Great interview Glenn – one of your best since Tarek Fatah. This is why I subscribe to the Blaze!

Llibertarian atheist types are an interesting bunch. Although I thought Christopher Hitchens was a terrible God hater, I understood that he’s the type of guy that it would be good to ally with politically. If we can agree on limited government and basic liberty with people like Hitchens and Jillete (John Popper is another example) then we have a powerful voting block. Strange bedfellows indeed – but powerful united voices for political freedom.

Every state in the union has a law against murder. How do we know murder is wrong?

The problem with this line of thinking is that human government was created by God. We use the Bible’s moral absolutes to draw lines of right and wrong in the sand. The US constitution is merely a reflection of Biblical values.

Um… Being a former Boy Scout.  They don’t don’t get federal funding.  But to deny the Boy Scouts the right use National Forrest or State Parks is no different than denying the individual the right to use them. 
As for gays.  They let them in.  As the saying goes. What you do in your bedroom is none of our concern.  However, this is a place to teach young boys to be law abiding citizens.  Not a place to talk about sexual orientation. 

Maybe because of that whole “Thou Shalt Not Kill” thing?

The problem is caused by Man’s Laws, not the laws of God and/or Common Sense.  Man made drugs illegal to Control the Masses and make MORE Gov’t Jobs.  We have lived in a Guilty Until Proven Innocent Society Since I have been alive (1967)…  We have more youth that would have just tried something, turn into Heavy Criminals after being locked up on Petty Crimes of Possession (dealers shoudl take the hard hit, eventually a person that does heavy drugs will become Self-Destructive, and as long as they don’t affect others in a negative way… we should stay out of their business.  Otherwise, you Condone the Gov’t Regulating us to death.)

 I’m sorry, Glenn, but the constitution for me is the Bible. I have to disagree with you

Well I’m not completely a libertarian, although I lean that way in many areas. I do think that the protection of children IS the Government’s job (& I believe in VERY limited govt.). Therefore, they need to be involved in marriage for that reason, legally. So I disagree with that. 

Jerusalem,
I can not believe you just spent your time to write such a stupid question.
You need help. or a Bible.

There has been a lot of work done on the existence of ethics without a supernatural being. freedomainradio.com is a great source.

I think he was talking about building a club house or something permanent like that on public land. I don’t think he was saying boy scouts shouldn’t be able to go backpacking in the woods.

Sorry Glenn, I stand on the bible before the constitution…my life in this country is temporary, my life with God is eternal….

I’m there with ya, Flipped….our life in this country is temporary.

 No

Maybe because it is self evident. You don’t have to believe in God to know the value of the golden rule.

 officially gays are not allowed in, my troop had a couple mainly b/c my scoutmaster thought that was as stupid rule, we also had a number of atheists.
The boy scouts shouldn’t have special access to public land, like a jamboree at fort ap hill.

 or b/c we are a social species and wouldn’t be able to function that way if we had to be worried about being killed by each other all the time.
If it had anything to do with thou shalt not kill then every society not exposed to that and everyone previous would have been a murderous hell hole, which is simply not the case.

 penn jillette continues to become more and more a hero of mine

The constitution is what allows you to live the way you do-to practice your beliefs. Worry about your own soul and the souls of the one’s you love. Coexist.

Yes.

In
the eyes of a Christian: In our country we not only have the freedom to
serve God, to obey the word of God, and to worship God without
persecution, but also to create our own religion and belief system. We
can believe anything they want. Some can even choose to believe that God loves
all gay people. However, the freedom to create ones own belief system
and live by ones own personal views of right and wrong does not change
the word of God that we find in the one and only Bible and the
fundamental principles that our country was founded on.
Our own Constitution even acknowledges that our freedoms come from God.
If we look to the homosexual activist we see that they still
have the same rights and freedom to sin that everyone has. They
can live anyway they want. But their wish to redefine marriage only
serves to give a social acceptance to a sinful lifestyle, and forces
society to not only accept an immoral union, but forces society to
teach our children that it is acceptable. And a majority vote should
not determine whether or not our children must accept or condone
immoral behavior. 

I wonder why they stand on rigged elections and media blackouts

Washington is running the online conversation to sell us on this last rigged election and to divert attention from the coup, cover up, and media blackout. See the proof in my name and decide for yourself, “Flip.”

edited…

edited…

I really like you keep doing your job listen to you on radio MERRY CHRISTIMAS TO ALL OF YOU AND MAY GOD BLESS EVERYONE… oh should i say happy hollidays…./……….NOT/////////////CHRISTIAN, CONSERVATIVE,MOTHER,WIFE,I WORK FOR A LIVING..

Then you have not read the Bible.  He loved everyone but he did not except everyone.  He taught them what was right.  He told them they were wrong.  I do understand what Glenn is saying but because of my christian beliefs I know the constitution was put in place to live a Christian life.

I’m afraid, Alisha, that’s the simplistic view of Jesus.  He loved everyone but He did NOT say, “Oh, just go on being sinful, it’s okay because the Father loves you”.  And by your simplistic phrasing of “accepted them as they were” doesn’t correctly describe His relationship and expectation.  He accepts us coming to Him as we are but a critically key piece of the process is REPENTENCE.  This means turning 180 degrees from what we were.  It means acknowledgment that we are sinners, that we commit sin, and that we are–by faith–accepting Christ as Lord, that we’re sorry for our sins, and we will rely on Him to help us walk out our salvation…which SHOULD produce new fruits.  That being a change in us AWAY from sin.  “We are made a new creation, old things are passed away and all things become new”.  A perfect example: when the “religious” people dragged the adulteress out in front of Jesus (hypocritically, they didn’t drag the adulterer out, too) Jesus basically got them to examine themselves first.  Then–and this is key–he told the woman that He wasn’t there to CONDEMN her, but that she should now go AND SIN NO MORE.  I hardly characterize this as what people today call “accepting people as they are”.  People need to stop cherry-picking the Gospel.

Ummm…YES.  As originally crafted, it actually DID reflect what the founders perceived as a biblical world view.  The Declaration of Independence states as much.  While it’s clearly not a recitation or paraphrase of scripture, it embodies many principles found in the Bible–without actually locking us into a theocracy.  In fact, a key concept was that we are intended to be free people, which is a central theme of scripture as well.  “It is for freedom that Christ set us free”.  Rather than be a slave to The Law, Jesus meant to teach us by word and example that true freedom is experienced by those who have a reverence for God and seek HIS will.  Everything else would be added to us as a result.  That sounds pretty much like freedom and abundance to me.  And, as is clear in scripture, God gave us free will.  This means that we are also free to be stupid and completely ignore God…and repeat the ultimate consequences, too.

I get the point the Glenn is making regarding the question of why government is involved in marriage in the first place.  I suggest that he looks into the historical development of the institution of marriage as the religious institution flourished.  I agree that we’ve turned it into something completely secular–and therein lies the problem.  For secular people, marriage is nothing more than a legal contract–usually not binding for any decent amount of time–and a mechanism of convenience that conveys certain legal and economic benefits.  In its modern form, it was intended as a way to recognize the union of a MAN AND A WOMAN for the purposes of establishing legal right to physical intimacy and the accountability to the care and raising of children.  It was supposed to assist in taking a spiritual event into the practical society to provide order where otherwise there would be chaos.  Which, I maintain, is largely what we have now.  Children out of wedlock, no real responsibility by the parents, hence we give the State the responsibility and place even conscientious, faithful parents in subjugation to what the State decides is the better way to raise children (Agenda 21).  I’d love to have the discussion with Glenn over how he sees marriage existing completely disconnected from the legal specter.  I generally consider most libertarians to be social liberals, bordering on anarchists.  I think the examples of ancient Greece or Rome would be closer to their liking, given the looseness of society at the time.  There are exceptions, of course, but that’s how I’ve come away from most conversations I have with self-proclaimed libertarians.

You can live in this life however you want,  but, eternity is eternity.  You also have a responsibility for being an Accessory to another’s sin.
l.  Counsel.
2. By Command.
3.  By Consent.
4.  By provocation.
5.  By praise and flattery.
6.  By concealment.
7.  By partaking
8.  By silence.
9.  By defense of the sinful action.

You choose, Glenn!

 Well said!

So, is eating a cheeseburger still bad?  Or a ham sandwich?  Or scallops?  Wrapped in bacon? The bible says we should not eat those. I might be in trouble because I am wearing socks that contain wool and elastic.

I have a couple of issues with Mr. Jillette’s comments. For starters, I believe our founders approached Christianity as a philosophy instead of a religion. And Christmas is a tradition based in that philosophy.

In another video I saw on this site Mr. Jillette claims that when we say Merry Christmas we’re not being inclusive of everyone who isn’t a Christian. I simply don’t understand that logic. You see, whether you celebrate Christmas, or whether or not you worship Christ or believe in anything he said or did, the fact is Dec. 25 is Christmas. So when I say Merry Christmas to anyone I’m simply saying have a good day on Dec. 25. Now, if I said Merry Christmas, unless you’re an atheist, then I hope your day sucks, then I’d be excluding people.

Another major flaw in your logic is the idea that if one person doesn’t celebrate Christmas then their tax dollars shouldn’t be used for anything Christmas related. Well, if that’s true then we shouldn’t have a military because I’m sure we collect taxes from pacifists. I’d bet we use tax dollars from nature purists to tear down trees to build roads. Christmas is a federal holiday, like it or not. If you don’t want any tax dollars spent on it then you need to have congress change that.

I know you’ll likely never see this but, oh well.

