Its like this...people who oppose a truly secular society do so on behalf of their personal beliefs and not the constitution...I wish religious people weren't so pushy because I like the idea of having religion around
One often gets angry at those that constantly interrupt others when debating in order to continuously make their "points". However, it is easier to let it go when you observe, in your daily life, just how much louder ignorance speaks than anything else. Intelligent people can tolerate disagreement because they are interested in the truth and not in maintaining some false sense of rightness. When you meet someone that can not tolerate disagreement, walk away. They'll never be worth your time.
@chrisis138 but the fact that they choose a christian type god over anything else is the problem, now I understand, its not that big of a deal. But to evoke that all persons are equal regardless of race, belief and etc. It would be much more equal for everyone, whether they're Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and so on. Everyone would be recognized by not being recognized, in a matter of speaking
@DerpingProductions So if someone says "God Bless You", you're supposed to take offense if you don't believe in God? It's all nonsense, people are wayyyy toooo politically correct nowadays.
@chrisis138 No, that's not the point. The point is for the government to have all views equal, not set one above the other because thats what they believe. Obviously it's different for citizens, but when the government does something that pertains to the citizens, is when there should be no mention of any type of belief, even if its disbelief
I think it's less about the idiot host not understanding the constitution than about the host pandering to the stupidity of their audience. Fox "News" is nothing but a propaganda machine for the indoctrination of the very stupid.
@lumpheadthump It is not the host who does not understand the Constitution but Newdow. His argument has no basis in the text or history of the Constitution. That may be why his arguments are continually rejected in court.
@nnjhansen Anbout the establishment clause and about the argument being "constantly rejected in court".In many cases the offenders removed crosses,etc. before going to trial.
Who is really covering theri ears here eh? "I don't agree so lalalalalalalalalalalalalala! I can't hear you!" and then interrupts the guy; so he can't get a word in edgewise! Ugh!
Justice Black only joined the KKK because it would have been impossible to get elected in Alabama in the 1920s without their support. It was a political decision, nothing more. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
If only they listed all the quotes of the other founding fathers who talked so much shit about the Bible for what it is. I bet they wouldn't like that.
@nnjhansen Just google "founding father quotes on religion". Most of the founding fathers were deists and had big problems with Christianity. Thomas Paine wrote a short book called "The Age of Reason" where he criticized the Bible in detail. Thanks for asking.
@auroraman56 Of the men who founded this country, only Franklin ever referred to himself as a deist. The rest generally considered themselves Christians of one form or another.
A large number of the alleged quotes you find on the internet are fakes.
Paine's 'Age of Reason' played no role in the founding of this country.
@nnjhansen WOOPSIE! Did someone forget the constitution can be googled? Article IV: "...all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I think it means what it says: "NO RELIGIOUS TEST". What do YOU think that means?
@pburto Where is their a religious test involved here? Concluding the oath of office with 'So help me God" is a voluntary act by the incoming president.
@nnjhansen If you were standing right in front of me, I would extend my right index finger, purse my lips, then flip my lips back and forth so they make a sound like "bububububub."
I would do this because I believe it's the most articulate way I could possibly express the blatant denial and willful blindness present in your words and ideas.
Don't type back. Seriously... Just don't. Please. Wouldn't you rather type to people who might respect your opinion?
@nnjhansen If it's volunary, and if a president elect has the freedom to use place his hand on any book he deems holy, or none at all, instead of the bible, and if he can freely avoid saying the words "So Help Me God" (even though he was just told "Repeat after me", then Newdow's case lacks merit. But that's not the case.
@pburto The president elect chooses the book (if any) he is sworn in with. He also discusses the oath with the justice, informing him whether he wishes to swear or affirm for instance. The "so help me God" is, and always has been at the presidents discretion.
Idiot liberals support integration of mosque and state. Yeah, you can't even sing Christmas carols because the ACLU will sue, but force taxpayers to pay for Muslim footbaths and give them special rooms.
@StoogeWatcher WTF are you talking about? You can sing anything you want as a private citizen. You CAN'T bring ANY religion, Muslim or Christian, into government. It's that simple. Please get yourself a copy of the Constitution and actually fucking read it.
The pro-deity fox news commentator's ignorance makes me want to punch me in the face. Just enough to knock some sense into him...And maybe some blood out of him too.
@ 2:09s is amazing it shows how when someone knows they are right ( the fascist on the left ) they overtly confuse and ignore an awesome answer given by ( hero ) on right just seconds before .
Classic example of a fascists mindset , the smooth talker (on the left ) that is .
This country is majority white but that doesn't mean we should only let white people should have what they want so why should we let Christians have what they want?
Why does he agree to go on fox news, he has been on a few times now. Every time he goes on he sits there calm and expresses his views. The ''reporter'' just gets angry and is very biased.
never understood why courts have anything to do with god. swearing on a bible in court is just stupid. if you dont believe in the bible whats the point of swearing on it and if you are a christian, well arent you one of gods chosen people and you shouldnt be in front of a court in the first place
At the time of the founding of our land, the people of America were primarily all Christian of many many denominations. The Founders wanted to ensure that no denomination took control as has the CoE. That being said, the very principle also determines that no religion shall have a dominant say in our public life. If you consider that the President is making a vow on a Bible when there are plenty of Hindus, Muslims, Shintos, Taoists, Pagans who believe in other gods,godesses, etc then its clear.
The whole point folks is that regardless of what the Founders may or may not have intended, they crafted a 'living document' which is open to being changed and reviews by their posterity (that would be us). The fact is that if we as a Nation acknowledge God in any form as a country then in fact we are creating a discriminatory situation.
Separation of Church and State is the issue...and must be upheld and protected if sanity is ever to reign. The "harm" caused by the "magical thinking" faction has several thousand years of documentation. If I were going to prey, I'd prey on Christians...the Romans had it right.
@TheBatMom Separation of church and state is a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the official acknowledgement of God or the endorsing of religious ideas.
@nnjhansen The phrase isn't in there, but that's what the founders intended. Read Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Excerpt:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
@YY4Me133 1. Jefferson had nothing to do with drafting the 1st Amendment and his 'interpretation' of it is hardly dispositive.
