The Real Wall, Pt. 3 (What Christian principles?)

[zoxovox]

carloads or carTloads...

[Neeboopsh]

America was founded on the christian principle of owning other humans and making them work :)

[FaganRoberts]

It's also interesting to note that many liberals fall all over themselves proclaiming America a Christian nation almost to the extent that conservatives do. You see, if you are a politically liberal atheist one will call out conservatives as being the sole bastion of making such absurd religious claims with the deliberate exlusion of the socialist politicians who utter the same nonsense. I think conservative or libertarian atheists, such as myself, are more objective in this regard.

[TaylorX04]

@FaganRoberts What "socialist" liberal politicians claim America to be a Christian nation?

[FaganRoberts]

@TaylorX04 It comes to mind that virtually every American president or presidential hopefull has made some declaration, however vague in certain instances, that America be a Christian nation. Particularly in the 20th century. It seems that one cannot become president unless they profess that by some Xian miracle, we came about as a nation. America will probably never elect an avowed atheist as president because it is not beneficial at the polls. Most liberals/conservatives are Christian theists.

[TaylorX04]

@FaganRoberts There's a big difference between identifying oneself as a Christian and declaring our nation to have a Christian foundation. There's also a big difference in what some people mean when they say 'Christian nation', as Obama interpreted it in a 2008 speech as a reflection of the populace, instead of having a foundation in scripture, theology, etc. I have not known a liberal, even the Christian ones, to say we are a country founded on Christian values.

[FaganRoberts]

@TaylorX04 You're probably too young then to remember the Carter Administration. Other than that omission, it was a wonderful video series.

[TaylorX04]

@FaganRoberts I'm well aware that Carter is a liberal Christian and was very outspoken about it, but I've been unable to find anything about him declaring us to be a Christian nation in that sense. You don't happen to have a source, do you?

[FaganRoberts]

@TaylorX04 Interviewed by fellow evangelical Pat Robertson on the Christian Broadcasting Network during the 1976 campaign he discussed the imperative "to assure that secular law is compatible with God's laws" with the proviso that if a conflict developed between the two, "we should honor God's law." Two months later in June 1976 he also told reporters at Plains Baptist Church that "We have a responsibility to try to shape government so it does exemplify the teaching of God". Source:FreeLibrary

[TaylorX04]

@FaganRoberts Interesting. Reminds me of Mike Huckabee's comments around the 2008 election.

[FaganRoberts]

@TaylorX04 Certainly! Huckabee is a reprobate of the highest order. I would submit the closest we've come to someone who has even a remote understanding of the intent of the establishment clause is Obama. And I am otherwise steadfast opposed to everything this guy does and stands for. Cheers! I am one of your subscribers and keep up the good works. Thank you.

[alexfanx]

I don't see the problem with having the Ten Commandments in courthouses, it's just symbolic, how is it any different than having Lady Justice?

[TaylorX04]

@alexfanx Does Lady Justice stand for the opposite of religious freedom? Does she think thoughtcrime is bad and a punishable offense? No, it's not just "symbolic". Symbolism means there is a connection or similarity between two or more things. The Ten Commandments were not a basis of American law, nor do they really symbolize anything about our system of governance. If we can permit any old symbolism for "tradition's sake", why not the codes of slave masters?

[alexfanx]

@TaylorX04 They're a symbol for law. Of course they're not the basis for American law, neither is Greco-Roman religion. The slave codes were actual laws, the Ten Commandments were never US law, it's not like the courts are going to observe them.

[TaylorX04]

@alexfanx Sorry, but that's a terrible argument. Why not the code of Hammurabi? It doesn't matter if the Ten Commandments are a symbol for law when the law of our land specifically prohibits government institutions from favoring religion. Not only is your choice of the Ten Commandments entirely subjective, but it's ruled out by the law it is allegedly symbolizing.

[alexfanx]

@TaylorX04 So do you think we should remove all that Freemasonry (which is a pretty much a religion) from Government buildings? We should take down the the Washington Monument because it's favoring phallus worship too.

[TaylorX04]

@alexfanx What Freemasonry symbols are you talking about? I'd say the Washington Monument is styled after obelisks, not a phallus. Keep in mind that your own subjective opinion does not constitute fact. However, the Ten Commandments has been recognized as a religious symbol for many millennia.