 My personal belief on that is pretty much what you said. As it applies to our society right now I believe any two people should be able to become a legal couple. Nothing more than signing a paper at the court house and boom, you’re a legal couple. Marriage itself should simply be a ceremony/ritual performed by religious outlets but have no legal standing. For example, my wife and I (before we were married) go to the court house, sign the papers, and become a legal couple. As far as taxes go or any legal documents we are Mr. and Mrs. Fatbaldguy.

From there, if we choose to do so, we can go to our church and have the marriage ceremony performed. But that ceremony would be for us to express our love in a house of God. It would have spiritual meaning for us but no legal standing.

In this type of system religions would not be forced to perform gay marriages. If we keep heading down the path we’re on they will be.

Call it a civil union or whatever. Just don’t refer to it as marriage because that was instituted by God.  But they should have binding legalism.  They need to have exposure to the divorce lawyers.  Be careful what you ask for.

Lev. 18:22
” Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination”

 it’s in the Bible for a reason, God says you can not do it, You can not change the rules made by God, & We will be held accountable for our works.

 god disapproves supposedly of adultery, but that’s not the government’s concern

Hmmm… I think I see a Glenn Beck / Penn Jillette book in the future.

Really interesting discussion.  Here is my question:  If you agree with Penn’s line of reasoning for removing god from the public square, public land, etc., how do you apply this to public education? I presume we remove all mention of god and religion from public education, which is exactly where we are at today. Let’s assume we can all agree on that -no religion or mention of god in school. I’m not sure I agree, but let’s assume we’re all on board.  Well then, how do we at least put morality, decency and good citizenship back in? Maybe we don’t teach *the* ten commandments, but do we at least teach 10 rules of decency or good citizenship, some sort of 10 principles we can all agree on?

And how do we teach tolerance toward religion?  We seem to be in an era of intolerance toward religious faith. Telling a kid that she cannot pray at a public assembly or mention god in a speech seems to encourage or foster intolerance. Could we not go the opposite way?  Could we not agree to accept and tolerate the expression of all religious faiths? Could we not make room for all 300 million views of god?  Maybe I don’t agree with your view of god, but can we not agree that we each have a right to our own individual view of god. And can we not agree that your expression of faith or view of god has no impact on my view or expression, so lets tolerate each other and allow a prayer or whatever during a graduation assembly.

Definitely some deep fodder for a book…

The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified in 1797 and signed by John Adams:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

I repeat:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”

NOT, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion.

Glenn, I beg to differ with Penn on his reference of our forefathers.  While he and you both had some very good thoughts, we can’t, and shouldn’t, change historical facts.  Please check out this information.  http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=540951269266023&set=a.373910375970114.102939.373757305985421&type=1

And yet:

John Hancock:
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence 
“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
George Washington
1st U.S. President 
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”

Glenn Beck…speaking of gay people..please find a gay person to dress you.  Whoever is doing it now died in 1993.

Glenn and Penn are 100% correct! This discussion has to be bought increasingly into the public sphere. We are a nation based on the Constitution and personal, individual freedom! We are not and never have been a theocracy!

Actually no, and if you spent more time reading the Bible and less time reading leftist talking points to craft straw man arguments you would understand why. Those prohibitions were part of the Law of Moses which was done away with by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. No longer were the followers of Christ to be bound down by the law, but were to be liberated by the teachings of Christ. This is also why although Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, the vast majority of them do not advocate for the death penalty for homosexuals. That was part of the old law which was done away with in Christ. 

Jacob, nobody said it was founded on the “Christian religion,” whatever that may be. What JerUSAlem said was that it was founded on Christian values. Those are two entirely different things. After all, the same John Adams that you you quote also said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” and “May that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of order, the Fountain of justice, and the Protector, in all ages of the world, of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its government, and give it all possible success and duration, consistent with the ends of His providence,” and also “I speak as a man of the world to men of the world; and I say to you, Search the Scriptures! The Bible is the book of all others, to be read at all ages, and in all conditions of human life; not to be read once or twice or thrice through, and then laid aside, but to be read in small portions of one or two chapters every day, and never to be intermitted, unless by some overruling necessity.”

Penn is right and the best crafted argument against gay marriage is not a religious one but a Constitutional one. The First Amendment prevents government interference in religion although that Supreme Court has someone narrowed what that means. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that all privileges and benefits bestowed by the government be extended to all persons regardless of their status unless removed via due process. Thus, the only way to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment while still living up to the First Amendment is to remove government interference from marriage at all.

The First Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other God before me.”
Constitution:”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”, further, no test of religion is permitted as a requirement to hold public office.

Let’s go on.

Second Commandment: Thou shalt not make any graven image.
Constitution: See above. It’s perfectly legal to make, and worship, idols in America.

Third Commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain.
Constitution: Freedom of speech. Perfectly legal to take the name of the Lord in vain, by God!

Fourth Commandment: Remember the Sabbath.
Constitution: No such requirement. Most American laws regarding work, etc, on Sunday have more to do with labor rights than religion. There is no legal recognition in the Constitution of “the Sabbath”.

Fifth Commandment: Honor Thy Father And Mother
Constitution: Not mentioned. No American law I know of requires “honoring” your Father and Mother, whatever that means. There may be laws relating to elder abuse, etc, but those have sources and rationales unrelated to the Bible.

Sixth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Kill
Constitution: Not mentioned. Obviously, there are laws against murder, but the definition of “murder” varies over time, and of course many forms of “killing” are not “murder”. More important, prohibitions on murder are part of every culture, including those with no Judeochristian influence, or predating the Bible entirely. To say a prohibition on killing is an idea originating in the Bible is imbecilic

Seventh Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Constitution: Not mentioned. Adultery is generally not a felony in the United States. It may be grounds for divorce, but it’s not going to land you in jail, usually.And, again, prohibitions on extramarital sex (and people ignoring them) is part of most cultures, with no Biblical influence.

Eighth Commandment: Thou shalt not steal.
Constitution: See my comments on 6 and 7. This is a baseline of all cultures.

Ninth Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Constitution: Again, quiet. PERJURY is illegal, but lying, in general, is not. Also, see points 6, 7, and 8.

Tenth Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighor’s wife’s ass.
Constitution: Oh, get real. Covetousness (envy) is the basis of the economy. 

So, there you go. When it comes to “Biblical influences”, the Constitution is 0 out of 10. 

Umm… No. Read some history – the Constitution does have SOME biblical values, and some unbiblical ones – Why? Because there was more than one person, with more than one religious view that helped create it.

Also, since you said the Bible’s “Moral Absolutes” tell me what constitutes a moral absolute in the Bible? Is it the 10 Commandments, the prophets, teachings of Jesus, teachings of Paul? What is a Moral Absolute?

A Moral Absolute is simply a way to say “I know what is best better than anyone else, so I am going to tell them what is right and wrong, and they better do it.”

To define biblical or Christian values in such a way as to limit them to the Ten Commandments is, to use your word, imbecilic. The Ten Commandments comprise a universal law laid down by God to serve as a baseline that, by your own admission, with a couple of exceptions, define the tenets of several cultures. The values our founders wrote into the Constitution, emphasized in the Federalist Papers, and indeed those values that by and large govern the faithful body of Christ today can be summarized very simply in a single statement – that man must retain his autonomous agency above all else in so much as it does not interfere with that of his fellow men. 

Our founders openly admitted in speech and in writing that they came by this principle through their religious persuasions, namely the Christian faith. While this principle is not unique to Christianity, our Founding Fathers were compelled by their faith to make this the corner stone of the Constitution. It allows Christians (or any other religious group for that matter) to worship as they wish within reason, and it compels all individuals and entities to allow them to do so, once again within reason. 

One solid piece of evidence is the value placed on man and his rights. Because man is created by God, and because man’s rights come from God, only God can take those rights away. No mortal individual or government has this power. It defies all logic and reason to exclude this permeating philosophy from any legitimate list of Christian value, and equally so to deny it as an irrevocable part of our Constitution.

Jacob, you need to read just a little bit more about that particular bit of our history.  I’ve studied this period a lot specifically BECAUSE of the FIRST Treaty of Tripoli.  You have to understand that our merchant ships were getting attacked and boarded by–guess who–Islamic terrorists.  Yep, the Muslims were notoriously known as the pirates of the Barbary Coast.  We didn’t really have anything in the way of a navy, so in order to stop the capture of our merchant ships and the enslaving of their crews by Muslims–who believed we were infidels, pushing Christianity.  They felt quite justified.  So, we quickly created the Treaty of Tripoli to create the façade that they had nothing to fear from us.  BUT, we later got serious about a navy and we turned the tables on THEM, and soon afterward signed ANOTHER treaty, that–ahem–DROPPED that stupid “we aren’t a Christian nation” ruse.

Actually, when Jesus was asked which of the Commandments were more important than others, He responded that the first is love God with all that you are.  The second was love your neighbor as yourself.  He THEN said that it is upon those two that hang ALL the Law AND the prophets.  The point He was making is that if you are TRULY observing those two commandments you’d, as a matter of course, follow the others.  Think of it this way–if you TRULY love your wife or husband, are you going to do things like disrespect them, cheat on them, keep secrets from them, talk horribly about them?  Or do you need a list of things you must do or not do?  In as secular a society as we have now, apparently we do–but then that’s because they really DON’T love their spouses

Teto85, the Dietary Laws were separate from the Spiritual (aka Ethical) Laws.  First off, a large part of those laws, it turns out, had health benefits and some of the rituals actually yielded what we might recognize now as such things as antiseptics, etc.  We, of course, have ways now to combat many of the issues that would have been unhealthy back then.  Also, for any foods that had restrictions based on certain ritual conditions, Jesus didn’t actually do away with them, He simply had accomplished what was necessary to satisfy the condition.  In other words, if a particular animal was considered to be “unclean”, through faith in Jesus and the request of God’s blessing upon the food, it is made “clean” and thus acceptable.  The only condition STILL placed on that was believers weren’t to partake if it created a stumbling block for non-believers.  This would fit nicely into the “love your neighbor as yourself”—respect their situation and don’t flaunt your freedom in their face.