2. Jefferson's letter was referring to CT's established Congregationalist state religion and compared the CT legislature's ability to establish a state religion with Congress' inability to do so at the national level. Nothing more.
3. The actions of the Congress that did draft the 1st Amendment shows they did not intend to prohibit acknowledgements of God.
@nnjhansen Because it is often noted that the Declaration of Independence does contain references to a deity. The Constitution, not containing such references, offers a contrast and therefore counterpoint. Upon review of these two facts, one must consider which weighs more in a debate, the Declaration or the Constitution. In a debate about the Constitutionality of government religious endorsement, clearly the Constitution wins out. But you knew that. You're just a cunt.
@JesusChristsDick The two documents serve two separate functions and they are not adversarial but complimentary.
The Declaration lays out the "why,' it lays out the basis for our rights (they come from God) and the Constitution deals with the "how' those rights are to be protected. There is no need for the latter to restate the points made in the former.
You probably did not know that, you're just an idiot.
@nnjhansen Your own point demonstrates your mental absurdity. Separation of church and state is a matter of "How." By your own admission, the proper reference for matters regarding "How" our government is allowed to operate is the Constitution. Hence, it is worth noting that while the Declaration of Independence contains favorable reference to religion, it bear no legal foothold on matters of the separation of church and state.
@JesusChristsDick The term 'separation of church and state' is a term that appears nowhere in the Constitution. It's current usage reflects a belief that has no basis in the text or history of the document. Newdow's contention that the 1st Amendment's Establishment clause somehow prohibits the mention of God in an oath is belied by the actions of the very Congress that drafted the 1st Amendment. They wrote the Judiciary Act of 1789 that included the words in the judicial oath
@nnjhansen Nor did I say that the Constitution contains those words, but the phrase comes from the very man who wrote the 1st Amendment, using it to describe the purpose (the "why") of the 1st Amendment. The JAof1789 is neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution so it holds no weight in this discussion which is in regards to the note worthiness of the lack of religious affirmation in the Constitution vs that found in the DoI (in case you forgot).
Legislative acts of the Congress that drafted and enacted the Bill of Rights are of great relevance to how the amendments are to be interpreted. You assert that the 1st Amendment completely separates the state from any religious endorsement and yet the Congress that drafted the amendment acknowledged God and endorsed religious ideas regularly.
@JesusChristsDick Madison hardly 'scribed' the Constitution but he was a major player.
Regardless, the 1st Amendment is not a part of the base Constitution but (oddly enough) an amendment to it.
Madison did draft the initial proposal for the what we now know as the 1st Amendment's religious clauses but his draft was significantly reworked as it made its way through Congress.
@JesusChristsDick The ideals are simply not what you assert them to be. The Congress that drafted and imposed the limits of the Establishment clause on their own power behaved in a manner that strongly suggests they did not share your understanding of those ideals. As they were the ones who enacted those 'ideals' are you arguing they did not fully understand what they had done or that they willfully ignored them?
@nnjhansen Is the Constitution perfect or is it just our best attempt to govern according to a standard? If the latter, upon what standard? Do we appeal to god or to the standard of elected representatives? If the latter, is the use of "God" a more inclusive or less inclusive representation of we the people than non-use? If the latter, is there an offset to the moral cost of discrimination that justifies its use? Is it lucky? Is a dollar worth more with IGWT on it? Do all Americans go to Heaven?
@nnjhansen Your question could easily be compared to the inclusion of "All men are created equal," an ideal that some of our founders did not agree with, forcing compromise. As they were the ones who enacted that "ideal," wouldn't you argue that they did not fully understand what they had done or that they willfully ignored it?
@JesusChristsDick The 'All men are created equal" was not enacted nor did not impose any obligation on those who wrote it. The Establishment clause explicitly obligated the people who wrote it to abide by it. So I ask again, did Congress not fully understand what it had done or did it willfully ignore it?
@nnjhansen You can't speak of the Congress of 1789 as a whole. It was a divided Congress, just like today. I might add that as a part of the compromise between this divide, the oath you speak of is optional.
@JesusChristsDick Of course you can speak of Congress as a whole. It, as a whole, passed the 1st Amendment by a 2/3 vote in each House, it as a whole voted to pray at the start of session, it as a whole asked Pres Washington to "recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God"
Did it as a whole understand what it had done re: the Establishment clause?
@nnjhansen When Congress passes a bill,the opposition doesn't get to take credit later on. It's exactly why you and I can make a case either way. Neither of us are claiming that the issue is clear cut, but just as the Constitution isn't as religious as you would probably like it to be, other documents aren't as secular as I'd like them to be. The side of SofC&S have compromised that value to get other documents through Congress (JA01789), but they got it where it counted: The First Amendment.
@JesusChristsDick You are assuming facts not in evidence. Where is your evidence that there was a 'SofC&S' side as you understand the term? Where is your evidence that the provision in the Judiciary Act, the daily prayer, or the request for a national day of prayer faced any significant opposition? The Senate passed the Judiciary Act by a vote or 14-6 with the opposition concerned with the strength of the courts relative to the states. The House passed it by a voice vote.
@nnjhansen Yes, it is an assumption in regard to the JA specifically, but it isn't baseless. As you have noted, it was the same Congress that fought through compromise to get the Constitution ratified. It isn't a big leap to assume that the side of SoC&S during the Constitutional Convention still believed in SoC&S while deliberating over the JA.
@JesusChristsDick The Congress did not have to fight to get the Constitution ratified, it was a creature of the Constitution. Its existence was a result of the Constitution being ratified.
You still have not provided any evidence that anyone was advocating the type of separation you support. What debate during the Constitutional Convention are you referring to?
@nnjhansen Just as a helpful hint for studying politics, when analyzing something as controversial as SoC&S, you have to understand that because it was the result of compromise, neither side got exactly what it wanted. From that, we can assume that one side wanted more separation, and another side wanted less. It is an assumption, but it isn't baseless...... P.S. The important founders, the ones that had to convince everyone else to get on board, were the ones arguing for SoC&S.
@JesusChristsDick Thanks but I believe my degrees in the fields of political science and law give me a firm understanding of how to study the subject.
You are assuming that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is constitutionally relevant, it is not. The term not only is not in the Constitution but it also does not appear in any of the draft versions of what became the 1st Amendment.