[alexfanx]

@TaylorX04 An obelisk is phallic.

[TaylorX04]

@alexfanx I see, we're calling anything long and cylindrical and pointing upwards a phallus. Actually, an obelisk was a monument to the sun god Ra. The Washington Monument, however, commemorates George Washington, not Ra and not a phallus. I still don't think you understand that your subjective opinions and impressions are not fact.

[alexfanx]

@TaylorX04 Ok, I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to have opinions if they aren't facts.

[TaylorX04]

@alexfanx You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, and I'm entitled to criticize them for being uninformed. ;-)

[tantallum]

On May 21, 2010, the Texas School Board passed their new curriculum requirements for Texas public schools, and for their textbooks. The new curriculum is replete with inaccuracies and omissions that support the conservative Christian view of the world. TaylorX04's series on the separation of church and state should be viewed by everyone who cares about the poor state of education in the U.S. and about the conservative Christian agenda to force Christianity down our throats. Thank you, TaylorX04.

[D3PyroGS]

This discourse between 15693 and Taylor is hilarious.

[TaylorX04]

Lol, glad you enjoyed it. I don't know why I bother with some people.

[D3PyroGS]

For the lulz, man. The only thing worse than feeding the troll is feeding the troll and not enjoying the result.

[PaineLover]

For many years, I've ask the question "WHAT Christian principles?" thousands of times....and I've NEVER got a reply from the ignorants who claim America was founded on "christian principles". Never, Never.

[TaylorX04]

I think it's kind of like their assertions on objective morality. They like the concepts as part of their faith, but if you actually ask them for specific examples, you'll usually find them at a loss for words, or coming up with answers that are total nonsense (like the Ten Commandments).

[15693]

Christians when he says that the God asked his son to suffer on the cross .... Why did you believe in this theory mentioned in the Bible. And you do not believe in the theory is not mentioned in the Quran when God asked Muhammad to married the daughter of 7 years old?

( 7 years girls was mentioned in Muhammad history book and some information were false about him) Do not believe what you read from wrong sources or website.

[TaylorX04]

Who the hell are you talking to? Do you think this video is a pro-Christian video? Did you even watch it? Seeing how your comments are TOTALLY irrelevant and off-topic, I'm seriously considering blocking your dumb ass and deleting all this pointless shit you've said.

Whether Aisha was 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 doesn't matter. Muhammad was 50, she was at least 40 years younger. That is child rape and pedophilia. If God called Muhammad to marry Aisha, is your god a pedophile rapist too?

[15693]

You have talk about the majority of atheists and compare it with majority of Muslim...You are going to lose..The majority of Muslim not drink >and they are happy in there life..

Atheist is like a man in jungle..No direction no low or police...He probably enjoy doing sex with his daughter and mother.

[TaylorX04]

Ah, slander people you don't know or understand, because your Quran tells you to, right? So much for the religion of peace, lol.

Honestly, I don't give a shit how happy Islam might make some people. Drugs, alcohol, and sex make plenty of people happy too, probably more than Islam does. You just choose to ignore that or refuse to believe it because you're desperate to think Islam is a good and unique thing for humanity. Lots of victims of suicide bombers would disagree.

[15693]

Find me one from millions you said...e.g. like Prophet Muhammad or even close to him ...create the religion and make people happy in there life and stop you from alcoholic  drink in the world .. ..I will believe him find me one now....You can not brother.

[TaylorX04]

Why do you need to follow a man to be happy in your life and make others happy? I know people who are atheists and have never drank alcohol, who are very happy and just the nicest people in the world to be around. On the other side, Muhammad was 50 when he married 6 year old Aisha, and he is a well-known warlord who brutally slaughtered even innocent people that would not convert to Islam. Who would want to emulate such barbarism?

[15693]

Do you know, what is the biggest collapse? When you die you see that the Quran and the last prophet Mohammed was a truth. And your destiny is hell. (Safe yourself and make your destiny to haven) (Enter to Islam)

[TaylorX04]

And Christians will say that you'll see Jesus and be bound for Hell, and Jews will say that you'll be suffering in Sheol for following a false prophet. What is the evidence that you're right? Why should you be believed over Christians, Jews, or any other religious believer?

