@PlayhousePals

Heh, I'm just getting old is all. I am rooting for them, and good on them for turning the tables and shaming the adults. When I joined the Sift many years ago I would've absolutely have been optimistic about their chances of effecting change. But in the past decade, I have learned from first-hand experience how the world works, and seen too much happen in the world to give them more than a snowball's chance in hell.

I mean, shame only works on people that feel shame and the United States government has proven time and again in the past decade that it, like the current President, is absolutely shameless. The only way to make politicians understand is to actually threaten their re-election, but with lobbyist money skewing politics how do individual voters even do that? I just don't see enough of a grassroots campaign forming that actually gives the NRA and gun industry a run for their money.

Of course, I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. I didn't think I'd see the day gay marriage was legalized in the U.S. either and figured it wouldn't happen until I was a senior citizen if at all. Hopefully my pessimism is just grumpy old man talk.

Bernie Sanders: The Democrats Have To Become A Grassroots Pa has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Part one of the interview http://videosift.com/video/Bernie-Sanders-The-Democrats-Have-To-Become-A-Grassroots-Pa

I would say this is pretty much on the button, though. This way clearly isn't working, but the people who have money and power have convinced the majority that nothing can change and even if we could we would be worse off.

I don't think i'm being melodramatic or conspiracy theorising either. Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers tell people what to think and they think it. Democracy has been subverted by money in most western countries with corporate lobbyists willing to spend billions to get a politician on-side, "anti-lobbying" legislation that actually attacks grassroots and activists from broadcasting the truth at election time (and leaves lobbying untouched), and unfair campaign spending/fund-raising that leaves the rich with all the advantage.

The media in Britain have consistently presented a skewed and incorrect representation of the left-wing party leader. It is clearly a campaign by vested interests to stop a man who would bring their reign to an end. The language that they use and the metric by which they judge "their" guy is COMPLETELY different to how they judge the "other" guy.

What's worse is, fairness and balance in the media has deteriorated to such a point that it is now absolutely fine for all this to happen.

As Lawdeedaw said, we are already a long way up shit creek and we didn't even pack the paddle. Some people are getting very rich and are very comfortable, they have immense power and they will say anything to convince you that it's best that it stays that way. Including lying and using manipulative language and statistics in their national publications and television stations. And all you as an individual really has to do is vote someone into power that cannot be corrupted. You've got Bernie, we've got Jeremy.

"Too rich to be corrupted" is farcical though - let's only trust rich people then. Not only does this suggest that rich people are more trustworthy just by dint of having lots of money, but that poor people are less trustworthy because the greedy little paupers can't restrain themselves from 'upping their station'? I would rather judge someone on who i perceive their character to be than based on what is in their bank account, but i guess i'm fucked up like that.

@ChaosEngine

if you are referring to the established political class,the pundit class and those with relative power and influence i would agree with your assertions.

which is pretty much what i am talking about.

if you look how ron paul was being treated by his own party and compare that treatment to sanders by the DNC,there are some glaring similarities.

while both paul and sanders have differing politics,they did align in a few areas i.e: audit the fed,citizens united,money in politics and restructuring the military to name a few.

they both had/have immensely popular grassroots support.ron paul garnering 20 million in small donations and sanders broke that record with 30 million.

they both held large rallies with high attendance.

they both had a populist flavor that appealed to their own political base.challenging the current corrupt power structures.

and they both have/had experienced a weird media blackout,even though they were/are incredibly popular with the voters.

now we can question WHY that is,but i don't think it too much a stretch to come to the conclusion that both candidates challenged the current power structures that dictate this countries dysfunctional and corrupt political system.add to that mix a paid propaganda pundit class that never challenges the current narrative,all put on display on corporate media which is owned by what? 5-6 entities? who just happen to be the biggest lobbyists in this country?

nader experienced pretty much the exact same treatment from the DNC in regards to media exposure and it went even further in his case with him being outright denied to some debates,or made to jump through almost insurmountable dictates to even get ON the debates.

so when i assert this is a well crafted and intentional practice by the parties,i do so with precedent.

because all three,nader,paul and sanders all had/have massive public support from the voters,but not their respective parties.

so when ron paul started to become a real thorn in the RNC,who did not want him anywhere near the nomination.they changed the tactic from ignoring or downplaying pauls message..to creating the "kook" myth.this was from his own party!!

nader received similar treatment,though in a different context.the establishment as a whole came out against him.

so what can we assume,based on previous tactics from these political parties in regards to sanders?when they can no longer ignore his popularity? his grassroots campaign donations? his rally attendances?