The great debate was on state vs federal power, not the meaning of establishment.
@nnjhansen The great debate was over federal vs state power, but the Constitution was clearly the product of compromise in regard to a number of issues (i.e. 3/5s compromise), including SoC&S. SoC&S does not appear in the Constitution, but in Emerson v. BoE, the majority and dissenting opinion BOTH characterized the 1st amendment in those terms, affirming that TJ's use of the phrase in 1802 matches the clause's intent.
@JesusChristsDick 1. You are conflating the actions of two separate bodies, the Constitutional Convention (3/5 compromise) and the 1st Congress (Establishment Clause).
2. The debate surrounding the religious clauses of the 1st Amdt in Congress centered on federal vs state power as the various versions of the language attest.
3. The Court's characterization was simply wrong. Jefferson had nothing to do with drafting of the language and his interpretation is hardly dispositive,
@nnjhansen The divide between those of our founders who were for the church and those who were against (in government). They had essentially the same arguments you and I would have today.
@JesusChristsDick Where is your evidence that there was any significant belief at the time that the Establishment clause meant what you assert it does? That the acknowledgement of God or the endorsement of religious ideas was prohibited.
@nnjhansen "the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL separation of the church from the State"
"religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together"
"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, NOR COMPEL MEN TO WORSHIP GOD IN ANY MANNER contary to their conscience"
@JesusChristsDick And yet even Madison did not object while in Congress or as president to daily prayers in Congress, the official acknowledgement of God, or national days of prayer.
Even he understood that such actions neither established a religion, enforced the legal observation of any religion, nor compelled any man to worship.
@JesusChristsDick Madison did not bite his tongue, he took an active part. He, as president issued proclamations designating a national day of prayer. He, himself officially acknowledged God in his official capacity.
@nnjhansen Your claim that we appeal to God to help our elected representatives is simply false because I don't do any such thing, nor do any other atheists in this country. That is the discrimination I am referring to. Representation is at the heart of this Republic, and those statements do not represent us. I wouldn't argue for an explicit representation of atheism (In No God We Trust) because that wouldn't be inclusive of theists. I am arguing for government to stay out of it.
@JesusChristsDick Your unwillingness to do what the vast majority of Americans do does not make the practice discriminatory. It simply puts you outside the majority opinion.
Representative government does not require that all ideas and beliefs be treated the same. The beliefs of the majority generally get implemented in public policy.
@nnjhansen yeah 85 % or even more. i personally live in Sweden and i know many people and like 10 people are belivers that i know,, in a whats call`d a god.
and to the future don´t get your "fact´s" from wikipedia .........
No one is saying America shouldn't recognise God. What they are saying is that God should be left out of politics. Just look at Islamic nations...oppressing their people and using God or Allah as an excuse. Bush said God told him to go to war in Iraq... That was the right thing to do??? Is America or it's allies any saver?
I read these comments and I see the results of public schools. You all should actually read the Constitution. They are correct in saying that the intent was to keep from having a state sponsored religion not to keep religion out. Sever good examples were cited. But another is England which persecuted Catholics for being Catholic. This is the type of thing they wanted to avoid. A protestant in England could walk up, take the Catholics horse for example and there was no recourse. Learn history.
What's with Fox News employees consistently failing to under the separation of church and state? I understand you're Christian but come on, keep your personal agenda and beliefs out of this debate.
@DeathBringer769 What do you mean by 'separation of church and state'? The misguided notion that any official acknowledgement of God or endorsement of religious ideas is somehow prohibited?
That type of 'understanding' has no basis in the text or history of the Constitution.
It is those who wish to impose this fiction that are pushing a personal agenda.
talking snake, 4000 years old earth, we all came from adam and eve(you know that would mean there children would had to have children with each others), no dinosaurs, etc...
atheism doesn't always mean that they don't believe in a god, it mean they don't believe in religions.
religion is a personal choice, well sometime depend where you live.
politic is what rule the nation, not the church, again it depend where you live.
"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, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-" -The Declaration of Independence
I doubt any other world view would give us those rights. If those worldviews do not value man, then man cannot have any rights and there is only power. It is important to know where these rights come from. If that doesnt matter, then they don't matter.
@nnjhansen Thanks, I do what I can. Seriously though, what the devil are you talking about? Many of the founding fathers were anti-Christian, anti-religion deists. Ever heard of the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson went through the New Testament and cut out what he thought was baloney – the miracles, extraordinary claims, parts contrary to history, et cetera. And the only thing "fake" here is your facade of wisdom about the founding father's religion
Jefferson never referred to himself as a deist nor did he ever express a belief in an impersonal or uninvolved God. His 'bible' was not an expression of deisim but of unitarianism. It was an attempt by Jefferson to strip away what he saw as corruptions of the teachings of Jesus and to distill His true teachings. Jefferson considered himself a follower of Jesus, a Christian.
I really don't see any harm in so help me God. I'm not Christian, and I don't think it imposes on my or anyone's rights. I think the guy just has stick up his a**
the govt. is supposed treat all religons equally. atheism isnt a religon, nor do they believe in religon. so how is the govt. supposed to treat atheism equally to religon?
Got to love how they completely ignore the stuff Thomas Jefferson said about the separation of church of and state which he wrote along with the constitution.
So when Ronald Reagan says that if we are not a nation under god, then we're a nation gone under. Is he suggesting that if citizens of the country he runs isn't a believer of god and won't buy into that concept, that the Govt won't have the kind of mind control that they want over the people? When the Govt KNOWS you will believe something using blind faith, then they KNOW you'll believe anything they tell you. Jus' sayin'...
Simply for they live in a bubble...Americans live in America while the rest of the world lives on planet earth...
With their nationalism and their religious ways America will slowly start to regress...they already lost their democracy to politics and the business elite...and the people are falling for it with their eyes closed...in time they will go back to the 15th century....
I was not making any suggestions, but rather stating a fundamental problem that surrounds all issues pertaining to the constitution. Analyzing original intent is speculative in the sense that it is unclear exactly what the founder's meant. It's out dated because the founders ideology is based upon a completely different historical time. Yes, I agree the establishment clause is very clear.