[15693]

From 1400 years ago. Quran supports ONLY one version for world and it's in Arabic. And its miracle book and protected from any change using one language only. If you are comparing the Quran to the Bible.

[TaylorX04]

Sorry, but this just your opinion and it's an untrue one at that. The Quran HAS been changed, see my video, "The 'Noble' Changing Quran". Plus, the idea that it's in the original Arabic doesn't at all mean it's protected from change. To prove that, you have to prove that it's protected from change! Lol.

[15693]

Bible is just news and its writing by many people...There no many scientific information indicating that there is the a God (Allah) Many Christians have become without religion..The Bible not guide them what the right to do. Where (God) Allah in Quran is guide you and give you the direction. Why its miracle book?

[TaylorX04]

I know Muslims who don't read the Quran often, just like I know Christians who don't read the bible often. What is your point? Neither book contains scientific information, by the way. See my video, "Science and the Quran".

[15693]

Many scientists have expressed their surprise at how Muhammad brought this information you need to install it to modern technology, such as the human develop. And that the earth is circular ... and the planet and earth spinning around the sun... planet swimming in space ... and many other of the scientific information that will make you believe that Holy Quran is miracles book. Prophet Muhammad do not lie ...

[TaylorX04]

So why didn't Muslims discover any of these things before Galileo or other scientists? If the Quran really describes them, why did it take you till AFTER their discovery by others to notice it?

Additionally, there's a lot of totally unscientific crap in the Quran, shown in my video, "Science and the Quran". The Quran is a book of wholly lies, not a holy book of miracles, lol.

[Cyrathil]

"planet swimming in space ..."

I don't really see how the planet swims through "nothing". It's poetic, but it's not exactly accurate.

"Many scientists have expressed their surprise at how Muhammad"

And there are a lot of people who believed that a psychic named Edgar Cayce was able to accurately diagnose diseases not even known at the time through his "powers". Should I worship Cayce as a prophet now too?

[15693]

Many of the people were like you do not know the truth .. but just when you type in the YouTube the word ( miracles of the Quran) .. You will believe that the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad are truth.

[Cyrathil]

You didn't answer my question... Should I think of Cayce as a prophet considering he was apparently (I mean I have heard a lot of people talking about how much this person knew, and how much of it wouldn't have been available to him any "natural" way) he was able to meet the requirement that your Quran was.

[15693]

A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History was Prophet Muhammad ..The name even is not mentioned in the list.

I advise you to choose the first from list..

refernces:

Hart, Michael H. The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, Revised and Updated for the Nineties. New York: Carol Publishing Group/Citadel Press; first published in 1978, reprinted with minor revisions (reflected above) in 1992.

[Cyrathil]

That, again, doesn't answer the question... So I'll just drop the charade. Why should I accept your prophet, when there are likely millions of other people in the world who have claimed to do exactly what your chosen prophet has claimed to do? What claim validates Muhammad as being something more than all the rest (no, being popular doesn't count...)?

As for the list you gave, I would more readily choose the second. I mean, space travel has done a lot for us...

[markofthebeasts]

thanks, i really enjoyed this series!

[morgannicgregor]

This whole series is very well done.

[michalchik]

Nice Job!

[AscottW]

Faith and freedom actually (in their essential definition) contest themselves.

[mtsac1]

The arguments of theists in this regard continue to be pathetic but WILL not change with facts. Idealogs are amazing in their ability to discount what is in front of them in favor of keeping their comfortable status quo firmly cemented in their minds. Facts are tools of the devil.

[laninarushy]

Taylor, lets agree to diagree, I am at work and need to tend to it. I do respect your passion and you have the right to your beliefs. I will read up more on the subject, but my mind will not be changed in regards to God. In the words of Benito Juarez "The respect of the rights of others is peace" enjoyed the exchange...

[TaylorX04]

Fair enough. I haven't expected to change your mind, but I honestly don't see why you so fervently believe the founders were Christian, as was the freedom of religion. You can find as many quotes as you wish, but none of them will prove either of those statements of belief. Why is it so important to you? I'm not denying some of them were Christian, just that Christianity was not the foundation of our country, which is even plainly spelled out in the Treaty of Tripoli.

[ThatOneQuestion]

You cant agree to disagree on facts when they are right there for you.

They arn't beliefs, either. Beliefs are baseless opinion without fact.

