Which are about as scientifically valid to the theory as my arse is.

First of all, every single model of any real life event is going to involve assumptions and estimations. That's the nature of constructing models of real life events, since information about any event is never going to be 100% complete or 100% accurate. Your complaint is invalid in this regard.
Second, I don't believe you actually have read the NIST WTC 7 report. If you had, you'd have noticed they refer to reports NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. And if you look at NIST NCSTAR 1-9 in particular (all ~800 pages of it), they detail a lot of the evidence they used in their findings (photographs, video, interviews).
Now, if you choose to look at that and still believe it's all fraudulant (since you've already made that charge), that's your prerogative. But to suggest there is no evidence for their report is simply false.

>> ^Fade:

You could always ask structural engineers and architects.
http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out But hey you must be a tinfoil hat wearing moron to get all them degrees.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.

Who needs evidence when we can ask our government what happen?

Or better yet, we could watch a bunch of videos made by disingenuous tin foil hat wearing mororns on the internet! That's the equivalent of science, right?



Someone made a really good point in the WTC 7 video the other day where they pointed out that just because they're scientists/experts doesn't mean they're immune to a good conspiracy. Surely it's not lost on you that you are taking their word for it and ignoring the "experts" who debunk it?

>> ^Fade:

You could always ask structural engineers and architects.
http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out But hey you must be a tinfoil hat wearing moron to get all them degrees.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.

Who needs evidence when we can ask our government what happen?

Or better yet, we could watch a bunch of videos made by disingenuous tin foil hat wearing mororns on the internet! That's the equivalent of science, right?



Funny, NIST asked structural engineers and architects too, and the ones they asked came up with the official story. What's more, thousands upon thousands of other scientists and professionals all accept the official collapse story. What do you believe, that all those thousands are in on the government conspiracy? Myself, I find the much more plausible explanation to be that there are a few gullible people in any profession, and the truthers found a few and put them on video.

You could always ask structural engineers and architects.
http://videosift.com/video/9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Out
But hey you must be a tinfoil hat wearing moron to get all them degrees.



>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^hint: Iran Contra was foiled with evidence.

Who needs evidence when we can ask our government what happen?

Or better yet, we could watch a bunch of videos made by disingenuous tin foil hat wearing mororns on the internet! That's the equivalent of science, right?