John Adams once said that religion has no place in politics. Come at me christians.
Colonelmcscurvy 9 hours ago
Its like this...people who oppose a truly secular society do so on behalf of their personal beliefs and not the constitution...I wish religious people weren't so pushy because I like the idea of having religion around
brianbingman44 9 hours ago
Wow the human race is fucked
The United States is corrupt
And that part about Hugo Black you just know they went fishing for that shit
FUCK SAKE why are people so stupid
netgear123456 10 hours ago
@pburto its rather similar to when people say, "I'm not being racist but..."
thehurpv4c 20 hours ago
3m47s you can clearly see how annoyed Newdow is. I would be physically threatening that stupid anchor at that point. How can somebody be so ignorant?
ZeeJeff 2 days ago
One often gets angry at those that constantly interrupt others when debating in order to continuously make their "points". However, it is easier to let it go when you observe, in your daily life, just how much louder ignorance speaks than anything else. Intelligent people can tolerate disagreement because they are interested in the truth and not in maintaining some false sense of rightness. When you meet someone that can not tolerate disagreement, walk away. They'll never be worth your time.
Lunartrek 3 days ago
I agree with the news guy....who really cares? It's not discrimination and it's not intended to be.
chrisis138 4 days ago
@chrisis138 but the fact that they choose a christian type god over anything else is the problem, now I understand, its not that big of a deal. But to evoke that all persons are equal regardless of race, belief and etc. It would be much more equal for everyone, whether they're Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and so on. Everyone would be recognized by not being recognized, in a matter of speaking
DerpingProductions 4 days ago
@DerpingProductions So if someone says "God Bless You", you're supposed to take offense if you don't believe in God? It's all nonsense, people are wayyyy toooo politically correct nowadays.
chrisis138 4 days ago
@chrisis138 No, that's not the point. The point is for the government to have all views equal, not set one above the other because thats what they believe. Obviously it's different for citizens, but when the government does something that pertains to the citizens, is when there should be no mention of any type of belief, even if its disbelief
DerpingProductions 4 days ago
@DerpingProductions okay whatever, if you think that it really makes a difference. There are more important issues than this.
chrisis138 3 days ago
@chrisis138 No, its really not a big deal, I was just trying to show you the point of view that's ya know? Thats all
DerpingProductions 3 days ago
Lol, when the host says "I'm not a particularly religious person", the first thing that comes to mind is BULLSHIT. That's just an opinion though.
ShabookiSkittles 5 days ago
It's hilarious how Christians can't seem to understand that there isn't just Christianity and athiesm.
dilt4 5 days ago
what can i say? its fox news...
imbatman143 1 week ago 4
I think it's less about the idiot host not understanding the constitution than about the host pandering to the stupidity of their audience. Fox "News" is nothing but a propaganda machine for the indoctrination of the very stupid.
lumpheadthump 1 week ago
@lumpheadthump It is not the host who does not understand the Constitution but Newdow. His argument has no basis in the text or history of the Constitution. That may be why his arguments are continually rejected in court.
nnjhansen 1 week ago
@nnjhansen you're misinformed.
lumpheadthump 1 week ago
@lumpheadthump About what exactly? His argument having no merit or his constant losing in court?
nnjhansen 1 week ago
@nnjhansen Anbout the establishment clause and about the argument being "constantly rejected in court".In many cases the offenders removed crosses,etc. before going to trial.
lumpheadthump 1 week ago
@lumpheadthump I an mot misinformed on the Establishment clause and Newdow has been unsuccessful in every case he has brought.
nnjhansen 1 week ago
@nnjhansen Nope, you're misinformed.
lumpheadthump 4 days ago
@lumpheadthump I what way am I misinformed?
Has he successfully had the Pledge declared unconstitutional?
How about "In God We Trust" taken off our currency?
Has been able to get benedictions or prayers removed from presidential inaugurations or prohibit the oath of office from including 'So help me God"?
nnjhansen 4 days ago
@nnjhansen We both know we weren't only talking about the pledge or the oath.
lumpheadthump 4 days ago
@lumpheadthump We are talking about the cases that Newdow has argued in court. His argument has lost repeatedly.
nnjhansen 4 days ago
Who is really covering theri ears here eh? "I don't agree so lalalalalalalalalalalalalala! I can't hear you!" and then interrupts the guy; so he can't get a word in edgewise! Ugh!
Gurrennakun 1 week ago
This news anchor is rude!
Gurrennakun 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Benjamin Franklin: Lighthouses are more useful than chruches.
Well said, Ben :)
leizuoer 1 week ago
Comment removed
leizuoer 1 week ago
so much for news reporters and staff not siding with one specific view
milkwasabadchoice131 1 week ago
i acknowledge god every day...i acknowledge that he doesnt exist and religion is silly....
orbit639 1 week ago 40
Justice Black only joined the KKK because it would have been impossible to get elected in Alabama in the 1920s without their support. It was a political decision, nothing more. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
AsSomedayItMayHappen 1 week ago
@AsSomedayItMayHappen Hogwash... Black was in agreement with the aims of the Klan, especially their anti-Catholicism.
John H. Bankhead II was Black's contemporary in the Senate from Alabama and was able to be elected without being a Klan member.
nnjhansen 1 week ago
If only they listed all the quotes of the other founding fathers who talked so much shit about the Bible for what it is. I bet they wouldn't like that.
auroraman56 2 weeks ago
@auroraman56 Such as?
nnjhansen 1 week ago
@nnjhansen Just google "founding father quotes on religion". Most of the founding fathers were deists and had big problems with Christianity. Thomas Paine wrote a short book called "The Age of Reason" where he criticized the Bible in detail. Thanks for asking.
auroraman56 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@auroraman56 Of the men who founded this country, only Franklin ever referred to himself as a deist. The rest generally considered themselves Christians of one form or another.
A large number of the alleged quotes you find on the internet are fakes.
Paine's 'Age of Reason' played no role in the founding of this country.
nnjhansen 1 week ago
It's disturbing that the host starts a sentence with: "I understand the constitutional arguments but..."
Then the conversation should be over. Unconstitutional = illegal, unless he thinks the constitution needs to be rewritten.
pburto 2 weeks ago 23
@pburto Saying you understand an argument is not the same as saying you agree with the argument or acknowledge the validity of the argument.