And I should hope that individual persons believing or not would NOT influence your belief in a god, otherwise that would make you an incredibly shallow person who didn't even actually believe anything in the first place.

I suggest you grow up a little first, and then try to deal with this religion topic.

[laninarushy]

Secure enough to make sure this freedom was protected regrdless. Notice i said largely. So you found some of them had misgivings about religion as a whole or christianity in particular. So that is your case. At the end of the day, as I stated before. The overall spirit of the the principles, are based on christian principles. Maybe if they religion of the time had been "worship of the tea pot" maybe the constitution would be based on those principles. Such is not the case.

[TaylorX04]

Your arguments are breathtakingly weak. Would it be accurate to say that we founded America on racist principles too, since racism was the norm of the day? Again and again, you simply state we are founded on Christian principles, but you keep failing to demonstrate how these principles are actually Christian in origin, and the only principle I've heard you offer is freedom of religion. Ancient cultures had that long before ours did though, and the founders were very much fans of Greece and Rome.

[laninarushy]

So what would be next, after taking religious freedom away? Whatever happened with mutal respect for others ideas? Atheists if they had their way, would not only take this freedom away, but that would only be the beginning. The end result would be a totalitarian Godless state. But wait, has not that been tried already? Does communist Russia ring a bell? Atheists need to back off and live and let live, People have the right under the consitution to believe in whatever they want!

[TaylorX04]

Who has advocated taking away religious freedom? Don't speak on behalf of all atheists - I can't even do that, because I'm not ALL atheists, and you're not even one atheist. Communist Russia was totalitarian, which was the problem. Atheism was there only because they realized religion could be a threat to the power of the state. Atheism did not lead to communist Russia, nor do atheists want to suppress religion (especially not violently).

[TaylorX04]

(cont'd)

Atheists will back off when religious nutjobs stop trying to get their crap taught as science in schools, when they stop trying to put religious symbols up on government property, and when they stop trying to impose their views on all the rest of society that doesn't share them. People DO have the right to believe whatever they want, but they DON'T have the right to infringe on other peoples' freedom of (or from) religion based on their own fanciful revisionist history of America.

[laninarushy]

Separation of church and state was parmount in the founding fathers thinking, so no there would not be a mention of any God. That would be disengenious and counter to the intent. At the same time under the bill of rights we find the freedom of religion act, unprecedented, but a clear indication that the founding fathers had God in their mind. No one can dispute that, otherwise it would not have been included. Atheist's agenda ultimately is to try to take this freedom away. This video is proof

[TaylorX04]

No, my deluded friend, you are sorely mistaken. Did you watch the first two videos in this series or just jump in at this one and get so worked up emotionally that you decided to comment?

Of course the founders had God on their mind. None of them were atheists, and I've admitted that in this series at least three times. However, a belief in a god =/= Christian, and as I explained, most of the founders were Deist, very different from Christian.

[TaylorX04]

(cont'd)

What's really funny to me is that you recognize the separation of church and state and the importance of it, while you simultaneously attempt to argue that the founders were Christians who established America on Christian principles. You don't see the conflict of interest there?

[laninarushy]

At those times the population spoused largely protestant pluralism: so were the funding fathers; so were their ideas and their influences this fact can not be disputed! but here is the kicker: as a result of freedom of religion: All religions are protected not just christianity, is that not sweet? that is truth and fact, deal with it. Can't change history.

[TaylorX04]

Of course all religions are protected, but freedom of religion is not a Christian principle, if that's what you're claiming. Again, you may want to watch my first two videos in this series, as they completely devastate your pathetic attempt to label the founders as all protestant Christians.

[laninarushy]

u say freedom of religion is not a christian principle- whose principle is it? and even if I were to grant you that, if the framers of the constitution who were largely protestant christians, this is a fact, wrote that freedom of religion, any religion, should be an inalienable right, should not the logical conclusion be that christian influence had a major part in its content?The authors were not man of the cloth, but they largely as a body believe in God, and felt secure in thier beliefs.

[TaylorX04]

Freedom of religion is just a principle. It was in the writings of John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and many philosophers around the founders' time. None of them attributed it to Christianity. The framers of the Constitution were protestant Christians?? Who?? James Madison wrote the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson also had a hand in it. Neither of them were known to be anything but Deists. Even if they belonged to a specific protestant church, you make a huge error assuming they were devout.