there will soon come a time when they can no longer ignore sanders and his grassroots success,and they will respond the exact same way they did with nader and paul.they will concoct a narrative that plays on peoples fears and biases and begin to portray sanders as an anti-capitalist "kook".that somehow him being a democratic socialist means the end of our civilization.just the word "socialist' makes many a republican wet their panties.

could i be wrong?
oh please god let me be wrong.
i happen to like much of what sanders is promoting,not everything,i have issues with some of what he proposes,but over-all i dig not only what he is saying but how he is going about conveying his message.

there is one huge problem if sanders gets the nod,and that is the support you mentioned.he has almost none in the legislature.which will make much of what he is trying to change in washington damn near impossible.

which will create it own political mess and just create fodder for the pundit class to ineffectually pontificate on,just so they can have a job.

i think it would be such a great thing for this country if sanders got the nomination,but the establishment has already made its intentions clear:they dont want sanders,they want hillary.the establishment does not play by the rules nor do they play nice.

playing by the rules and being decent is for the peasant class.

hope i am wrong.
i hope that every single point i made will never occur.
i hope that sanders gets the nod and things may change,because this country needs a fucking enema.
but my cynicism really struggles with that kind of hopeful optimism.

@newtboy: Just to be clear, I really appreciate your comments. It's nice to talk to an omnivore who doesn't just respond with "I'LL EAT TWICE AS MUCH MEAT AS YOU DO TO MAKE UP FOR YOUR VEGANISM!" I'm trying to be objective, and I appreciate your attempt as well.

That being said...

I respect the genuine care you give to your animals. I didn't know you or your family (or both) owned such a farm. It does sound like you do, truly, meet their needs as animals. However, (and I hate to bring out the really controversial stuff), I'm sure plenty of slave-owners treated their slaves with genuine humanity. But that doesn't excuse the categorical enslavement of other beings. Despite all care given to those animals, they are still not able to live their natural lives as animals on earth. I don't see why our subjugation, no matter how "humane", can be considered anything less than "inhumane".

Now, the comparison to "most children in the world" is a moot one. Yes, of course everywhere there are going to be worse things happening. But the point is that we are rational, (hopefully) decent, higher-order-understanding-of-the-universe beings. Humans seem to like to cherry-pick when their huge brain is an excuse for greatness, or ignored and "we're just animals after all". So, just because there is suffering outside the scope of our influence, we do all have the ability to stop eating meat. Pretty easily, in fact, since there are tons and tons and tons of other means to get all the nutrition we need (not to mention way, way healthier means).

The point is that we are completely and totally (especially as upper-middle class 1st-world citizens) capable of not eating meat this very moment. You can't, however, change the living conditions in the slums of India by yourself right now.

And explain to me how mentally handicapped humans are not animals. What is the distinction? They are both objectively less intelligent. If anything, animals are more capable of surviving on their own. What makes mentally handicapped people any more special than animals? Just because they're human? That seems arbitrary. True, they should be treated differently because they are different animals, but I mean why should one be treated to our moral consideration and one should not? What makes humans so damn special?

And that "sustenance" argument is really, really misguided. As said above, you can eat an entire vegan diet and be probably even more healthy than an omnivore. And animals are not minimally suffering. Yes, a very cherished, rare group, as your animals are, are "minimally suffering", but many, many, many, many more are being horribly abused for that sustenance that can be gained elsewhere (with suffering of its own, truly. I always hear the "well, there are people given slave wages to pick vegetables in California". But, you'll be eating those vegetables and fruits anyway. That's an entirely other battle that needs to be waged in other ways, not through lack of consumption).

My assumption was not that 100% of farmers treat their animals inhumanely. My assumption was that billions of animals are being treated inhumanely. And the way parents treat their children is a red herring. That's not my argument at all. And again, it's outside the realm of my influence.

And to counter your last argument... my same argument above follows for the "food chain/web" argument. Once and for all:

We are rational, amazing, smart, complex and powerful beings on this planet. We have it within our power (each of us) to not eat meat. This is "against nature". But so is basically OUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. What makes us truly different from animals is that exact ability. To step back and choose our actions. Are you saying humans not capable of choosing their actions -- those with so much in the 1st world countries? That we're all forced to, by nature, to eat meat? That is the cognitive dissonance I speak of. That we're so special because we are rational beings, but at the same time we must eat meat because we are not rational human beings.

This entire argument was not endorsed by PETA, because they're a bunch of assholes -- but despite being assholes one can't argue that they have brought about change. Change comes from all angles. Grassroots, insane radicals, scientists, humanitarians. They all try to bring change in different ways and succeed influencing different groups. PETA's brazenness is its power. Large corporations, like McDonald's, must respond to such a power. Despite being assholes. Both of them.