The fact is that Newdow's argument has no merit as it lacks any basis in the text or history of the Constitution.
nnjhansen 1 week ago
@nnjhansen WOOPSIE! Did someone forget the constitution can be googled? Article IV: "...all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I think it means what it says: "NO RELIGIOUS TEST". What do YOU think that means?
pburto 1 week ago
@pburto I meant article VI... six. Typo.
pburto 1 week ago
@pburto Where is their a religious test involved here? Concluding the oath of office with 'So help me God" is a voluntary act by the incoming president.
They typo is the least if your mistakes.
nnjhansen 1 week ago
@nnjhansen If you were standing right in front of me, I would extend my right index finger, purse my lips, then flip my lips back and forth so they make a sound like "bububububub."
I would do this because I believe it's the most articulate way I could possibly express the blatant denial and willful blindness present in your words and ideas.
Don't type back. Seriously... Just don't. Please. Wouldn't you rather type to people who might respect your opinion?
pburto 1 week ago
@pburto If you were standing in front of me, I would leave.
There is no religious test implicit in voluntarily closing an oath with "so help me God."
That you think there is simply illuminates your amazing level of ignorance.
nnjhansen 1 week ago
@nnjhansen If it's volunary, and if a president elect has the freedom to use place his hand on any book he deems holy, or none at all, instead of the bible, and if he can freely avoid saying the words "So Help Me God" (even though he was just told "Repeat after me", then Newdow's case lacks merit. But that's not the case.
pburto 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pburto The president elect chooses the book (if any) he is sworn in with. He also discusses the oath with the justice, informing him whether he wishes to swear or affirm for instance. The "so help me God" is, and always has been at the presidents discretion.
nnjhansen 1 week ago
@pburto The only thing that keeps america on the sane path is the constitution!
As long as you guys manage to hold on to that, there's still hope....
riqyl32 9 hours ago
Idiot liberals support integration of mosque and state. Yeah, you can't even sing Christmas carols because the ACLU will sue, but force taxpayers to pay for Muslim footbaths and give them special rooms.
StoogeWatcher 2 weeks ago
@StoogeWatcher WTF are you talking about? You can sing anything you want as a private citizen. You CAN'T bring ANY religion, Muslim or Christian, into government. It's that simple. Please get yourself a copy of the Constitution and actually fucking read it.
leizuoer 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leizuoer What part of the Constitution says that? My copy must be missing something.
nnjhansen 1 week ago
Ugh fucking Fox News. Makes you Yanks look so bad...
BlackPanteraSociety 2 weeks ago
The pro-deity fox news commentator's ignorance makes me want to punch me in the face. Just enough to knock some sense into him...And maybe some blood out of him too.
chinchillas1000 2 weeks ago
tellnet RE: AND.
RE: to clarify, I'm not psychic
TheDano1947 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
llokkee 2 weeks ago
@ 2:09s is amazing it shows how when someone knows they are right ( the fascist on the left ) they overtly confuse and ignore an awesome answer given by ( hero ) on right just seconds before .
Classic example of a fascists mindset , the smooth talker (on the left ) that is .
Earroten 2 weeks ago
Now it comes down to "whats the harm" you know what the harm is dick head but you are getting a pay check from the noise machine.
briancolejennifer 2 weeks ago
You can't talk because the noise machine needs to get its way.
briancolejennifer 2 weeks ago
Im from australia, we dont have fox news here. is it full of idiots or something? are all the presenters fucking stupid?
restoremaz 2 weeks ago
@restoremaz
Yes
tellnet 2 weeks ago
This country is majority white but that doesn't mean we should only let white people should have what they want so why should we let Christians have what they want?
TheGamecocks97 2 weeks ago
Look at most COPS , military personnel and Judges they all are FOX news types . They are narcissistic and know they are right .
Earroten 2 weeks ago
Why does he agree to go on fox news, he has been on a few times now. Every time he goes on he sits there calm and expresses his views. The ''reporter'' just gets angry and is very biased.
carlstss 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Replace 'god' with 'conscience' thats compatible with all religious views ;)
/watch?v=L9BtXMy-En0&list=PLA4C5356ECE58C4B9&index=1&feature=plcp
Thx for comment like/dislike
ashwadhwani 2 weeks ago
Hooley Dooley that segment at the end had me in tears of laughter... Lucky I'm not American
fr0nage 2 weeks ago 2
never understood why courts have anything to do with god. swearing on a bible in court is just stupid. if you dont believe in the bible whats the point of swearing on it and if you are a christian, well arent you one of gods chosen people and you shouldnt be in front of a court in the first place
thetruth8720 2 weeks ago
with out jesus and the founding farthers we would of never invented the wheel or discovered how to farm the ground or to make tools to hint animals,
jesus and our founding fartheres taught is all of that ,, and it is a miricale by jesus and the founding farthers god bless america
morr42 3 weeks ago
@morr42 not sure if trolling...
fr0nage 2 weeks ago
@fr0nage i is trololol
morr42 2 weeks ago
At the time of the founding of our land, the people of America were primarily all Christian of many many denominations. The Founders wanted to ensure that no denomination took control as has the CoE. That being said, the very principle also determines that no religion shall have a dominant say in our public life. If you consider that the President is making a vow on a Bible when there are plenty of Hindus, Muslims, Shintos, Taoists, Pagans who believe in other gods,godesses, etc then its clear.
OkamsRazer 3 weeks ago
The whole point folks is that regardless of what the Founders may or may not have intended, they crafted a 'living document' which is open to being changed and reviews by their posterity (that would be us). The fact is that if we as a Nation acknowledge God in any form as a country then in fact we are creating a discriminatory situation.
OkamsRazer 3 weeks ago
Separation of Church and State is the issue...and must be upheld and protected if sanity is ever to reign. The "harm" caused by the "magical thinking" faction has several thousand years of documentation. If I were going to prey, I'd prey on Christians...the Romans had it right.
TheBatMom 3 weeks ago
@TheBatMom Separation of church and state is a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the official acknowledgement of God or the endorsing of religious ideas.
nnjhansen 3 weeks ago
@nnjhansen The phrase isn't in there, but that's what the founders intended. Read Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Excerpt:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
YY4Me133 3 weeks ago
@YY4Me133 1. Jefferson had nothing to do with drafting the 1st Amendment and his 'interpretation' of it is hardly dispositive.