[TaylorX04]

(cont'd)

And NO, if the framers were protestants who wrote that freedom of religion is an unalienable right, that does NOT mean their religion was an influence in their thinking. Correlation does not equal causation. Unless they clearly credited Christianity with the freedom of religion, you have no basis for giving it credit.

You speak of the founders as if you know them personally, but I've seen you quote nothing by them to support your assertions. They were secure in their Deism, sure.

[canaanav]

Name one bible chapter and verse that has any unambiguous parallel to the first article of the Constitution or any article for that matter. You do that and I'll grant you that the Constitution was inspired by Christian ideology.

There is no way in hell (pun intended) that a religion that asserts that my human body is merely on loan from a god I must fear and love has anything to do with my inalienable rights as a human citizen of the United States.

[TaylorX04]

Very well said. I might have to borrow your second paragraph for use in a future video. :-)

[canaanav]

Cheers.

[canaanav]

laninarushy, you're making atheist arguments that I've never heard an atheist make. I'd be the first one to tell you that your religion is a worthless, cruel ideology for the dumb or intellectually dishonest. However, as a veteran, I was willing to fight and die for your ability to believe in it. Not to speak for other atheists, but I dont know of any that have reservations about you practicing your religion so we have nothing to 'deal' with.

[laninarushy]

I am not an atheist! is not that obvious? you idot, but I respect the rights of others to believe in whatever they want. So respect my rights and I'll respect yours.

I believe I God, it should not matter to you what God it is. But what is true is true. And the consitution was written by people who happened to be of the christian persuation and like mind. So no matter how you want to spin, minimize it, or try to debunk it, history can't be changed. All this nit picking transparent.

[TaylorX04]

Wow. He was saying you are making atheist arguments, that you're attempting to speak for atheists, not that you are an atheist. No one here is disrespecting your right to belief what you want, so long as it doesn't interfere with ours.

You keep dogmatically asserting that the founders were of Christian persuasion, but you have given no evidence for this. I mentioned how Jefferson rejected all the divine claims of the faith and many others denounced Christianity openly. Where's your evidence?

[laninarushy]

I am at work, I can't refrence right now, there are many writings by many authors that beg to differ. If the framers were so anti- christian, why did they insist on feedom of religion? if they were openly or secretely atheists or agnostics why is that not reflected on the constitution? if faith on any deity was such an offensive proposition, why did they all agree on a right to the contrary? Judge not their words or statements, judge the final result, there you'll find the real intentions.

[TaylorX04]

Lol, I have never said they were anti-Christian. They were Deists, some of them looked favorably upon Christianity, others did not. That fact alone should tell you that your assumptions about the founders being Christian and therefore freedom of religion being a Christian principle is just plain false. Again, watch my first two videos for a better understanding of why the founders agreed to keep Christianity and all religion out of their government policies and principles.

[canaanav]

I didn't say you were atheist. I said that youre making facetious atheistic counterpoints that I've never heard a real atheist make. What does idiot mean; do you know? LOL.

We can agree to disagree on the theme of the founding article of the country. I'm sure that if you would write the constitution, you'd include a god and maybe slip in a Jesus or two. Madison and Jefferson did not. That is condemning to your point.

[sapiensape]

You err about observance of the Sabbath, until the 1950's many states had "Blue Laws" which prohibited certain retail businesses from being open. In the 1960s these Blue Laws were rescinded. So for the first 200 years of the USA the Sabbath was "protected" to some degree by law.

[TaylorX04]

You yourself say that the blue laws are state laws, so they're hardly examples of "foundational principles". I believe they were not first implemented until the mid to late 19th century either.

[laninarushy]

This is usless rethoric. The undisputable fact is that the majority of americans, who are believers, and most of them are christians, are not swayed by this pathetic attemt to debunk long held beliefs.

The constitution continues to uphold the intention, underlying inspiration, and the spirit behind by which it was written. Its christian roots have surpassed and exceeded the test of time, bcz it was not a false pressumtion by the funding fathers, AND THAT IS THE TRUTH ATHEISTS HATE!

[canaanav]

Ianinarushy, did you watch the video? If so, which part of it is wrong?