The problem with saying that the boy scouts can’t use public land is that the government is then discriminating against one form of speech.  When the owner of the pharmacy chooses to fire a pharmacist in his employ that is fine, but the government should not be able to tell any citizen or group of citizens that they can’t use public property if they have followed the proper procedure to get permission.  The government is not the owner that can fire a citizen from use of the public funds just because they disagree with them.  

 Please watch this!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

That big tent Beck speak about seems to leave no room for Muslims, gays, socialists, atheists, liberals, etc. Not such a big tent after all.

Nope. It’s a dumb argument. Here’s why. The argument only came about to avoid the legalization of gay marriage. Why didn’t conservatives try to take away marriage legality from government before? Because it is convenient for their ideology. Now that is not, you want to back pedal. The intention is transparent: it’s pure homophobia.

 You do know that Augustin of Hippo died a long, long time ago? So did this idea. There is no God, the Biblical values are rape, pillage, plunder, murder, torture, savage, brutal nastiness. The constitution is a reflection of Enlightenment socio-political theories espoused by (among others) Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. A little history might you be helpful for you Jerus. A little reading might also help.

 Tell ya what, Robert. Let’s try an experiment. Get a copy of the DoI. Get a copy of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Get a copy of the Bible. Get a couple of big highlighters. As you read Leviathan, highlight lines that are verbatim the same between DoI and Leviathan. You will need at least two highlighters for this. Then take out that Bible and compare it, line by line, to the DoI. For those lines that are verbatim same, highlight them. You will need no highlighters for this activity. Please report your results to everybody here.

Oh yes. After that, please buy a copy of Augustin’s City of God (de Dei Civitates) and read it through a couple of times. You will find that most of the stuff you believe does not come from the Bible but from Augustin. That most of it disagrees with what your lord and savior said — well, just continue to disregard that. It’s too inconvenient.

 Teto, you should know by now that these people do not know what is in the Bible, nor do they follow what it says they must. To them it is a salad bar of sage advice from which to choose what they want. They will accept one verse as being absolutely true only to reject the next verse as having been dismissed by the crucifixion or some other nonsense. The only thing consistent about the Christers is the massive amounts of cognitive dissonance that keeps them going. Sadly, they are just as bad as that other “religion of peace.”

Finetapestry, are you saying that “Muslims, gays, socialists, atheists, liberals, etc.” don’t believe in the constitution?  Because if you watched the clip, that’s what he indicated his big tent is.

Leviathan is simply a man’s attempt to explain human behavior in absence of a creator.  While it does provide alternate explanations for some things, it doesn’t do nearly as thorough a job of describing the totality of the human condition.  As for “the Dol”, I’ve not heard of that.

You sound like someone that has not read the Bible or else
you would know why that is. 

Penn was wrong in part when trying to talk about the Boy Scouts situation.  I had several instances of how it could be turned to show the bias, but of course he kept using his throne to bloviate.  Great organizations that lead to success and positive lives, are being trashed all around us, and while we allow OWS access to live in public parks and BSA can’t come near the m.  Pure Libertarianism allows evil to flourish with those who wish to push its pursuits, as well as the good.   The issue is that those who love evil are motivated to make good people suffer at their hands, whereas those who are good are willing to let things slide.  We don’t need laws and regulations, we need good people who will confront them in droves and push them out of power.  Glenn this is where we need leaders.  Stop focusing on Politics.  9-12 and Tea party needs to stop focusing on politics.  We need to focus on sources of evil and hate that are breaking down the morals of Americans and the destroying the basic unit of society which is the family.  Expose and eliminate through public visibility the sources that are destroying America. 
W 

Penn Jillette is the most honest atheist I ever heard. The government has no right to dictate morality. Just because I am against gay marriage should not prevent a church that supports gay marriage. Government should have no right to force one side of the argument to do what the other one wants. If we do not do this than both sides will get hammered in the end and no one will have rights. The holy Bible was meant for the person to follow not a government which can care less about people’s right. Jesus himself gave us a choice weather or not to follow him even knowing where it would lead for those who didn’t. Laws like the gay marriage ban hurt Christianity more than it helps. I know this is not popular with my fellow brothers and sisters but we must worry about our work the Jesus said we needed to do and not pass laws to hinder unbelievers but to preach the word of God to all who is willing to listen. You can’t drag the unwilling into the church by passing laws this way and that. In doing so we lost what is important and we don’t do the work anymore.

Has there EVER been another nation like ours, founded and designed specifically to protect the populace FROM it’s own government?

This is what needs to happen if the GOP want to come back and have a chance at getting the Presidency. They need to embrace socially liberal, fiscally conservative libertarianism, hire a PR consultant, and promote that message. The American people can understand not charging $800,000 to a credit card when you make $40,000.  I don’t believe extreme right-wing religious and social views can now work within the GOP. Put gay marriage and abortion back to the states- I’m NOT saying abandon or compromise your beliefs. Yet it is obvious that with the new demographic in America these views can’t win the majority (Santorum, Bachmann, etc). We need Ron Pauls and Gary Johnsons. If the GOP hadn’t treated Ron Paul like dirt at the bottom of a shoe and given him the nomination, he could have beat Obama. I know it. Here in Portland I saw hundreds and hundreds of young people (hipsters if you will) with RP Revolution stickers and *Obama is So 2008* signs. There’s also never been a more consistent idealogical *politician* than RP and the people *surprise* respond to honesty not political bullcrap.

Penn has sad in the past that he would NEVER listen to Religious People because he believes they are insane. I am certainly paraphrasing here, but he has a thing on the Internet where he would walk in his Home or wherever and talk about “stuff’ There is where he said such a thing.
That said, I also believe Atheists’ are NOT trust worthy for the simple fact that they believe themselves to be the Ultimate in their decision making. So help me, Me!

The same could be said of the Bible.  It was a good set of rules for the time, but we have since moved on.  We know things we didn’t know then, like the germ theory of disease, our reproductive systems, food-borne parasites, psychology, and having tried different forms of government.  Most of the Bible’s rules came from simply correlating behavior and effects, without actually figuring out the root cause.  We don’t need to do that any more, now that we actually know how things happen.

The Romans helped put Herod in power. Herod built the Great Temple.

It corrupted the Jews and inspired a rebellion against the Jewish aristocracy.

What moral absolute guided Herod?

What God created Roman?

I do not agree completely because our form of government is only suited for a moral society.  As we move away from the precepts of judeochristian ethics we move toward mob rule.  That in turn is ok until that mob takes what was guaranteed by the constitution and makes it illegal as is the case with Islam.  History is proving and showing how the Islam through intimidation and force corrupting the governments in Europe and in Flint Michigan where peaceful protesters are jailed (even with permits).  Libertarian ideals will be the only thing that can save our constitution now – that and divine intervention.

 Even our founding fathers said that.  I agree with you.  They believed and SAID that the Bible should be taught in public schools.

 And now, the populace is trying to figure out how to DECONSTRUCT the government because it has become so bloated and tyrannical!

I wish Penn would just come out as a full Anarchocapitalist. When i meet him, I’ll flat out ask him what the State can do that people cannot, that requires the state to exist. 

The constitution is corrupt as corrupt can be. We don’t have to go any further than the 1st ammendmendt. fOR THERE CAN BE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, WITHOU FREEDOM OF CHOICE, FOR THAT IS DICTATION AND I AM FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

Yea Glenn & Penn.

Three problems with Penn’s line of reasoning:

1) He keeps trying to include define an atheist as someone
who does not know if God exists. Wrong. An atheist is someone who believes God
does not exist. If he simple does not know if God exists, he is leaving open
the possibility that God exists and therefore he is a believer. He is a very weak
believer, but a believer nonetheless.

2) Atheism is not a belief. It is a disbelief. Disbelief
compares to belief the same way darkness compares to light.  A believer displays some brightness and color
of light. A disbeliever merely seeks to distinguish other people’s light in
order to attain darkness. For that reason, applying rights to disbelievers automatically
negates the rights of believers. Atheists therefore cannot have rights. For
more on this, check out the following blog:

3) Extreme positions on an issue often have the opposite effect
as intended. This is true even when we take the Constitution to an extreme.  Yes, we want to maximize individual freedom. But
we are not a bunch of hermits merely existing in close proximity to each other.
We are a society. We benefit from being part of a society. For one thing, we
don’t each have to make all out own electronic devices and roads etc. But the
cost of being part of a society is that we have to sacrifice a certain amount of
personal freedom. The majority usually should get their way. If you are the
only one in town that wants the roads painted pink—you lose. It doesn’t matter
that most people don’t care what color the road is. The only time a majority
should not get their way is when their will significantly hurts or burdens the
minority. But we can content ourselves in the knowledge that everyone is in a majority
in one way or another. That is life in the real world.

There wasn’t a single Southern Baptist or “evangelical” Christian among the founders.  Some were nominally Christian, but many of them were Diests.  Most enlightened gentlemen of the time rejected the existence of supernatural miracles, an unerring scripture, and the trinity.   They may have believed in God, but He wasn’t the kind of God that needed to be prayed to, nor did they believe that He would intervene miraculously with the events of man.  God was just someone that created the amazing universe, not one that played around with it.

Now we have idiots that believe Jesus rode around on dinosaurs and that the Earth is only 5,000 years old based on 2,000 year old mythology.   All this technology is making a lot of people more stupid.

No it isn’t.  Not at all.   Jefferson clearly stated the need for a separation between church and state.   We don’t need a mythological God or Gods or Odin or Buddha or Zeus to have morality and functional democracy.