2. Jefferson's letter was referring to CT's established Congregationalist state religion and compared the CT legislature's ability to establish a state religion with Congress' inability to do so at the national level. Nothing more.
3. The actions of the Congress that did draft the 1st Amendment shows they did not intend to prohibit acknowledgements of God.
nnjhansen 3 weeks ago
@YY4Me133
In fact is is worth noting that the word "god" does not appear in the US Constitution.
Not once.
Never.
tellnet 2 weeks ago
@tellnet That was my point.
YY4Me133 2 weeks ago
@tellnet Why is that worth noting?
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Because it is often noted that the Declaration of Independence does contain references to a deity. The Constitution, not containing such references, offers a contrast and therefore counterpoint. Upon review of these two facts, one must consider which weighs more in a debate, the Declaration or the Constitution. In a debate about the Constitutionality of government religious endorsement, clearly the Constitution wins out. But you knew that. You're just a cunt.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick The two documents serve two separate functions and they are not adversarial but complimentary.
The Declaration lays out the "why,' it lays out the basis for our rights (they come from God) and the Constitution deals with the "how' those rights are to be protected. There is no need for the latter to restate the points made in the former.
You probably did not know that, you're just an idiot.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Your own point demonstrates your mental absurdity. Separation of church and state is a matter of "How." By your own admission, the proper reference for matters regarding "How" our government is allowed to operate is the Constitution. Hence, it is worth noting that while the Declaration of Independence contains favorable reference to religion, it bear no legal foothold on matters of the separation of church and state.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick The term 'separation of church and state' is a term that appears nowhere in the Constitution. It's current usage reflects a belief that has no basis in the text or history of the document. Newdow's contention that the 1st Amendment's Establishment clause somehow prohibits the mention of God in an oath is belied by the actions of the very Congress that drafted the 1st Amendment. They wrote the Judiciary Act of 1789 that included the words in the judicial oath
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Nor did I say that the Constitution contains those words, but the phrase comes from the very man who wrote the 1st Amendment, using it to describe the purpose (the "why") of the 1st Amendment. The JAof1789 is neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution so it holds no weight in this discussion which is in regards to the note worthiness of the lack of religious affirmation in the Constitution vs that found in the DoI (in case you forgot).
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick Who do you believe wrote the 1st Amendment?
Legislative acts of the Congress that drafted and enacted the Bill of Rights are of great relevance to how the amendments are to be interpreted. You assert that the 1st Amendment completely separates the state from any religious endorsement and yet the Congress that drafted the amendment acknowledged God and endorsed religious ideas regularly.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Oops, sorry. TJ wrote the DoI, Madison wrote (scribed) the Constitution. Oddly enough, that plays more to my favor! lol.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick Madison hardly 'scribed' the Constitution but he was a major player.
Regardless, the 1st Amendment is not a part of the base Constitution but (oddly enough) an amendment to it.
Madison did draft the initial proposal for the what we now know as the 1st Amendment's religious clauses but his draft was significantly reworked as it made its way through Congress.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen I have never claimed it was impossible for the Congress to act against the ideals prescribed in the Constitution. Is that your claim?
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick The ideals are simply not what you assert them to be. The Congress that drafted and imposed the limits of the Establishment clause on their own power behaved in a manner that strongly suggests they did not share your understanding of those ideals. As they were the ones who enacted those 'ideals' are you arguing they did not fully understand what they had done or that they willfully ignored them?
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Is the Constitution perfect or is it just our best attempt to govern according to a standard? If the latter, upon what standard? Do we appeal to god or to the standard of elected representatives? If the latter, is the use of "God" a more inclusive or less inclusive representation of we the people than non-use? If the latter, is there an offset to the moral cost of discrimination that justifies its use? Is it lucky? Is a dollar worth more with IGWT on it? Do all Americans go to Heaven?
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick Does this mean you are not going to answer my question?
No one claims the Constitution is perfect, that is why it can be amended.
We appeal to God to help guide our elected representatives.
What discrimination are you referring to?
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Your question could easily be compared to the inclusion of "All men are created equal," an ideal that some of our founders did not agree with, forcing compromise. As they were the ones who enacted that "ideal," wouldn't you argue that they did not fully understand what they had done or that they willfully ignored it?
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick The 'All men are created equal" was not enacted nor did not impose any obligation on those who wrote it. The Establishment clause explicitly obligated the people who wrote it to abide by it. So I ask again, did Congress not fully understand what it had done or did it willfully ignore it?
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Do you understand that our founders were not all in agreement? Some understood, others ignored just as I understand, and you ignore.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick I am speaking of the Congress as a whole. The exact same body that enacted the prohibition on itself.
So I ask again, did Congress not fully understand what it had done or did it willfully ignore it?
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen You can't speak of the Congress of 1789 as a whole. It was a divided Congress, just like today. I might add that as a part of the compromise between this divide, the oath you speak of is optional.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick Of course you can speak of Congress as a whole. It, as a whole, passed the 1st Amendment by a 2/3 vote in each House, it as a whole voted to pray at the start of session, it as a whole asked Pres Washington to "recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God"
Did it as a whole understand what it had done re: the Establishment clause?
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen When Congress passes a bill,the opposition doesn't get to take credit later on. It's exactly why you and I can make a case either way. Neither of us are claiming that the issue is clear cut, but just as the Constitution isn't as religious as you would probably like it to be, other documents aren't as secular as I'd like them to be. The side of SofC&S have compromised that value to get other documents through Congress (JA01789), but they got it where it counted: The First Amendment.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick You are assuming facts not in evidence. Where is your evidence that there was a 'SofC&S' side as you understand the term? Where is your evidence that the provision in the Judiciary Act, the daily prayer, or the request for a national day of prayer faced any significant opposition? The Senate passed the Judiciary Act by a vote or 14-6 with the opposition concerned with the strength of the courts relative to the states. The House passed it by a voice vote.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Yes, it is an assumption in regard to the JA specifically, but it isn't baseless. As you have noted, it was the same Congress that fought through compromise to get the Constitution ratified. It isn't a big leap to assume that the side of SoC&S during the Constitutional Convention still believed in SoC&S while deliberating over the JA.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick The Congress did not have to fight to get the Constitution ratified, it was a creature of the Constitution. Its existence was a result of the Constitution being ratified.