[laninarushy]

Wtched the video, not impressed. So not all the commandments apply, of course they do not! they were not intended to. So some of the authors of the constitution held less than typical christian beliefs. Not all christians agree on everything, not by a long shot, but the common thread among them was a belief in God, a higher power. It is in the spirit of this belief that that the authors found their inspiration and based their writings. So much so, it has inspired

writings of other constit

[canaanav]

You're contending that the US was founded on a belief in a god (perhaps Yahweh). Please explain why the founding article of this country, The Constitution of the United States does not once mention gods. God is mentioned 4000+ times in the bible, so why not mention him once in the regulatory creed of this country and its government? If Rev Peter Popoff or Ted Haggard were to write the constitution today, I am sure thered be some mention of god. They might even slip in a "Jesus" or two.

[canaanav]

The Declaration of independence mentions that we are created with inalienable rights by a creator, but this is a very youthamistic way of referring to an all powerful god who, from what you assert, is the founding inspiration for a country. To rely of figures of speech to prove divine inspiration of this nation would be like saying that the US was founded on teapots because all the founding fathers had teapots and drank tea.

[humanist7117]

unalienated rights?

[canaanav]

Yes. The Declaration reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

This passage does contain some implicit deistic overtones, but in no way does it establish a state, let alone a state religion based in Christianity. The evidence is in the discourse of these articles where letters between the authors and sponsors outwardly expressed their desire for a secular state.

[canaanav]

Even the term, Separation of Church and State was coined by these men. It was their political slogan.  It was the revolutionary slogan and the first order of business in the US Constitution.

[canaanav]

The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence make no implicit claims that this country is founded on Christianity or any other religions.  What the do explicitly decree, is that there is not state religion, there is no religious test for the people in power, there will never be a law in favor of a religion, and that the people are free to exercise any religion they choose. Can you provide a bible passage that has any parallel to the FIRST order of business in the US Constitution?

[TaylorX04]

Yes, many of them believed in a deity, but few of them believed in the Christian deity, especially the men responsible for writing the founding documents of our country. However, believing in a god does not in any way mean that they incorporated that faith into the Constitution, into our government, or into our law system - and in fact, it looks like they kept their own religious beliefs out of all those areas, so that others can have their freedom to worship as they please.

[TaylorX04]

No, this comment of yours is useless rhetoric. No matter how hard you wish for it, you don't get to declare the founders to have been Christian or that the principles this country was founded upon were Christian in origin - at least, not without some hefty evidence. References to a vague god or supreme being are NOT Christian. References to Christ or Jesus are. Even so, the Constitution is devoid of any religious language. Please support your assertions, don't just preach.

[roentgen571]

This series is very well done, and devastating to the arguments put up by people like TheAtheistAntidote.  Great work!

[canaanav]

TaylorX04, this is just nit-picking isn't it?

I had to chuckle as you presented all your arguments. I imagined myself as Nigel, listening to the album reviews for Spinal Tap. 

/watch?v=-ruDdcd8G-g&feature=r­elated

I challenge any Christian not to just concede on this point; that, in fact, this country was not founded on Christianity.

[TaylorX04]

Nit-picking? If you mean that the Christians making these claims are setting up flimsy arguments that barely even worth refuting, because they're so weak, then yes, I suppose it is nit-picking.

[canaanav]

It was really funny to hear such a sophisticate response to really silly dogma. Great video.

[TaylorX04]

I guess shooting down the Ten Commandments was kind of sophisticated, but I don't think it's sophisticated at all to ask people to support their claims. I see too many atheists just respond with "No, you idiot!" when a Christian says we're founded on Christian principles. All it takes is asking them what those principles are and they nicely put their foot in their mouth.

[canaanav]

I agree. From my experience, the old mantra I always got when I had debate on the founding principles of the US was 'thou shall not kill.' Then for some reason, perhaps our current foreign policies, that part gave way to the Golden Rule (which for some odd reason they claim to invent) and neoconservatism. Most Christians today, when left unabated, will tout the principles of neoconservatism as the founding creed for the United States. It never stops.

