Olbermann is a douchebag who has a habit of misrepresenting some facts in his favor, but Glenn Beck is batshit insane enough to make Olbermann look reasonable.. this is probably a purely atheist bias, but separation of church and state is a huge priority for me, and I'd like to think most rational people share this opinion. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssR3b341CiI]YouTube - Rewriting History 101[/ame]
I've never watched Glenn Beck before in my life. FYI. Okay. I'm writing this as I watch the video, so here we go: First off, I agree with you: Separation of Church and State is a big deal; State needs to stay the fuck out of Church; that's quite literally what it (and the first amendment) were designed for--no matter what your local liberal activists tell you. Secondly, the founding fathers did not even IMPLY separation of church and state in any official documents. Third, "The history is no longer taught". Glenn Beck is spot on there. Demonization of the United States is practically a requirement for any modern college-level history class curriculum. Fourth, Keith Olbermann is COMPLETELY wrong when he says that (paraphrasing) notions that Thomas Jefferson intended for separation of church and state to be one-way were FALSE. That is a true statement: Separation of Church and State was conceived from a letter written from Jefferson to Danbury Baptists regarding concerns about a specific, state-enforced denomination. Fifth, Rob Boston's entire argument first agument is purely strawman and ad hominem. Although he is correct about the Madison quote. I don't agree with Beck on Wilson; although Wilson made a monumentally, gigantic, stupendously stupid mistake with the creation of the Federal Reserve Board, he was a decent president. Seventh(?), Boston's comments on churchwrites are akin to "The kettle calling the pot black", because atheo-scientific communities (hell, even regular scientific communities) aren't innocent when it comes to fact distortion/creation in order to promote their perspective. Just look at ClimateGate. Eight, Boston is spot on when he says "the universities are in on it". I really don't want to go into too much detail. Call me on it if you want me to. Nobody promoting church and state has ever gone "Fuck every other denomination! Christians only!". No, they're saying "Get the fuck out of my church, state". As for the irreleveant bit about chips in the brain, anyone who has read the bit about the mark of the antichrist in the bible can obviously see the similarities; those who believe the bible have a right to be afraid it. Also, a chip in the brain is totally stupid. Why the fuck would I need it in my head? Just put it in my credit card, assholes, and we can skip the multi-thousand dollar surgery, and the cost of upkeep. --------------------------------------------------------- This Boston guy is so full of self-satisfying, atheist, textbook liberal ideals it's unreal. The only one he's missing is the part where liberals are supposed to be the "open-minded" group. The hardest part of tearing him down is 90% of what he says is his own opinion; I'm just picking out the parts based on false premises and tearing them down. So, that's my .02 on the video. Do you think I'm irrational?
Uhm, doesnt the first amendment include Seems like an explicit separation of church and state to me. Besides, this is irrelevant. Constitutions are by definition very vague, but the judicial interpretation of them is of far greater importance. Did you ever consider that's because history is a bloodbath? Most states should be demonized by history simply because they deserve to be; most are rife with racist laws, genocide, and infringement of civil rights. If anything, however, I'd say the pro US bias in US history is more of a problem by existing than lacking, ESPECIALLY in high school where students lack the critical thinking to question what they're being told. You criticize the bias of college level history classes, but that's ridiculous, US history high school textbooks not only have a more accepting, less mature audience, but they're VASTLY more biased. im going to point out, but ignore your "irreleveant" religious hysteria Yea, I think your political opinions are formed on the basis that your fairytale is real.. which is not only an irrational process (tying your decision on that the origin of the universe is found in a book(although, it is called the bible, which makes it the word of god by definition ) written by sheepherders to any policy in a heavily industrialized modern liberal democracy seems absurd to me by nature), but pretty offensive since you want to impose those religiously influenced political opinions on me. That's the real problem with the religious right and their influence on politics, as well as the reason I'm occasionally rude to people whose political opinions appear to have religious motivation. Obviously, this is rational because it's in their self interest, but I cannot fathom how it is beneficial to them.
I'm not a christian. I'm not a member of any organized religion. So, there goes half your argument, which was ad hominem anyways. You know, you said a lot of stuff, but nowhere in there did you refute that demonization of the USA is unsaid protocol on college campus. In fact, you said that being a fan of the United States when researching United State's history is a problem. You're exactly right, the constitution explicitly says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; meaning that Congress will not ever create a national religion, or express direct favor to a certain denomination. Combined with "Free Excercise Clause", this means that Congress will never interfere with a church or it's practices, neither in a negative nor positive way. In what way does that protect government from being suppressed by religion? Please, enlighten me.
It wasn't ad hominem; it was general. Some of it didn't directly apply to you (for example, I was referring to the people you were supporting, not you, most of the time, and they ARE members of organized religions) but all of it applied to positions you were supporting. Correlation isn't causality, but.. there is plenty of reason to assume cause when it's difficult to identify the specific motivation, and generalize it as a primary motivation for most. The fact that pro us bias is greater (and more of a fundamental issue for society) directly conflicts the relevance of "demonization" of the US in history. I was simply saying that demonization is EXTREMELY WELL JUSTIFIED; but debatable in existence. The other direct conflict to the relevance of pro US bias being was my description of the audience; college is one of the few places where critical thinking is PROMOTED, so having a bias in the way they are taught has less impact. I'd argue the bias has minimal impact on the political opinions of college students; the ability and act of analyzing primary source evidence that is literally the staple of history is essential to the ability and practice of analyzing politics as well. I think the massive liberalization of academia is more likely the result of reading the evidence itself, instead of the politically convenient history common in US high school history textbooks you consider to be fact. If they are not allowed to make any laws concerning the religion, they cannot legislate with its benefit as the goal, and thus religion will not suppress government because the government cannot act (intentionally) in a religions favor. edit: I'm going to stop arguing about the US constitution; i'm a Canadian, so I'm not that familiar with it. Feel free to respond, but there is nothing to gain from decisively defining it because our interpretations are irrelevant: the only interpretation of the constitution that matters is the judicial one, and they have clearly defined the importance of separation of church and state.