You still have not provided any evidence that anyone was advocating the type of separation you support. What debate during the Constitutional Convention are you referring to?
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Just as a helpful hint for studying politics, when analyzing something as controversial as SoC&S, you have to understand that because it was the result of compromise, neither side got exactly what it wanted. From that, we can assume that one side wanted more separation, and another side wanted less. It is an assumption, but it isn't baseless...... P.S. The important founders, the ones that had to convince everyone else to get on board, were the ones arguing for SoC&S.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick Thanks but I believe my degrees in the fields of political science and law give me a firm understanding of how to study the subject.
You are assuming that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is constitutionally relevant, it is not. The term not only is not in the Constitution but it also does not appear in any of the draft versions of what became the 1st Amendment.
The great debate was on state vs federal power, not the meaning of establishment.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen The great debate was over federal vs state power, but the Constitution was clearly the product of compromise in regard to a number of issues (i.e. 3/5s compromise), including SoC&S. SoC&S does not appear in the Constitution, but in Emerson v. BoE, the majority and dissenting opinion BOTH characterized the 1st amendment in those terms, affirming that TJ's use of the phrase in 1802 matches the clause's intent.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick 1. You are conflating the actions of two separate bodies, the Constitutional Convention (3/5 compromise) and the 1st Congress (Establishment Clause).
2. The debate surrounding the religious clauses of the 1st Amdt in Congress centered on federal vs state power as the various versions of the language attest.
3. The Court's characterization was simply wrong. Jefferson had nothing to do with drafting of the language and his interpretation is hardly dispositive,
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick What divide? There was a well accepted understanding that some objected to swearing oaths.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen The divide between those of our founders who were for the church and those who were against (in government). They had essentially the same arguments you and I would have today.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick Where is your evidence that there was any significant belief at the time that the Establishment clause meant what you assert it does? That the acknowledgement of God or the endorsement of religious ideas was prohibited.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen "the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL separation of the church from the State"
"religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together"
"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, NOR COMPEL MEN TO WORSHIP GOD IN ANY MANNER contary to their conscience"
James Madison.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick And yet even Madison did not object while in Congress or as president to daily prayers in Congress, the official acknowledgement of God, or national days of prayer.
Even he understood that such actions neither established a religion, enforced the legal observation of any religion, nor compelled any man to worship.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Even politicians bite their tongues.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick Madison did not bite his tongue, he took an active part. He, as president issued proclamations designating a national day of prayer. He, himself officially acknowledged God in his official capacity.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Your claim that we appeal to God to help our elected representatives is simply false because I don't do any such thing, nor do any other atheists in this country. That is the discrimination I am referring to. Representation is at the heart of this Republic, and those statements do not represent us. I wouldn't argue for an explicit representation of atheism (In No God We Trust) because that wouldn't be inclusive of theists. I am arguing for government to stay out of it.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
@JesusChristsDick Your unwillingness to do what the vast majority of Americans do does not make the practice discriminatory. It simply puts you outside the majority opinion.
Representative government does not require that all ideas and beliefs be treated the same. The beliefs of the majority generally get implemented in public policy.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen So the Constitution offers no protection for the Minority?
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusChristsDick Protection from what?
Are you going to answer the question? Did Congress not fully understand what it had done or did it willfully ignore it?
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
@nnjhansen P.S. "God exists" is not an "opinion". It is a statement of fact and is either true or not true.
JesusChristsDick 2 weeks ago
Hah, I love how they created a 5 minute propaganda video because they know they can't win the arguement when the other side is still around.
FetaCheese222 3 weeks ago
@nnjhansen yeah 85 % or even more. i personally live in Sweden and i know many people and like 10 people are belivers that i know,, in a whats call`d a god.
and to the future don´t get your "fact´s" from wikipedia .........
johan1994karlsson 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
johan1994karlsson 3 weeks ago
Why not print "In Allah We Trust" on the dollar.
Allah is as equally nonsensical as god - and everyone has a dog-given right to stupidity.
tellnet 3 weeks ago 14
@tellnet Do you understand that 'Allah' is the Arabic word for 'God' and refers to the same divine being?
nnjhansen 3 weeks ago
@nnjhansen
So....
tellnet 3 weeks ago
@tellnet Your entire comment is pointless.
nnjhansen 3 weeks ago
@nnjhansen
You mean you didn't get it.
There is a difference.
tellnet 3 weeks ago
@tellnet No, it was pointless. You stated Allah was something other than God.
nnjhansen 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nnjhansen
What sort of a gobshite are you ?
This is what I said:
"Why not print "In Allah We Trust" on the dollar.
Allah is as equally nonsensical as god - and everyone has a dog-given right to stupidity".
That is NOT stating that "allah is something other than god."
It does state that replacing the TERM "god" with "allah" is equally as nonsensical.
..... A rose by any other name would smell as sweet ...
.... a god by any other name would smell as bad ...
Duhhhhhhh.,...
tellnet 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nnjhansen
.
Why not print "In Satan We Trust" on the dollar.
.
tellnet 2 weeks ago
@tellnet Because Allah is the god of abraham, same for Yahweh and Jehovah. I also believe in separation of church and state.
TheDano1947 2 weeks ago
@TheDano1947
.
And....
.
tellnet 2 weeks ago
fox news is clearly saying we believe in god because its been like that for a long time.
i bet they would have hated the abolition of slavery because it was like that for a long time.
SirVaular 3 weeks ago 7
No one is saying America shouldn't recognise God. What they are saying is that God should be left out of politics. Just look at Islamic nations...oppressing their people and using God or Allah as an excuse. Bush said God told him to go to war in Iraq... That was the right thing to do??? Is America or it's allies any saver?
cssius 3 weeks ago
FOX news is such a joke! Total right wing christian propaganda!
joshcarnitas 3 weeks ago
I read these comments and I see the results of public schools. You all should actually read the Constitution. They are correct in saying that the intent was to keep from having a state sponsored religion not to keep religion out. Sever good examples were cited. But another is England which persecuted Catholics for being Catholic. This is the type of thing they wanted to avoid. A protestant in England could walk up, take the Catholics horse for example and there was no recourse. Learn history.