[canaanav]

I agree 110% on the duality of atheist debate. Atheists are either very intelligent and articulate in debate or simply vulgar. I chalk a lot of it up futility. I've had a lot of rational discourse with Christians that, more often than not, ends in an agreement to disagree and the comment, "Well, I'll pray for you anyways." That bit pisses me off and makes we want to say, "Fuck you!" I do admit, sometimes I'd rather the smarter and more rational Christians just hate me than pray for me. Cont

[TaylorX04]

If someone tells me they're praying for me, I usually say "and I'll shake a magic 8 ball for you" or something that gets the message across without being too insulting. Sometimes I also like to say, "ok, but make sure you pray to the right god! wouldn't want to waste your time on a prayer that goes unheard". Maybe that's more insulting than just saying "fuck you", but I think it helps to get them thinking at least, and it doesn't let them have that last smartass remark anymore, lol.

[canaanav]

I usually bring up the John Templeton Foundation Prayer Study and say, "Please do not pray for me. It is against my wishes."

[canaanav]

Cont I dont want to make any excuses for atheist that just resort to vulgar arguments, but I do recognize the disingenuous nature of anyone who is intelligent and yet uses reason and science to bolster support for talking snakes and coconut eating dinosaurs.

[adrenacrumb]

lord haste the day lol.  another great video, you are on a roll.

[Sav3TheWorld]

'carloads of foolish trumpery.' Is that an accurate quote? I don't think they had cars back then.

[Thanatosmanus]

They did indeed have cars back then as the word car was an abbreviation of the word carriage (A horse drawn contraption). This is where we get the word car from (As in horseless carriage) : )

[TaylorX04]

I wondered the same thing, but the word "carload" was around before automobiles, maybe used for loads on railroad cars, or some kind of shorthand for "cartload".

[noproofforjesus]

great vid

[KitsuneVoss]

One of your best......The statemets are quite solid.

[SamNoble89]

So you state that people quote the founding fathers of your country won't get you anywhere due to the varied nature of the quotes then you go on and start quoting them to support your argument?

All in all a good video but I found that a little confusing.

[TaylorX04]

I was saying that quoting the founders alone was not evidence of their beliefs and I simply quoted some of their "anti-religious" statements to show that fact.

[320iguy]

yes. he is quoting them to show how contradictory a lot of there mind set's were. the founding fathers had no bias in there ideals for freedom of /from religion remember that most of the people that came here wanted the freedom of /from religion.

[gir908922]

Awesome video!  Thank you for proving that this country was founded on a Christian nation, because it wasn't.

[kamikazee100]

No sooner had they founded the "Christian" state of America than they instituted the Christian institution of slavery that enslaved millions for hundreds of years.

[petehjr1]

Great vid. You have probably heard this before but the music is a bit loud and it's nature makes it more difficult to hear what you are saying.

[dmurky]

I'm enjoying this series as much as the last on Making a Messiah. Good job!

[Doubter5]

Can you put links to pts 1 and 2 in your description so that those who haven't seen them can easily do so?

[TaylorX04]

Sure, good idea.

[LeksServices]

I know how christians would answer that question. "I take it on FAITH that this country was founded on christian principles! My pastor said it! I believe it!  That settles it!"

[humanist7117]

Few know of the influence of Iroquois nations and their native democracy on America's founders.

[TaylorX04]

Indeed. It's not a big surprise to me that the Deistic founders could get along so well with the Native Americans and their vision of The Great Spirit. I'm not sure the more traditional Christian ones would've welcomed them so warmly.

[humanist7117]

It was not the vision of the Great Spirit that attracted the Founding Fathers but the democratic system of government established by the Five Nations.

[tigers123123]

Great videos! Thanks!

Are you studying history or something like that?

[TaylorX04]

Actually most of this is stuff I've learned just from reading. As interesting as I find these sorts of things, I am starting to consider changing my major to History.

[castroherman]

Truly an excellent video, well done.

[101194z4life]

Good Video!

[no1saphead]

As usual right on top.55555555555555555555555555­5555555555555555 stars

[Wolfau5]

Not just what the Christian principles are, but what SPECIFIC effects they have on America... they seem to imply that concepts like freedom, liberty and equality are Christian principles... I'd like to see them argue how thats the case.

[TaylorX04]

Ah yeah, I should've mentioned something about that guy's remark. For centuries prior, other countries and governments adopted Christian principles that were polar opposites of freedom, liberty and equality. I think Christians just want to rewrite history over their mistakes and atrocities, to make it seem that the world couldn't have any hope without Christianity.