People that rely on 2,000 year old mythology (or worse yet, someone else’s interpretation of 2,000 year old mythology) for their morality rather than reason are quite scary.

 Actually no.  The strong would prey on the weak and the strong would enjoy it.  Some people actually like chaos because they can use it to their advantage.

AHHHH, isn’t Libertarianism wonderful, all people are FREE to do as they choose, it doesn’t get any better than that.

After reading comments, I think some of you have missed the whole point of the interview/discussion between Glenn and Penn. In the context of their discussion, it does not matter who is right in their beliefs regarding God; what matters is that DESPITE their great differences, they AGREE that it’s none of the government’s business what they believe, and we each have a right to worship as we please, or to not worship at all, without worrying about government interference or force. If we could forget about all our little differences of belief and focus on this one thing, the need to reduce government to it’s most basic minimal form, we could be a huge force for change, but as long as we are debating over who’s beliefs are right or wrong, they (the big-government entitlement crowd) have us divided, and therefore conquered.

 Nice try but the treaty of Tripoli was actually the beginning of the end, and the first attempt at appeasement to Muslim terrorism, in particular the Barbary pirates and our giving in to the Ottoman Empire. 

 But whose bible?  Government was not created by G0d.  Our RIGHTS are given to us by g0d but government is a creation of the free will of men.

 Exactly.

This is why our eroding liberties is such a shame, it is all a media propoganda and ploys that keep us divided. Obama won 3 elections because the American People use a media that lies to them constantly and plays cover up for the worst president in US history because he is the embodiment of socialism that they desire to change America from prosperity and liberty to elitism and poverty. 

Yes, the principles found in the Bible, such as the subjugation of women, and the promotion of slavery!

Set us free!

“The Declaration of Independence states as much”

The Decaration of Independence has 0 legal standing.

That’s what the Constitution is for.

Exactly we went from “we are not Christian, please stop pludering our ships” hoping this stupid begging would achieve our political needs, to as the Marine Corp song proudly states” to the shores of Tripoli”. 

Our nation learned early on, hiding our values and begging to be left alone DOES NOT WORK. Sending in the US Marines to kick some ass and take some names accomplished in meer months what years of muslim ass kissing could not. 

Too bad our current two administrations cannot figure this out. 

“What JerUSAlem said was that it was founded on Christian values”

1st commandment: No other gods before me
1st amendment: Freedom of religion

What does it say about the statement that the USA was founded on Christian values, when the First Amendment (USA) contradicts the First Commandment (Christian values)?

Oh, it says you’re wrong.

Actually you are 100% wrong, the Declaration of Independence has plenty of legal standing. Without it there is no America, you cannot have a Constitution without first having a declaration of our independence from Great Britain and the Crown. 

The declaration is paramount, it describes our values as a nation, and more importantly why we warred with Great Britain for 8 year in order to gain our independence. 

All the Constitution is law, our legal document to spell out the bounds of the US Federal Government, and the limitations placed upon the sovereignty of the individual states that join out Federal Republic. 

That is nothing more than a fancy piece of toilet paper though without the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the legal code built upon the values of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the foundation of our Federal Republic yes, but the Declaration of Independence is the corner store of our nation. 

That interview was a teeth gritting experience.  I don’t believe even if everyone were as libertarian as those two there might be a chance we could tolerate same sex marriage.  Ask yourself this-  how can you avoid the government stepping in to enforce the belief that same sex and opposite sex marriages are equal?  Ergo, you lose any right to protest your kid being taught “Heather Has Two Mommies.”  Or the idea that mothers and fathers are interchangeable?

From experience I know the radical gays are not and never will have that live and let live mentality making it even less likely.  We can either have SSM or religious freedom.  We can never have both.  They WILL try to force their opinions onto Christians as they have in Sweden, Netherlands and Canada.  Pastors have been jailed for preaching certain Scripture passages.

SSM violates the prime purpose of marriage which is to “attach mothers and fathers to their children and to each other.”

Man/woman marriage allows children to know and be known by their biological parents.  Same sex marriage separates children from at least one parent, and not due to extraordinary circumstances as with adoption.

SSM eliminates the legal principle that biology is the primary means of establishing parental rights and responsibilities.

77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage can be found at http://www.ruthinstitute.org from which some of the above was extracted.

Nothing in the Bible supports slavery, this is a blatant lie. In fact the Bible condons and makes illegal many of the barbaric practices of slavery for the Hebrews. 

As far as subjugation of women, this is a complete straw man argument. So there is no point in even recognizing such ignorance with a response.

So basically we should only look at the New Testament?

“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of respect, so that God’s name and teaching not be slandered” -1 Tim 6:1-2

Wholeheartedly agree! Harriet Tubman and Martin Luther King…such heathens for not obeying the Bible!

Scott please actually listen, and for a second listen openly. I am against same sex marriage just like Glenn is and Penn is not. 

If you actually listened through the point they are both making is NEITHER side has the right to use GOVERNMENT FORCE to coerce the other side or remove their rights.

I cannot stop or prevent to gay men or women from loving each other or using the available medical resources to have a family (unless they are insisting on using tax dollars to pay for it). 

On the same token they cannot tell me that I have to accept or acknowledge their union as legitimate either. Nor can they have a public education system preach homosexuality and same sex marriage is acceptable either. 

In all cases you have the state using unconstitutional force to coerce people by removing their liberties. 

I support same sex marriage bans that States are doing since the opposition is demanding the federal government make marriage a right (which it is not).

But I agree with Penn 100% the root of the issue and one I think needs to be changed is the states and Fed involvement UNCONSTITUTIONALLY in marriage in the first place. They have no right to regulate a religious rite or ceremony, or to license it either.

If the Fed and States would get out of marriage then there is no need for all this hoopla. Of course LGBT will not pursue this since it does not give them political power to persecute and attack anyone who refuses to agree with their agenda, which is the only true goal of the LGBT and other socialist movements.  

I agree that the ideal place for children is in a home with a faithful and loving mother and father joined in holy matrimony. 

BUT does that give the Government the power though to use force to limit or deny other groups the freedom to use their body to procreate as well?

If gays, or unmarried couples, or whatever messed up relationship you can imagine what to have children then so be it. I mean what are you going to do, try and sterilize gays and non married couples, just like the Democrats sterilized blacks in the early 20th century?

You can disagree with something, you can even refuse to recognize something, but you cannot force someone else to do something or not do something they desire to do with their life, unless their actions directly bring you harm. 

The principal is the same in reverse too, no one can try and force you to do something you do or do not want to do, unless you are directly bringing harm to them. 

That same principal (as penn pointed out) applies to the use of government force as well. 

I don’t have a comment on gay marriage other than it’s no one’s business what’s in my pants and who’s allowed to touch it… and that consenting adults should be able to have a legal union of their choosing.

But it always shocks me that Penn Jillette is an intelligent guy.

JerUSAlem is wrong.  If “human government is created by God” then why did God create the Nazis, or Stalinists or Maoists or even corrupt Chicago and NY machine governments?  So suddenly we are back to individual choice?  And beyond your silly statement, what is your point and what does your point matter?   I don’t care where “government came from”, the governments of the world are run by people - usually quite nasty, greedy and corrupt people. 
 
Both Jillette and Beck got it right on the money – the absolute minimum amount of government to guarantee individual rights and liberty.  Period.  The gun, gay, abortionist and dope people should all agree on that - We don’t need the government to tell us who and when to love, permit us to defend ourselves from anyone – including government or what we do to our bodies in the privacy of our homes or doctors offices.  Again, period. 
 
People are scared to death of freedom – they want to be protected from being offended, they want their special privileges (like committing crimes and not being punished or cutting into immigration lines and giving the finger to everyone doing it legally) but they do not want any personal responsibility.  That’s the definition of socialists, democrats and current republicans – let’s cut up the pie to benefit my group, my race, my election or re-election chances.  Scum.  Don’t wear a helmet on your motorcycle – hope you got good insurance.  Don’t have car insurance – out of luck.  It’s a tough world out there but I should be free to do what I damn well please as long as it isn’t harming anyone else (I don’t care about their “feelings” or their religious beliefs) – as should you.  I should be able to say anything and think any way I choose without fear of the government prosecution.  If others don’t like it they can turn away, not buy my products, unfriend me on Facebook.  I don’t care and you shouldn’t either.

Penn’s comments regarding a right to not be offended in the first video and the protectionism of the one in twenty-thousand in the third video do not jive.  I’ve always felt the societal standard rules.  If that society at large wants “Christmas” decorations on their city streets, let it be.  

I’m sick and tired of those who fight on that basis.  Like the Freedom from Religion Foundation that shows up across country to battle a religious symbol on a ski slope.  They had no basis for that suit then they found some guy to file again on his behalf.  When you go through that much effort to file a law suit in an area thousands of miles away, you’re really proving you care not for basic liberty.

Isn’t basing any set of laws upon one group’s form of ethics, by definition, mob rule? 

The amount of government to guarantee individual rights and liberty is zero. 

Maybe “gay marriage” doesn’t pick your pocket, Glenn, but I urge you to take a close look at what is happening to some people in states where they already have it.  Some business people have definitely had their pockets picked by greedy lawyers who are taking them to court for refusing to cater to gay weddings.  People who own bake shops, flower shops, wedding venues, and bed and breakfasts have been sued for refusing to do business with gay couples because it violates their own morals.  I predict this will swiftly follow in every state that buys into “gay marriage.”  Please, please check this out before you just jump on the band wagon with this.  I really respect you and appreciate what you do, but I feel you are supporting “gay marriage” without all the information.