This ties back to one of my original points; that the universities are "in on it". College doesn't teach critical thinking at all. Quite the opposite; it teaches students how to think, what to think, and when to think it--all in the name of "critical thinking". What you get are self-satisfied kids walking away from 4+ years of having their minds "opened" by their university professors; and where some 87% of professors are liberals teaching liberal ideals that inherently demonize the U.S. at almost every turn. ----------------------------------- Well, I guess this debate is over then. I probably won't come back to this thread.
I find this fucking hilarious. What could possibly (other than the random 87% statistic?) that every, or even most, universities are like that? As for hating on America? You're a hypocrite for not demonizing human rights abuses that are violating principles of human expressed explicitly in the Constitution, and the UN agreement on human rights. Perhaps 87% are liberals because 87% don't support the war on terror; a war that ironically inspires vastly more terror than it prevents. edit: I'm not suggesting there isn't conspiracy or bias at all in universities, simply that it is less of an issue, and less prevalent, than the same motivating factors are in other aspects of society ie politics and high school education. universities are imo, the first hints we've seen formal education with motivations of independent thought (rather than simply forced education as a means to produce docile citizens) and they are going to guide us into establishing a framework for making all education as valuable.
Pure statist propaganda, you shouldn't be watching that garbage. Honestly I don't see how you could watch that day-in&out and not become filled with hate towards anybody that questions the state view. When a GE spokesman spends half of his programming time slandering a proverbial 'enemy of the state' his motives should be in question. I didn't gather much from the 5 minutes I watched, but I'd be curious to know what Glen Beck actually said about history that they think is false? FYI; Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802: The left has used the term "separation of church and state" to remove anything resembling religion from public view, this among a host of others in their politically correct agenda. I'm guessing that's what Beck is referring to. Pretty soon the left will call to revise the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution so as not to offend any atheists.
It's not the a politically correct agenda or being offended that motivates me to be fervent against any aspects of religion in public view (in a state sponsored context) but rather fear. The influence religion has on political opinions and morality terrifies me. I also find the suggestion that the political american left will support atheists fucking absurd; the word atheist seems on the same level as pedophile in the american politics, at least from an outside perspective with an atheist bias.
Ahh the irrational hatred and fear of religion from the secular atheists who wish to control what other people do and think. At least try being original if you're going to have such a tremendously ignorant, uninformed and boring viewpoint.
equally prententious? I dont think its even arguable that Olbermann is a sniveling arrogant blowhard and the king of them all. Glen Beck might be an overassuming jerk, but as far as pretention goes, you can't beat Keith. As for the bias and what not, like I said in the post that seems to have spawned this thread, both are clearly biased and both sensationalize things to sell ratings. I just find it hilarious that Olbies nut-hangers are so quick to point out Fox News with such a huge plank in their own eyes.
You seem to have accidentally cut something out of your argument. What human rights abuses am I not demonizing? Be more specific, please. I don't know why 87% are liberal, and don't try to convince yourself that you do either. I can only assume they fall in line with textbook liberal beliefs. Please, enlighten me on how a war that liberated an oppressed nation from a tyrant that has personally murdered over 500,000 innocent people inspires more terror than it potentially prevented? Don't forget that once Saddam died, that wouldn't have brought any form of democracy; if no country (like the U.S.) stepped in, there may have been possibly hundreds more years of tyranny in that part of the middle east alone.
Ok, so what did Beck say about combining religious values and state power? Nothing, I presume. And notice how Olbermann says the 10th amendment issue was misrepresented (whatever that means), but had he given some credence to the FACT that the constitution delegates all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government over to the State governments, the issue of morality and the role of religion at the Federal level would be reduced significantly. All the religious nuts would be contained in the bible belt, while the educated progressives (not in the neo-lib political sense) on the coasts can thrive without religious legislation (gays, fetuses, stem cells, helmets, drugs). But then where would Olbermann be without non-issues to opine about. Well "unaffiliated", meaning agnostic or atheist, is the 2nd largest religious group in the country so they do hold some weight. But you're right, they could be removing reefs from Town Hall for the muslims and jews. And that quote attributed to Jefferson is retarded, like he would ever call this Republic a Democracy. Beck is a moron for that, but I'm sure Olbermann has done just as bad.
He missattributed(sp?) a quote. I consider a) the fact he doesn't google it before it goes on tv to be presented as fact (to his viewers, he must be a credible source, because not everyone is watching for satire.) Sarah Palin (who Beck was VERY favourable of) certainly favors religion playing a role in government; she stated it directly in the tea party convention. edit: the role in government she advocated was having religious politicians who were ready to ignore the facts and act with religious motivation. As I said, I don't identify with Olbermann. In fact, I love aspects federalism and decentralization (translation: state rights) such as the use of provinces as "testing grounds" for new policy For example, Universal Health Care was initiated, and then implemented in Saskatchewan (it's a Canadian province) independent of the Canadian federal government. It's implementation was controversial, but the success at a provincial level was used as a model for improving other provinces, as well as testing the waters. I think this is great; it allows greater political rights and democratic participation by allowing voters to express preferences at a more local level. I'm hoping Marijuana legalization in California will have a similar effect if it's ever successful. Unaffiliated includes a great deal more than atheists and agnostics. http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist as the other.pdf 2008 race has the face of a changing America - USATODAY.com I have absolutely no idea what this is referencing with the reefs. Well, I disagree about extent of the crime, but in the OP, I thought I made it fairly clear I'm not fond of Olbermann.