[TheRichDarkEarth]

Great series. Thank you very much for making it!

[LonaanGreen]

Really enjoying this series. I have had this argument with fellow atheists that just accept, the oft repeated fundie line, that our nation was founded on Christianity. Very frustrating in the past, but now I think I will show them your video series. You make their arguments and assumptions seem asinine. Lol

[SpinachSalad01]

Very well researched and presented. Excellent job!

[MrHoover3000]

Great video. The only thing I would mention as a disputable point however is your statement that there are no laws regarding keeping holy the sabbath day. In many areas the purchase of alcohol is restricted on Sunday and banned altogether on Christmas. Frankly I think those laws are bullshit and I wish the ACLU would take them on but that is an argument a Christian could make on at least that one point.

[TaylorX04]

Very true, I didn't think of the blue laws. I completely agree that they are bullshit, and I believe they were not implemented until the mid to late 19th century, if memory serves me right. They were part of Puritan law, but I don't recall them being part of the law our founders established in 1787.

[MrHoover3000]

Now that you mention it, blue laws are typically implmented on a state and local level not federal, therefore not in the Constitution or any subsequent federal bill. Additionally, the US Supreme Court has struck many of them down as unconstitutional. I think that would be a more than adequate response to the point I mentioned above.

On a side note, in the state where I live, it is illegal to sell cars on Sunday. You can buy a gun but not a Cadillac.

[TaylorX04]

Guns, Cadillacs, and Sunday... why does that sound like an awesome premise for a movie?

In my state, no store can sell alcohol on Sundays until noon. Just in time to hit the booze after getting out of church, I guess.

[wolfwing1]

well there was/is one place where buying and selling of everything but carrots is illegal on Sunday's, so you get people saying, "I will sell you this carrot for 50 thousand dollars, and throw in this car for free...:>

[k87jury]

Beautiful. Thank you.

[Scarlatti2007]

Good video.

[CHAS1422]

This country was founded on Latin principals. The founding fathers were far more influenced by Joseph Addison's play 'Cato' than by any passage of the bible. In fact, George Washington had Cato performed for the troops at Valley Forge. Addison is often called a founding father because of the influence of his work. The idea of an improved latin model was far more favorable than the monarchies and theocracies of the bible. Legal terms are Latin, not Hebrew. Same with the federal architecture.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Excellent video!!

[xCrazyJayx]

Dream on, gotta love Aerosmith.

[proudfootz]

Good job!

As for the 'Ten Commandments' the Bible has several versions, including such 'principles' as:

"The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn."

"All the first-born are mine."

"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk."

(Exodus 34)

Is *this* cultic hocus pocus what our laws are supposedly based on? Nonsense!

[ginkiba3]

What's so Christian about DC anyway?

Pseudo Greco-Roman pagan temples, depictions of presidents, teachers, law makers, prophets, Greco-Roman Gods, Personifications of Justice, Law and Liberty, the United States ect.

Just look at the mural in the Dome of the Capitol building, even the title is anti-Christian.

"The Theosis of George Washington."

[seanbrockest]

if your as sick of the 500 char limit as i am, drop by Taylor's website for a better discussion. It's in his profile.

[vonVlunt]

Great vid :)

[TheAtheistSwede]

Exceptional work. I've really enjoyed all three parts thus far. =)

[Evid3nc3]

I love the debunking of the commandments as the basis for American law. Total pwn :) Thank you for taking the time to lay out the comparison. It is a truly valuable resource.

[ONQproductions]

You left out the quintessential Christian principle: "You're gonna go to Hell, blasphemer!"

[swaltificati]

I enjoyed the last minute of your video the most. The question of what constitutes the basis for Christian belief as it pertains to references about a Creator in formal government documents is one well asked.

[TaylorX04]

Thanks. I stumbled across many sites while making this video, which claimed Jefferson as a believer, because of his quote: "I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others". They seem to miss the next line, where Jefferson denies the divinity of Christ, and they also seem to ignore that he's saying that he is a philosophical Christian, not a religious one. "Christian" has not always meant what it means today.

[N21X]

Excellent presentation!!!

5*'s

[timtheloner]

well said.

[inmyheart313131]

Awesome and powerful video. I also like Aerosmith's "Dream On"!

[guaflar]

win