Maybe “gay marriage” doesn’t pick your pocket, Glenn, but I urge you to take a close look at what is happening to some people in states where they already have it.  Some business people have definitely had their pockets picked by greedy lawyers who are taking them to court for refusing to cater to gay weddings.  People who own bake shops, flower shops, wedding venues, and bed and breakfasts have been sued for refusing to do business with gay couples because it violates their own morals.  I predict this will swiftly follow in every state that buys into “gay marriage.”  Please, please check this out before you just jump on the band wagon with this.  I really respect you and appreciate what you do, but I feel you are supporting “gay marriage” without all the information.

Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this oft referred sentence, it is merely saying that man has natural rights that precede, or if you prefer, predate the creation of governments by Man.
It clearly infers that Man is rather special and a creation of Divinity. You are free to choose the Divinity. I choose to believe in God and His Son, Jesus. You are free not to.Natural rights are those that anyone with half a brain acknowledge came before government. Natural rights are the agreed upon cornerstones for decent order, peace, tranquility and yes, security. These too are stated in the Dec. of Independence and flow from sensible natural principles some like to call The Ten Commandments, a good basis for any society.I often start my prospecting for a reasonable person with this question: Which came first, second, and third? Government, God, or Man? Good religion is good; bad religion is bad. Only a good religion is built around peace and love, respecting the rights we all hold in common. Force is not a right we have in common. Stealing isn’t either. Coercion and fraudulent behavior isn’t either. Preemptive violence isn’t either! No society can long be free and prosperous that allows such behavior to go uncontrolled or not held in check. That is what government is for, to defend only those rights that each hold in common and to enforce voluntary contracts.I, like everyone else, regardless of religious “influence”, inherits at birth the same set of rights and the same set of responsibilities. If we stray from them, we become just another pack of dogs from the animal kingdom.

Freedom of association and freedom of assembly comes with the opposite freedom NOT to associate and NOT to assemble with those in whom you disagree, for any reason.
While I understand your rationale on maintaining “anti-gay” laws to avoid such punitive and ethically wrong suits by “gays” against uncatering businesses, the real problem is that we have allowed the law to infringe on our most basic rights NOT to do something we don’t want to do!
If I don’t want to have you as a customer, because you have one leg shorter than the other, that is my RIGHT, and no court should entertain an abridgment to the rights to my time, my labor, or my property. Harsh? Maybe to some.
If liberty means anything at all, it means we have the right NOT to do something as well as the right TO do something.
Let’s fix the legal system mindset to insure freedom for all. I do NOT have a right to be served by a private business enterprise.
Out of control collectivism is to blame regarding the issue you speak of.

The problem with this thinking is that while I am  Christian ad paying taxes I beieve that I should have the right to use public faclities.  Why are the athiests thinking being given more weight than mine?  Why do they have the right to tell us (that are paying for the facilities) how we can use them?  I do understand what Penn is saing but I do not completly agree.

I have a problem with Mr. Jillette’s line of thinking on use of public spaces by individuals or groups.  if we take away the ability for group A to use a public space because we do not like how they use it (or it might offend someone), then we have the government (force) deciding who can use public land and how it can be used.  With the government having this ability, it can easily restrict the freedom of assembly which is really meant to be on public ground as it is meant to address government.  

I think it makes more sense to have more freedom.  Everyone that is a constituent of the public land in question, and maybe some outsiders, should have the right to use that public land within a set of rules.  First come first served, a limit on one group or individual’s total annual use of a space, there may be rent or fees involved to strictly cover real costs, so on and so forth.  Of course, any rules that are applied must be applied equally to all people involved.

anyway, this is what i was thinking and i would like to hear what you think of these ideas.

He’s married to a woman? I thought he was gay? He had a boy friend/partner a few years ago…

The idea that Glenn Beck is a libertarian is a complete joke.  In the name of his religion, he wants to impose the maximum regulation possible on the individual while allowing big corporations to do to us whatever they please.  He’s a corporationsist; he’s nothing close to a real libertarian.

Keep riding. No one cares.

Keep riding. No one cares.

Keep riding. No one cares.

Keep riding. No one cares.

Keep riding. No one cares.

Keep riding. No one cares.

Keep riding. No one cares.

Please be specific with your charges.  In what way does Mr. beck want 

“to impose the maximum regulation possible on the individual”?  Or, allow “big corporations to do to us whatever they please”?  
by the way, how do you define a corporation?

Please be specific with your charges.  In what way does Mr. beck want 

“to impose the maximum regulation possible on the individual”?  Or, allow “big corporations to do to us whatever they please”?  
by the way, how do you define a corporation?

Please be specific with your charges.  In what way does Mr. beck want 

“to impose the maximum regulation possible on the individual”?  Or, allow “big corporations to do to us whatever they please”?  
by the way, how do you define a corporation?

Please be specific with your charges.  In what way does Mr. beck want 

“to impose the maximum regulation possible on the individual”?  Or, allow “big corporations to do to us whatever they please”?  
by the way, how do you define a corporation?

Please be specific with your charges.  In what way does Mr. beck want 

“to impose the maximum regulation possible on the individual”?  Or, allow “big corporations to do to us whatever they please”?  
by the way, how do you define a corporation?

Rent for use of public space? That’s simply anti-freedom. Those who have the most money will then control public space. I don’t see any equality in that, but I am sure that the current white house would love to implement that.

Rent for use of public space? That’s simply anti-freedom. Those who have the most money will then control public space. I don’t see any equality in that, but I am sure that the current white house would love to implement that.

Rent for use of public space? That’s simply anti-freedom. Those who have the most money will then control public space. I don’t see any equality in that, but I am sure that the current white house would love to implement that.

Atheists are a minority, and a loud mouthed one. They scream injustice and file lawsuits quite possibly more than any other group in this country. I believe in live and let live – just don’t force your lack of belief on people that believe – that is wrong headed as it gets and is equally as evil as racism.

Atheists are a minority, and a loud mouthed one. They scream injustice and file lawsuits quite possibly more than any other group in this country. I believe in live and let live – just don’t force your lack of belief on people that believe – that is wrong headed as it gets and is equally as evil as racism.

Atheists are a minority, and a loud mouthed one. They scream injustice and file lawsuits quite possibly more than any other group in this country. I believe in live and let live – just don’t force your lack of belief on people that believe – that is wrong headed as it gets and is equally as evil as racism.

Atheists are a minority, and a loud mouthed one. They scream injustice and file lawsuits quite possibly more than any other group in this country. I believe in live and let live – just don’t force your lack of belief on people that believe – that is wrong headed as it gets and is equally as evil as racism.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is based on a lie. There is nothing in the US Constitution that defines a freedom FROM religion, and this twisted version of freedom they are constantly preaching is ludicrous. Sure, they have a right not to worship, but they don’t have a right to restrict anyone else from doing so. Somewhere in the deep recesses of the progressive movement these people got the idea they could use the law of the land as a weapon to attack their fellow man, and since the perversion of the law practiced by liberal judicial bench, “legislators”,  who saw fit to make law by the progressive belief in judicial review being a way to create laws outside the Constitution we have had to put up with it. Add to the activist judge movement the politically biased judgements of our Supreme Court Justices in the past 200 years and we get where we are now – where the insane run the nation, and the rest of the people live in fear of the next lawsuit.

None of that is Constitutional, but it is what America has become. 

it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.… http://www.youtubeGoogleGetJob.qr.net/jPfD/watch?v=su6YN9gczvM

If you think God created Nazis and Communists you have a problem. Those who participate in enslaving and killing in gross lots are not Godly, they are exercising the free will of every human being to do the un-godly. 

isn’t self evident… if it was the muslims didn’t do what they do in their “civilization” for us barbaric one.

There is nothing corrupt about The Constitution – it is how people have corrupted it that is the problem. You should take the time to read and study it instead of listening to someone else’s half baked ideas about it. 

Dictation is the practice of transcribing the spoken word into written or printed form. 

Please take the time to learn the difference between dictatorship and dictation – words have meanings. 

Bless you for your pursuit of freedom, just don’t look for freedom in ignorance. I’m not criticizing you, but your message needs some tweaking.

It seems the Atheists always threaten the Christians with a lawsuit when they get offended by something, but for some reason no one cares if the Christians get offended, like with some of the shows & commercials that are on t.v.
 You are right, this is what America has become.

Homosexual marriage is an impossibility ; therefore there is no such thing. Redefining words does not alter the truth, it merely perverts language and thus our ability to communicate.

the last time I ever ‘yelled in ‘ someone’s face, it was my husband when he was cheating on me, more than 20 years ago. and I AM pro-life [I just don't treat people badly]

to have a open mind is to see and understand  what you have learned and what others
are saying .
to sit down and talk with and listen and understand  what someone is saying . is way to help others to see .
Glen keep up the good work !
   ED N.

If there is no symbolism of Christianity during Christmas in the public square, does not the atheist get what he wants while all the rest don’t get what they want in the public square?  Even one who is a part of the majority is an individual.  Really in all honesty there needs to be one idea that is chosen as better then all the rest and we have choose the right one.  In my humble estimation Christmas with Jesus Christ being born into the world is the right one, and to choose otherwise is to beg for the vengeance of God.  

And to see a open mind and belief is to understand who we are on this home we live on.
To see how thing that are going on now , how long will it be when we as humans destory
our home we live on ?

 this whole thing was established, understandably so, but the civil rights act so establishments couldn’t be whites only.

 1.- Then therefore there are almost no atheists in the world, b/c Atheism is all about doubt and the fact that we don’t know if there is a god or not but the evidence suggests there is not one.  Certainly not one that is very involved.  The logic here is severely flawed.  Atheism is all about you don’t know, you can’t know, and to say you do know is stupid.

2.  Atheists are people and thus have rights.  This is very tyrannical and totalitarian thinking on a very theocratic line.