--

I want to end on a note of humility -- that I admit to having that same cognitive dissonance when it comes to animals. As a cat owner, I often visualize the mound of turkey carcasses that both of my lovable kittens live on top of. And they truly are carnivores in that they cannot find sustenance outside of meat. How do I rationalize all the turkey deaths (my cats only exclusively eat turkey for some goddamn reason) just so I can have my lovable pets? I can't. And it kills me. Not sure if I'll get cats after they die.

--

Thanks for reading. That was a lot.

thanks man!
i remain cautiously optimistic.
grassroots,small campaign donations,populist language that appeals to the majority of americans?
who else did that? ron paul and look what the establishment did to that man.

In my opinion - and i think Brand's too, though i don't want to put words in his mouth - the motivation to act based upon nothing but profit is the largest and most significant drain on happiness and especially the advancement of us as a people. We need a revolution of principle, a revolution of the mind, we cannot keep on doing what we are doing when it is so clearly not working.

We have been pouring the results of our productivity into bank balances for so long now. If our productivity was represented by food instead of money, we would have been putting corn into a hole in the ground for 30 years and wondering why people are hungry. In a system based on corn, prosperity of a nation is based upon the free and active flow of corn.

I ask this question of you, because i don't know the answer. Do you think that we can continue pouring our productivity into big holes that other people sit on for "whenever they might need it?" Is it reasonable to build a system based on flow, but let huge clumps of it gather and expect everything to keep running quickly and without turbulence?

It just doesn't work anymore. The very rich don't realise it yet because they can afford to pay to avoid it, the quite rich notice it when they sit in traffic for example, but eventually things will become so clogged up that they will have no choice but to notice that there are no quality schools, hospitals, roads, airports, shops nor people to do their shopping, cleaning, cooking and driving. We all benefit, including the rich, if money is put into improving our infrastructure and facilities. We all benefit when productivity is flowing freely and quickly through the system. The opposite of that is called a depression, and it's when people don't have confidence in spending their money... we know that, we accept it, people were repeating it during the recession. How come we can't recognise the polar opposite? We're in a semi-permanent state of inverse depression, where those at the top don't have the means to spend their money, so it doesn't move.

This is an idea that needs to come from grassroots, everyone needs to come together somehow and unify over this idea. Because you can't blame any one individual for taking advantage of their fortunate position on the uneven playing field, or for fighting for a better position on the field. We all need to agree that the playing field has to be even, otherwise eventually the playing field will not be worth using.

I cannot stand this poisonous idea that you cannot ask a company for tax and here's my argument against that:
A lot of people live in the UK and a lot of people want to buy coffee and other assorted goods (starbucks, amazon). Even including tax, there is a lot of money to be made selling to these people. Let's say there is 2 billion pounds in profit available to be made by someone. That's still profit to be made by someone, and whoever offers that service to them under the correct rules makes that money.

The problem is that there's 4 billion to be made without tax, and it's cheaper to buy the politician for a billion to ensure you get the tax breaks. That is the poisoned system that psycho-capitalism has eventually produced... And it's so naive to think otherwise... so naive to think that those with billions of pounds wouldn't buy economists and lawyers, tout the favourable theories, generally spend top money on creating the right environment to make more money. Whether you think more or less tax is a good idea, surely have to agree that whatever the rules are, we adhere to them, or the system that we so carefully designed it around will fail.

Why are people so reticent to believe that we're being duped? No, surely not, it's the government, they can't possibly be lying to us. They stood in front of us, bare-faced, and told us they weren't torturing people, they had intelligence about WMDs, they weren't spying on us all. They prove themselves to be deceitful but like toddlers we trust the adult.

@enoch,

I'm afraid you are the one misunderstanding. Hijacking and redefining anarchy to mean support for essentially a different flavour of grassroots democracy isn't clever or insightful. It's an abuse of the language. That is merely a semantic complaint though. The deeper problem is that it's an effort to build an argument atop a contradiction. Namely, anarchy with some form of overall governing structure. Starting from such a contradiction allows you defend or tie anything and everything back to your core statement. That's why I declared it intellectually dishonest.

You advocate your position as 'anarchy' but then proceed to describe a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You've described democracy, not anarchy. You advocate absolute freedom of the people from the tyranny of rulers. You declare no more wars of aggression, but who's rule is that except your own? I'm afraid that history shows that a large portion of your free people will most assuredly gather together and agree on waging a war of aggression, and the only stricture holding that back is the rule made by the ruler against it, in this case the ruler being yourself.