JohnDoe4612 3 weeks ago
The Fox News host was correct.
JohnDoe4612 3 weeks ago
Andrew Jackson was a total dick head.
ElFlacoRiver 3 weeks ago
Haha this is the stupidest news show. Feel like i've just watched an episode of The Onion
ElectricalNoises 3 weeks ago
What's with Fox News employees consistently failing to under the separation of church and state? I understand you're Christian but come on, keep your personal agenda and beliefs out of this debate.
DeathBringer769 4 weeks ago
@DeathBringer769 What do you mean by 'separation of church and state'? The misguided notion that any official acknowledgement of God or endorsement of religious ideas is somehow prohibited?
That type of 'understanding' has no basis in the text or history of the Constitution.
It is those who wish to impose this fiction that are pushing a personal agenda.
nnjhansen 3 weeks ago
@nnjhansen and the bible is not fiction?
talking snake, 4000 years old earth, we all came from adam and eve(you know that would mean there children would had to have children with each others), no dinosaurs, etc...
atheism doesn't always mean that they don't believe in a god, it mean they don't believe in religions.
religion is a personal choice, well sometime depend where you live.
politic is what rule the nation, not the church, again it depend where you live.
SirVaular 3 weeks ago
@SirVaular The veracity of the Bible is not relevant to this situation at all.
Atheism does mean disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
nnjhansen 3 weeks ago
"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, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-" -The Declaration of Independence
I doubt any other world view would give us those rights. If those worldviews do not value man, then man cannot have any rights and there is only power. It is important to know where these rights come from. If that doesnt matter, then they don't matter.
Durzavon 1 month ago
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." // Thomas Jefferson
"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." // Thomas Jefferson
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." // John Adams
"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession." // Abraham Lincoln
TheDanielLivingston 1 month ago 3
@TheDanielLivingston Wow... three fake or highly misleading quotes and one irrelevant one.
Good work.
nnjhansen 3 weeks ago
@nnjhansen Thanks, I do what I can. Seriously though, what the devil are you talking about? Many of the founding fathers were anti-Christian, anti-religion deists. Ever heard of the Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson went through the New Testament and cut out what he thought was baloney – the miracles, extraordinary claims, parts contrary to history, et cetera. And the only thing "fake" here is your facade of wisdom about the founding father's religion
TheDanielLivingston 2 weeks ago
@TheDanielLivingston Which founders are you referring to? Be specific.
Jefferson never referred to himself as a deist nor did he ever express a belief in an impersonal or uninvolved God. His 'bible' was not an expression of deisim but of unitarianism. It was an attempt by Jefferson to strip away what he saw as corruptions of the teachings of Jesus and to distill His true teachings. Jefferson considered himself a follower of Jesus, a Christian.
nnjhansen 2 weeks ago
Article 6 of the First Ammendment to the American Constitution is very explicit in the separation of church and state.
Texxyify 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texxyify There is no Article 6 of the 1st Amendment. Nothing in the 1st Amendment speaks of a separation of church and state.
nnjhansen 3 weeks ago
the dude pretty much says he doesnt care about the constitution, goddamn somebody, please kill fox news
wearestarstuffsagan 1 month ago
Fox news is the same as the movie Idiocracy.
inEarthCEO 1 month ago
I really don't see any harm in so help me God. I'm not Christian, and I don't think it imposes on my or anyone's rights. I think the guy just has stick up his a**
mydesirescometrue 1 month ago
Werent the founding fathers secular? I honestly dont know because Im not American.
kokoth 1 month ago
@kokoth No, they were not.
nnjhansen 1 month ago
Fox really needs to stop bring this guy on their show lol. He just destroys them.
Trouter92 1 month ago
LOl who cares if from the beginning people thought god was real, it doesnt make it so
LoluskPoo 1 month ago
the govt. is supposed treat all religons equally. atheism isnt a religon, nor do they believe in religon. so how is the govt. supposed to treat atheism equally to religon?
2010jaxon 1 month ago
Got to love how they completely ignore the stuff Thomas Jefferson said about the separation of church of and state which he wrote along with the constitution.
xynth101088 1 month ago
@xynth101088 Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.
nnjhansen 1 month ago
@nnjhansen Sorry was thinking of the declaration. He did have a part in the Constitution along with many other founding fathers though.
xynth101088 1 month ago
@xynth101088 He played no role in writing the Constitution. He was in Paris at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
nnjhansen 1 month ago
DAMN, Fox News sucks!
jh162338 1 month ago 38
So when Ronald Reagan says that if we are not a nation under god, then we're a nation gone under. Is he suggesting that if citizens of the country he runs isn't a believer of god and won't buy into that concept, that the Govt won't have the kind of mind control that they want over the people? When the Govt KNOWS you will believe something using blind faith, then they KNOW you'll believe anything they tell you. Jus' sayin'...
fundslender 1 month ago
The second part is just a pathetic attempt of a xtian brainwash.
An0maly777 1 month ago
That idiot just said Atheism was a religion... I hate my country most of the time...
EdgePitSwing 1 month ago
@EdgePitSwing I think he was saying Atheism is a "religious view". (View ON religion)
LukeHasAimbot 1 month ago
Lol this is what will happen the the US...
Simply for they live in a bubble...Americans live in America while the rest of the world lives on planet earth...
With their nationalism and their religious ways America will slowly start to regress...they already lost their democracy to politics and the business elite...and the people are falling for it with their eyes closed...in time they will go back to the 15th century....
Guess that's where such arrogance takes you!
TTFLS 1 month ago
I was not making any suggestions, but rather stating a fundamental problem that surrounds all issues pertaining to the constitution. Analyzing original intent is speculative in the sense that it is unclear exactly what the founder's meant. It's out dated because the founders ideology is based upon a completely different historical time. Yes, I agree the establishment clause is very clear.
noentrie 1 month ago
Analysis of original intent is both speculative and out dated
noentrie 1 month ago