3.  Unless government is not supposed to promote religion which it does when it has religious stuff on public property.

 he’d probably answer public goods that the free market is unable to effectively provide due to the free rider problem.  Such as police force, roads, street lights etc.

 then they would be wrong

 the issue he has is that boy scouts use public land that people wouldn’t normally have access too, and they normally do so for cheap.  National guard armories, and especially fort AP hill for the jamboree.  Nobody is saying they can’t go camp in a park.

 but it is a way to circumvent the homophobia

Is it a crime to only cater to blacks? If I use my money to start a business and decide that I will only serve blacks and put up signs and make it perfectly clear that we serve only blacks, how is it your right to put me in jail or force me to serve non-blacks. If I want my business to only serve those in wheelchairs, is that too a crime? If I serve only patrons that bring their dogs, is that too a crime?
Like I said, freedom is both the right to do something as well as not to if I don’t want to.
It might be a really stupid and even low-down thing to do (to only serve blacks) but isn’t that my right? I may be condemned by many of my would-be customers, but isn’t it still my right? Or am I a slave, like blacks used to be?
If I am not allowed to take that risk, can I be truly a free man?

If these two teamed up…we would have a great 2016, presidential race….
 

The reason the government is involved in marriage, is that the family unit is critical to a successful society. Society HAS a stake in how children are raised…and allowing them to be thrust into a “social experiment”, the results of which are already proving to be dubious, is bad for society.

The idea that society should dictate how children are raised is the also the arguement liberals use to argue against homeschooling and for sex education. I think we’d better off if we just accepted not all children will be raised how we like and try to preserve our right to raise our own as we see fit.

I disagree. Without basic institutions, there is nothing to be called society. Then we’re just living in the “wild west” Even the most primitive of societies have institutions.

Right on the MONEY brother. Dictation:1 arbritary command, 2 the act or manner of uttering words to be transcribed, 3 material that is dictated or transcribed, 4 the performing of music(WORK) to be reproduced by a student. DICTATORs dictate. In 1913 the tax law was mandated. An average worker made roughly $ 550.00 a year. The tax rate was 1% on income exceeding $ 3,000.00 and 7% on income above $ 500,000.00 TODAYS Value ($ 11,000,000.00) Go to http://www.facebook.com/bartimeausart photoes and start you debrainwashing process tooo . I AM “CHOICE” NOT “VOTE” SAYs The LORD ON HIGH.

FINALLY!!! Someone gets it! The government has NO BUSINESS being involved in marriage! NONE of the Founding Fathers had marriage licenses. Marriage licenses came about so that white men could “legally” marry women of other “races”.

Welllll — first off, the Declaration doesn’t require 15 highlighters unless you are coloring in the margins.  It’s a pretty short document overall.

Secondly, I’m mystified at your “analysis”.  Instead of vague Progressive Atheist declarations, consider the following:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. …”

It’s a short document.  Take out the section of itemized complaints against George III and it’s 5 paragraphs long.  One of the paragraphs is a legal justification for the action based on past petitioning efforts.  A second paragraph is a plea to the British people to sympathize with the effort.  The last paragraph is the declaration and summary of everybody supporting the effort. 

So there are really just 2 paragraphs that deal with philosophical generalities — the moralistic underpinning of the effort.  One makes direct, explicit reference to God with a capital “G”.  The other makes direct, explicit reference to the Creator, with a capital “C”. 

So tell me again how the Declaration is an Atheist’s proclamation.

Perhaps what we need is a wholesale move by the TEA Party and those in Congress of the TEA Party Caucus to make a large, wholesale move to the Libertarian Party!

With all the problems we have these people are worried about gay marriage, what planet are these people living on? I don’t care what people do, I really don’t, but what good is marriage if you can’t have kids (not adoption?) http://www.ficksitall.blogspot.com

Okay, the signs of toluene damage to your cerebrum are evident here. Why don’t you go someplace like alternet where you will find kindred souls?

I take no joy in this ugly reality. We may be the last generation who truly appreciated or lived in freedom. Now it only takes one complaint to destroy that which before this era has withstood the test of time. There are no traditions anymore, nothing is sacred, and humanity is a lesser race for it.

Keep paying your taxes, your insurance your fee,s and by all means invest in the stock martet, FOOL. Don’t you get it, it is al b.s.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Bart is being arrested by the US Marshals for refusing to pay his taxes, and stocking up an arsenal to defend his fortress home with.

And thus ends the saga of Black Bart and his wicked, wicked way of life.

Oh, I get it all right. You are a delusional freak troll who has latched onto me. I really don’t care about you or your opinions, which is why you garner absolutely zero serious intelligent consideration from me.

Go away now, and play with your toys in your Mom’s basement.

What is Gods (through Christ) original plan?

Once you undersdtand the intent of the Constitution

it (individual rights) is similar.

Abortion is therefore between the Individual and God.

However, God granted through Moses laws of the
land to collectively control humans with harden hearts.

Which means, laws of the land should flow Gods path
or Christ path but also defne who we ‘all’ are as individuals.

The more this progressivism takes away rights and buries us in rules and regulations, restrictions and mandatory conduct, running our lives and watching our every move and listening to our every word, either we have to numb ourselves to non thinking non feeling beings to get along, or totally do a 180* and revolt!

Somehow the rational minded people among us have got to wrest control from these protectionist ninnies. If I am not pleased with something I either ignore it, or I find a way to cope with it. It has never been right to oppress someone else, especially when there is no real harm done as a consequence of their actions/words. I don’t understand why people can’t simply mind their own business and let go of minor inconveniences instead of filing lawsuits and screaming victim at the top of their lungs. What happened to this country that allowed the minority to dictate what goes on here? I don’t mind accommodating people but this has become ridiculous.

If I don’t care for something someone says or does the first thought in my mind is to remove myself from it and ignore them. It looks like now all we have in this country is a bunch of whiny cry babies who will stop at nothing to bully each other.

It’s a sad situation made worse by inept authorities.

Attleast I have a dick In my pants and not a puzzy. GAg boy.

You whine loudly, can’t type, and have a damned tough time making any sense – is this you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H_-bA-Ww5U

Yup, because they can’t cope (they were not allowed to learn how growing up – participation trophies and all) they will burden everyone else with their solution to THEIR problem. Typical liberal regressives. Back to no freedom.

I wonder when it will dawn on them that the restricted freedom applies to them too?

Glenn Back, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones etc are all on the payroll of Goldman-Sachs.

There will be much whining, crying, stomping and pouting. I hope they have a plentiful supply of boo-hoo rags available.

I was put on this earth to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling and to help anyone I can along the way. I try my hardest not to pass judgement on others no matter what their choices may be. I wish the progressives would afford me the same courtesy, but that’s not going to happen is it?

Likely we will destroy our souls before we destroy the earth.

Preface to the treaty of Paris -1783 Take note of the introductory sentence. The treaty was signed by American representatives Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Henry Laurens, and John Adams. (The Trinity is God the Father, Jesus the Son and The Holy Spirit) “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. ”

Also, here is some commentary on the treaty that you posted.http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html  I have seen this same post about the treaty of Tripoli several times on Facebook, so I’m assuming that it is being spread around by the “we are not a Christian Nation” crowd. The article it is long, but worth reading if you want to truly be informed and not just cut and paste random stuff. One of the main points about what the treaty means in that clause, is that our country does not have the Christian religion as an “official” government religion, which is true. But America was founded on Christian/Biblical principles and MANY of our founding fathers were Christians. Some signers of our  founding documents were pastors and ministers. Their Christian views played a role in the formation of our government. Their intent was always for religion to be free and unhindered in this country. 

Murder is not between an individual and God only.  Murder is detrimental to society, so those put in place to protect society from murderers is also involved.

That’s what’s so cool about having an understanding that abortion is murder.

 Nobody said basic institutions would be gone.  ??

There are laws on the books against child abuse.  Child abuse is a crime.  You don’t have to have the government involved in your relationships to control that. 

Government is just made up of other people – they are not gods.  They don’t know better than you or I.  They are imperfect just like the rest of us.  To say that you would want other imperfect people to control someone your relationships is unfathomable.

 There does not have to be ONE idea that is chosen as better than all the rest.  We can all choose our own ideas.  I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.  I do not believe that I have a right to push my ONE belief on someone else.  None of us has that right.

 Huh?  Examples, please.

If there is no sign in the public square during Christmas time that is a promotion of  nothingness.  Hence, atheism is promoted and public belief in Christ is diminished.  As these signs of Christianity disappear one can expect that the morally corrupt society to continue on that path.  One can expect less and less justice because if it is not about anything, then selfishness becomes the new God.  Selfish people have a hard time judging people because they don’t want to be judged themselves.  These will be our judges and there are a whole lot of other things then justice involved when people are motivated by selfishness.  Jesus is the savior of man.  This is not just a title.  It has real implications.  Without the savior we are done as a culture.  

LMAO!!! Too funny!!!

Agree!!

It’s funny that the lefties are worried about gay marriage with all the problems we face. I don’t care what people do, but the whole gay-marriage thing is disguesting! http://www.ficksitall.blogspot.com

We all know how effective those tactics will be against the despotic rulers they themselves voted into office. I think they believe everything is a joke and they voted to mock the serious nature of politics. Their misunderstanding of the true left wing hard core progressive movement is going to bite them one day, and it is going to hurt them in ways they had not contemplated. Then there will be as you say a lot of fruitless protestations and powerless effort expended.

They should have listened to a few of us who have been around for a while – new and young do not always equal better.

if what the atheists want is what’s constitutional and what christians want is what’s unconstitutional, then yeah they get what they want

i’m not saying i agree with the law.
just that i can see where it makes sense

You say that you “do not believe that (you) have a right to push (your) ONE belief on someone else.”  Then you go on to do exactly what you said nobody has the right to do:  ”None of us has that right.”  