In short anarchy only fares as well as human nature can be trusted, which is not far at all. Redefining it as democracy light isn't honest, it's just rejecting the burden of defending the specific changes and improvements one would propose. It's an ancient trick used endlessly throughout history and one I refuse to accept.

@dag makes a point that has hindered the USA for a while now: we aren't the only ones, and we aren't always right.

Sometimes, the right thing is to let someone else be right. If we're obviously failing, the correct answer is not to make a nonsensical snap judgement response such as "we need smaller government" without even stepping back and asking any "why's". As I stated, many "failed" programs in the US have failed by design as part of long term strategies. However, when other countries do what our antagonists claim is evil, they somehow succeed. Why is that?

We rank pretty low on public education, so our solution is to get rid of it? Yet, in other countries with public education they can manage to out perform our students? Or places with universal health care and deliver more babies alive than we can?

The obvious answer to any socially complex problem is not "we need smaller government." Perhaps, and I know this may be way out there for Fox News Fans, but maybe we should use actual history, empirical evidence, statistics and the whole slew of scientific process to understand and address problems with a Living Code verses the failed stringent policies such as No Child Left Behind etc.



As far as the government not having your best interest at heart, well, frankly, there's a simple solution for that. GET INVOLVED! Stop trolling the internet and start trolling a politician. Go to meetings, Make your voice heard. Hold demonstrations. Do research. Present that research. Talk in a reasonable manner with people you disagree with and show them your evidence, not your baseless rhetoric. Or I know this may be way out there for some, BUT GET ELECTED. You hate your local politician? Take his job. That's supposed to be the beauty of our system. And don't for a minute think it cannot be done. In both 2012 and 2008 (and off year elections especially) there were numerous upset's. There are grassroot candidates who with 1/10th the financial resources won an election. There are people every day fighting, but if you're only sword stabs a post on VS, then you're not doing enough.

OK. I will give you a second chance. Why don't you go back to your source and then show me how you are crunching the math?

Yeah, "America's oldest grassroots taxpayer organization working for lower taxes, smaller government". Doesn't sound RIGHT WING AT ALL.

Tired of that $2.6 Million Program that Teaches Chinese Prostitutes to Drink?

by John Ransom


Liberty is about a lot of things; it’s a deep topic. But at its core liberty can be summed up in one simple and reciprocal concept. That concept is respect.

You know the 2010 last election was about many things, but it was mostly about respect.

It was about starting to restore the respect that people have in government, by getting the government to restore the respect that they show to you…by taking liberty seriously.

If you are like me, you think that many of our elected officials from both the right and the left truly believe that what they think of you is much more important than what you think of them.

If you’re like me you’re tired of a trillion dollars in so-called stimulus spending that went to mob-connected asphalt contractors rather than the pockets of working families who own businesses and pay taxes and do all the working and dreaming in this country.

If you’re like me, you’re tired of a $2.6 million program that teaches Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly while unemployment soars across the country.

If you’re like me, you're tired of an arrogant federal government which pays out $47 billion in fraudulent claims in Medicare every year while they lecture the rest of us about healthcare economics.

If you are like me, you’re tired of the US Postal service wasting $30 million on a program that pays 1100 employees to do nothing. Yes, today, the US Post Office sat 1100 employees in empty rooms, as they do every day, and literally paid them to do nothing. They can’t play cards; they can’t watch TV, in fact they can’t do anything at all. To the tune of $30 million per year.


Yet this very same federal government comes to us now and proposes to manage our healthcare, our retirement, the education of our children, the auto industry, the oil industry, pharmaceuticals, the mortgage industry and lectures the American people that they are under-regulated.

If you’re a middle American like me, from the grassroots, I bet you know someone who owns their own business; if you’re like me you probably know someone who has paid employees of that business on time every week, but hasn’t been able to pay themselves a dime. Yet these very same people who provide half the new jobs in our economy, who have lost money over the last few years, still owe the government tens of thousands of dollars in taxes every year. People wonder where our jobs have gone? They’ve been crushed by a system that doesn’t honor job creation; by a system that doesn’t honor liberty; a system that gives no respect.

And if you are like most of the voters I speak to, you are tired of insiders from Washington and Wall Street on both sides of the aisle, and their wasteful spending schemes that don’t even propose to solve the very issues facing Main Street and working families.

Let’s suppose global warming is real; I don’t think it is, but let’s say it's so for the sake of argument. Show me please how the Renewable Electricity Standard-- which will cost American families $1800 per year-- please show me how it’s going to lower the earth’s temperature. They can’t because the Renewable Electricity Standard wasn’t created to combat global warming and it won’t lower the earth’s temperature.