That is your belief and you are pushing it on everyone who reads this unless I am misunderstanding what it means to push ones belief on another.  

Did God push His religion on the Jews when he gave them the ten commandments?  

Yes you have found the flaw in the United States from it’s inception.

lets not give the puritans too much credit for not being tyrants themselves. The puritans definitely would not have had nativity scenes as any kind of ornamental religious stuff was against their theology.

so what you want is a theocracy? a godly tyranny run by people?

we shouldn’t worry about religon if your for the constotation i’m for you no matter what the founding fathers belived in freedom of religon when george washington was asked who should writte down the actual constotation and what religon he should be from washington said i don’t care if the man is pagan if george washington doesn’t care what religon or lack of than so am i i am a christian but i don’t think if your not one means you don’t make it to heaven as long as you belive than your in muslims(not the crazy al queda pepole) belive in allah look up what that is in english it is translated to God you say they don’t belive in jesus no they just don’t call him that it’s mohamed jesus dies goes to hell for 3 days goes into heaven mohamed dies goes to hell he comes back and goes to heaven there the same guy if you ask me just different names jews well jesus was a jew so there we go mormons they belive in god and that jesus died on the cross ok yes they belive he came to america i don’t but you never know catholics same thing all religons that are from the middleast are the same just different names as for atheist just because you may be an atheist doesn’t mean your a bad person case in point mr.penn here his a great comedian and magican a good guy we need to focus on this put a person no matter what religon or lack of if you belive in the constotation i will vote for you and on the gay thing i’m completely fine with it pepole say it’s a choice no it’s not did you ever think maybe it’s just gods way of testing you the’ll shall not judge and god knows your life before you do so how can being gay be a choice also god doesn’t get things wrong so how is it a choice

Sam, you nailed it. Ron Paul said that you have to defend liberty across the board, you cannott pick and choose what to defend. 

My favorite part of the interview is that we shouldn’t think that we have a “right to be offended”.  I am sometimes (okay often) offended by words spoken by crazy people (okay not so much ‘crazy’ as they don’t agree with me).  But I do believe that they have a right to think and say what they believe, regardless of if their wrong (okay not so much ‘wrong’ as again they don’t agree with me).  I love the conversations being had in the comments below.  Everyone makes such valid points, but like many of you faith will always win out.  There is something unexplainable about faith, and given that we live in this great nation, I can’t help but to feel so very blessed.  I believe that we are alive at this very moment, in this time in history, in this country because it is suppose to be.  I don’t believe in coincidence. 

II would like to see you prove that.  You’re as far out there as Alex Jones is, and that’s a long ways past Beck.

glenn  ,this  people  dont  know  what  is  means  care  about  own  self  ,care  about many  and  many  people,care awns  future  and  next  and  so

this  people  only  know  about  care  own  he  person,so  he  dont  care. 

In other words, Beck is caving on gay marriage……

Make me wish we got him as a choice and not the loser we got.

 They don’t get direct federal funding but they get reduced rates to use federal lands, and buildings.  That is where people have issue with them.  Private and run how they want, fine, no problems what so ever there, but no reduced prices for Government lands and buildings.

 We are not a Theocracy in this country.  Thankfully.  It frightens me to think there are people that would want it to be such.

I disagree 100%.  Why should government be involved in Marriage at all?  Government should be involved in as little as possible.  I’m all for gay marriage, I hope it gets legalized and accepted, but I would much rather see government out of Marriage altogether.  It’s not their business in the least. In other words, I’d rather see the loss of a law than the creation of a new one.

 Just got to see him and Teller live the day before this interview.  Great show if you ever get to Vegas..highly recommended!

 I’ve always thought Beck was a borderline Libertarian.  I hate all of his religious nonsense he spouts but he’s almost got it right on other things.  He’s a work in progress on Liberty in my opinion.

 Actually, you’d be wrong.  We are not a country of Mob Rule..you cannot, as a majority, deny the rights of the minority, so therefore, societal standards do not rule.

 This is the exact reason I’ve embraced a deistic view.  I’m not jaded enough to go full on Athiest, and I do believe something out there created the universe and put the natural laws in place, then said, cool, lets see how it goes.  We are, at best, a cosmic ant farm.

 Actually I would say the further we move from the principles set forth in the Constitution, the more we move towards mob rule. 

 I’m ok with teaching various religions in schools from a scholarly standpoint, because, lets face it, they do and have influenced the world.  What I am against is promoting any religion as correct or the right way in a public school.

 So, you want a Theocracy to force your beliefs on others? 

 The issue is, we have put legal benefits and protections into marriage.  You cannot deny others the same rights.  So, for them to get those rights, they need to be allowed to marry.  Special rights for some is illegal in this country, per the Constitution.  So, you either legalize gay marriage, or you get rid of the government rights and protections and involvement with marriage.  Either way is fine by me.

 Actually, I disagree with your last point, legalizing gay marriage doesn’t force a church into performing them if they don’t agree with them. 

Pretty sure Murder was frowned upon before Judaism and Christianity were about…The Code of Hammurabi being a prime example and predating both movements by quite some time..in fact, many think that mosaic law was based off many things in this Code. It always amuses me when Christians think their the only ones to do something or the first to do it. Heck, even Jesus wasn’t the first who was attributed a virgin birth, resurrection, and healing of the sick…there’s not one original concept in Christianity.

 It’s not caving..it’s called realizing what Liberty truly means and how it is best applied.  Liberty for All, not just for those we like.

 There are legal protections, such as allowing ones spouse to be by their side in the hospital, and various other things.  My girl friend has a genetic condition and chose to get her tubes tied and not have kids..so she shouldn’t want to get married?  She can’t have kids, so what’s the point, right?

Sam, I am a 110% Ron Paul supporter!! (I voted for Gary Johnson) The old GOP got Romney in and I knew he wasn’t going to win. Ron Paul could have beaten Obama. The GOP owes him an apology for treating him like dirt. I guess he was just too honest with a consistent idealogy. Like when he told Romney to open the Constitution and read it! epic.

Penn says Founding Fathers did not refer to themselves as Christians.  Mayflower Compact “Having undertaken, and for the glory of God, and the advancement of our Christian faith …”; George Washington’s General Orders May, 2, 1778: “… it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian; John Adams’ Diary, July 28, 1796: “The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern Times, The Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity and Humanity.”  Many more at http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/video/securing-the-dream-america-again-part-1-mpg

You’re out of your mind…I understood you up until the whole choosing the better one part.  By who’s standards are you choosing it?  It’s certainly not better in my mind.  I prefer not to be chained down by invisible sky people and magic books.  So how is it better for me? 

 Nope, he didn’t, cause it’s all made up.  But that’s neither here nor there.  You don’t have the right to force someone to believe as you do.  Hence the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  You can scream it at the top of your lungs all you want, but you can’t force it on anyone.

 Many of them did not.  Jefferson eliminated all supernatural references from his Bible and didn’t believe in them.  Some believed, some did not.  Adams was religious, as was Washington.  Franklin, Jefferson, and several others were not.  Your point being? “The legitimate powers of government extend to such
acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my
neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my
pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82, “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme
being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of
the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn
of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this
artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of
this most venerated reformer of human errors.”

Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823.

“The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like
another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the
blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs”.

Source: Thomas Jefferson, Works,
Vol. IV, p. 360.

“The whole history of these books (i.e. the Gospels) is so defective and
doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks
have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to
them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts
of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts
of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the
fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick
out diamonds from dunghills.”

Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, January 24, 1814.

“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his
biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of
the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much
absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it
impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”

Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820.

“It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it (i.e. the Book of
Revelations), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more
worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly
dreams.”

Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.

Intelligence
Institute Study shows Fox News viewers have an IQ that is 20 points lower than
the U.S. National average.

Study shows that the Americans who watch Fox News have an average
IQ of 80, whereas the national average is 100. Researchers were not
“shocked” by findings.
The results of a 4 year study show that Americans who obtain their news from
Fox News channel have an average IQ of 80, which represents a 20 point deficit
when compared to the U.S. national average of 100. IQ, or intelligence quotient,
is the international standard of assessing intelligence.

Researchers at The Intelligence Institute, a conservative
non-profit group, tested 5,000 people using a series of tests that measure
everything from cognitive aptitude to common sense and found that people who
identified themselves as Fox News viewers and ‘conservative’ had, on average,
significantly lower intelligent quotients. Fox Viewers represented 2,650
members of the test group.

One test involved showing subjects a series of images and
measuring their vitals, namely pulse rate and blood pressure. The
self-identified conservatives’ vitals increased over 35% when shown complex or
shocking images. The image that caused the most stress was a poorly edited picture
of President Obama standing next to a “ghostly” image of a child
holding a tarantula.

Test subjects who received their news from other outlets or
reported they do not watch the news scored an average IQ of 104, compared to 80
for Fox News viewers.

Lead researcher, P. Nichols, explains, “Less
intelligent animals rely on instinct when confronted by something which they do
not understand. This is an ancient survival reaction all animals, including
humans, exhibit. It’s a very simple phenomenon, really; think about a dog being
afraid of a vacuum cleaner. He doesn’t know what a vacuum is or if it may harm
him, so he becomes agitated and barks at it. Less intelligent humans do the
same thing. Concepts that are too complex for them to understand, may frighten
or anger them.”

He continues, “Fox News’ content is presented at an
elementary school level and plays directly into the fears of the less educated
and less intelligent.”