Ok, so let’s suppose the issue is carbon emission; that carbon is really bad and we have to get it out of our atmosphere. Show me please how the Renewable Electricity Standard is going to reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere. They can’t. It wasn’t designed to do that and it won’t do that.

The government doesn't write legislation with solutions in mind, but rather with power and control of your very lives. And it is inside of your lives where you will wrestle back that control.

I’m often reminded that it’s with readers just like you where many of the seminal events of our country happened. It’s in rooms just like you’re in right now that a small group of patriots in Massachusetts planned the Boston Tea Party; it’s in groups just like you are a part of today that was born the Mayflower Compact; it’s in the free association of our citizens, for the common good and with common respect, that the greatness and goodness of our country will always be found.

And as long as people like you, freely associate for the common good and meet in respect, our country will always remain both great and good.

But ordinary people are paying attention, actually reading the Constitution; people are actually asking questions about the 10th Amendment, asking: What kind of power does Washington really have over us?

Unfortunately, there aren’t enough people who have been awakened to that yet, that’s why readers like you are so important. Each individual reading this is so incredibly important because the job you have this year as a citizen has never, ever, ever been more important. The 2012 election is going to determine what it’s like to live in this country for a long time. It’s going to be people just like you, having conversation just like this, in rooms across America that are going to make a difference.

This is the chance to turn the tide. The chance we have today is to bury that last vestiges of big government in our country; to reclaim our liberty from a new deal and replace it with a true deal.

I’ve been very fortunate because over the last half dozen years I’ve been able to travel all around the country working with grassroots activists just like you. I understand, I think, better than elected officials, what makes the grassroots so special. It's you and your ability to communicate.

We have all these new tools available for citizens to communicate that just a few years ago we didn’t have. A few years ago readers wouldn’t have been as energized and as informed because we didn’t have the ability to communicate as we do now. We have been so fractured and fragmented all around the country and around the nation that we feel like we can’t do anything, that Washington is so big and out of touch that we can’t do anything.

In fact, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Now is the time we really do have the opportunity. For the first time in our history ordinary citizens have the ability to communicate with one another over the heads of the media in publications like Townhall. We are networked on social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter that expose us to thousands of people for free.

But when I was growing up there were three TV stations and two newspapers in every town that decided what the news was. There were probably a dozen people in any town that picked our news for us.

Those days are over.

This election isn’t about voting for the next person standing in a long line of elites who will rule over us; it’s about what kind of country we want to be in the future.

It’s about preserving the American dream right here right now. Because when they mess with our liberty, they really mess with our ability to dream.

I believe that the ability to dream is worth handing down to our kids.

I believe that it’s our dreams that makes us the most dynamic country in the world.

It’s the dream that brings jobs and prosperity to the US.

It’s a dream that treats promises like they really matter.

And it’s the dreams that are the promise of America.

Because when politicians treat the promises they campaign on like they matter, when they are held accountable to those pledges-- by us-- we will restore the respect they owe us.

I think this is the first time I listened to this whole song.

1. This is a pretty boring and unremarkable song. Not a bad song, just nothing special that I can detect. Why is it such a sensation? Is it a social grassroots thing? Is there always some song that's this popular? Because I can't remember the last time there was such total ubiquity from a pop song.

2. People... you don't make the phone sign with your hand until she says "Call me maybe." Everyone in the damn videopulls out the phone at "here's my number". On "here's my number" you should pretend to text with your thumb or pretend to write something down. Or do nothing. IT'S BASIC COMMON SENSE.

@Yogi No, you kind of are supposed to look at the logic if you are the Supreme Court. The result is really Congress' worry.

@GenjiKilpatrick The issue is how do you constitutionally keep Michael Moore (or some union) from running political content simply because he has the means to do so without allowing the government to stop the New York Times from running political content. A photo of Barack Obama on the front page could easily be construed as a "campaign contribution." It's certainly donated capital of some sort depending on the nature of the coverage. Currently there is no cleanly legislated delineation there. So yea, Yogi, they were worried about results. They were worried about the negative liberties result more so than the positive liberties result. This is one of those instances where I get that viewpoint.

Regardless, I'd like to see data that electoral success is a linear correlate with campaign spending regardless of absolute levels. I suspect there is an asymptote at some point. It might all be moot anyway.

@bareboards2 Sorry, being the grassroots viewpoint means working from the grassroots. Besides, the way to fight this is to just not be dumb, and convince a few others not to fall for baseless political pandering. Drop a pamphlet about how the world works out the window and you'd be doing it far more good than squandering what few resources you have on an action like this.

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

You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

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

"I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others."

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

"And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care."

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian


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

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

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

Here are some statistics:

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

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

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

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