The researchers said that an IQ of 80 is well above the
score of 70, which is where psychiatrists diagnose mental retardation. P.
Nichols says an IQ of 80 will not limit anyone’s ability to lead happy,
fulfilling lives.

The study did not conclude if Fox News contributed to
lowering IQ or if it attracts less intelligent humans.

P. Nichols concludes that he wasn’t shocked by the studies’
results, rather how dramatic their range. “Several previous studies show
that self-identified conservatives are less intelligent than self-identified
moderates. We have never seen such a homogeneous group teetering so close to
special needs levels.”

So true; unfortunately, this country will soon get what they think they want by not adhering to biblical principles…..then once the Antichrist comes, & they have to worship him & physically take ‘the mark’ in order to participate in the soon-to-be-formed NWO’s financial system, biblical principles & the precepts of God will seem like a walk in the park……

“Lean Forward” …. “Move Forward”

So, blindly they move forward, into the abyss.

The fact that this post is so totally out of context makes me wonder. . . . Do you watch foxnews?  

You say “Nope, he didn’t, cause it’s all made up.” like you have some proof of this.  Perhaps you could expound?

Well I am glad that you see it that way.  There is a contingent that thinks that if you say such things as: “Jesus Christ is King of the universe.”  they will accuse you of having pushed your religion on them.  
It seems somewhat ridiculous to make an amendment that merely says something that everyone knows anyway.  That is that we have a free will to believe what we want.  Well duhh.  

Listen, if we want a society that demands to give the same respect to Devil worship (that is the worship of all things evil; aka takers) as it does to the worship of God (that is the worship of all things good; aka givers) don’t you think that at some point Good is going to be a little annoyed with this situation and quite giving good until people understand and respect where the good in their life comes from? 

Hey, I am just a thinker and as I look upon the word scene were there are so many who don’t want to be fruitful with their lives I think to myself:  there are 5% of the world population that want to be productive and all the rest want live off the fruits of the 5% and be respected in the same way that the producers are (in many cases they demand more respect then the producers).  This is a problem.  If the 5% start to make this clear to the 95% that is going to make the 95% mad and they will probably start killing the 5% to prove that they don’t need them.  This leaves 95% of people all together that don’t want to do anything fruitful.  That sounds like Hell.  Somebody better start demanding that people respect the Great Giver of all Good things or we are all doomed.  You call that a godly tyranny run by the people.  I call it our only hope.

Lemmings.

I think our motto should be, “Push Back”.

The USA is governed by the devil and I dont mean Obama but the people who really rule this country by fiat.

If you really believe that the Constitution intended to force American citizens into Christian churches, I think you need to spend some time away from the pulpit and open your mind A LOT. Just how do you intend to force people to follow your religion? What will happen to those that refuse? I believe the biggest threat to religious freedom is theocrats that try without compromise to push religious believe onto the rest of society with law and policy. Here is why religious laws NEVER PASS and NEVER WILL…The religious tyrants will be slaughtered, churches destroyed, and the Messiah will be a no show as usual. If that is what you want for this country, fine…you have the right to your beliefs, but it will not happen, because you will torn apart limb by limb (appropriately). You might call that “persecution”, I call that fighting for individual freedom. (BTW, if ripping people’s arms and legs off is too “cruel and unusual”, how about a grenade in the mouth? We have been doing that for a while now.)

Not to mention Thomas Paine, who was a virulent anti-Christian deist, who I quote:

[quote]
The opinions I have advanced … are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues – and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now – and so help me God.[/quote]

It means he’s going to cave after years of anti-gay bigotry.

And the Easter Bunny, he’s another mythological creature who’s stealing all the candy, just to redistribute it to kids. And the Tooth Fairy, handing out money for nothing. Damn these socialist mental figments!

 Duh…Jumbone, where exactly did I say “the Constitution intended to force American citizens into Christian churches”?  Love that you put up a fake strawman so you can “tear it down”.  Read my post moron, and quit inserting junk into it that is clearly NOT there.  I replied to the dork named Micheal with his ignorant ramble.  And then you come along and post an even bigger pile of stupidity. 

they conflate limited liability corporation freedom [limited liability is a subsidy to risk takers to limit their liability but not their profit] with individual humans freedom. Once they understand that, they’ll be in better shape.

I guess we need to talk about what a public space is.  for example, in the township that i live in we have a municipal building with a number of rooms that can be used for meetings or classes.  some of these rooms have been used for exercise classes and boy and girl scout meetings.  since the municipal building is owned by the constituents of the township, i think that it makes sense for the rooms to be used as long as the cost of allowing the usage is covered by the group using the room.  this is not anti freedom.  anyone can use the room, but instead of taking the maintainence costs from the taxpayer to pay for a private groups usage, it makes the group using it pay for it.  

am i missing something in this line of thinking?

May I say … I’m not a fan of Mr. Jillette’s or Mr. Beck’s politics but I found this conversation to be very interesting. The idea of where the state should draw the line and remain absent from the activities of citizens is always an interesting one to discuss and both of these men – for once – seem to have interesting things to say. 

 the bible doesn’t subjugate women. Israel was to be a mighty nation, and all families of Israel were to have their spot of the promised land, but if a daughter had no children, then her father’s land may pass onto relatives who had children. Also, virgins were prized, so if a woman was raped, who would marry her? and why should they marry her, especially with other women out there who may be virgins? remember, women at that time appreciated their reproductive status within society, and having children was seen as a sign of you being important and blessed. the rapist paid a fee, and he could never divorce his wife, and the woman was guaranteed to inherit her father’s property, or to gain her own property.  Post Israel’s release from Babylon, and especially after Jesus was born, Israel was once more one husband, one wife.  Jesus said as much, and even further, Peter went on to write that women were to be seen as the feminine one, and to be loved as Jesus loved the congregation. Once Israel became a mighty nation, the arrangement of one man several wives and concubines were done away with.  Jesus even said as much when he said that there were to be one man, and one wife, as it was with Adam and Eve.  the issue of slavery explains itself, and if you read all of it, you’d understand, but you read one scripture and suddenly, God is no better than the white slavers, you read one scripture and didn’t bother to read further to understand the context, you need to read all of it. 

 Clearly, you’re not reading all of it, and here’s why, Israelites entered into slavery because of debt: I have no job, but I owe my debt collectors a ton of money, well, I enter into slavery to you, so as, you can pay my debts. Your Requirement maybe, i have to work for you for 1 year or 5 years, but, the rule was, no more than SEVEN years.  on the seventh year, i was free.  BUT, maybe, I lived better as your slave than I did on my own. let’s say you were rich, and me being a slave meant, I  was not unlike your butler, with my own residence and possessions, the rule was though that all slaves benefited from clothing and food.  Not only that, as a slave, i had your authority, so i was basically your gofer ( go fer this, go fer that) and I could go and buy stuff in your name, or go to functions in your name.  Did not a well to do man had a sick slave and he asked Jesus to heal his slave and then he said to Jesus, that surely he could heal his slave even though they were miles away because he, as a slave owner, would send his slaves this way or that, and they’d go in his name, and Jesus was amazed by the man’s faith and healed his servant in that very hour.  EVEN FURTHER, my tenure as your slave may be up (after 7 years) but, you may be a great master, so if I was a Christian, I’d stay with you and thereby help you to accept Christ, so as, we both could slave for God. 

Glenn, I liked your line/diagram of the governmental spectrum describing the political system of the U.S today.  However, I think that it would have been more accurate had you bent the line in a circle attaching the totalitarians and the anarchists.  I mean really, they are so far at the ends of the spectrum that they are really close.  Hence the reason you had difficulty in describing where the occupy wall street people belonged on your line.  Just a late thought.

I wonder if Penn would be okay with an atheist meeting on public property? Public property should be a place where the Public is allowed to voice their beliefs. 

Also, science is not disproving God – the “god of the gaps” is a straw man – it is only showing how complex His creation is. It is silly to believe that something so complex was not programmed to be so. It’s like saying you are disproving that computers were designed because you are breaking them down into basic component parts and then explaining how they work together to do what they were designed to do. You will never be able to show matter just popping into existence from nothing; that is just absurd. Science will always be stuck on first cause because there is no way to test non-existence.

Where does Glenn stand on polygamy?

And while we are on the subject of marriage, let’s try a little absurdity. Is he okay with a man marrying a dog? Does it “pick his pocket or break his leg.” As long as the dog is okay with it, right? Should the government have a say in that? How about a man who wants to marry and sleep with the corpse of his dead fiance? Who are we to stop that kind of deep “love?” And how long until “consensual” pedophilia is excepted by our twisted culture?
Use your brains people. Just because it sounds like Liberty, doesn’t make it right.

Are you okay with a man marrying a dog? Who decides it has to be humans? Does it “pick your pocket or break your leg”  as Glenn said? As long as the dog is okay with it, right? Should the government have a say in that? How about a man who wants to marry and sleep with the corpse of his dead fiance? Who are we to stop that kind of deep “love?”

This is absurdity, of course, but it is to make a point. Just because it sounds like Liberty, doesn’t mean it is.

Wow, HUGE no.

The BIG comment that Beck makes at the end of the video that shouldn’t be ignored is that “god” came down and gave us our rights and gave us our Constitution! That’s false! That is the whole rub that people like him do not connect. MAN wrote the Constitution and it is absolutely not written in stone. That’s why we have amendments. If someone is against something the Constitution says (or disagrees with someone’s interpretation of the words) it doesn’t mean they are some extremist term like “Socialist” or a “Nazi”. Did Nazis give us our current set of amendments? Of course not! Is the idea of more amendments mean you are anti-American? Of course not!

Glenn marriage is for man and woman only, not 2 men or 2 women according to Yahweh!  If they want to live together that’s their business.

Glenda M. Tankersley/North Little Rock, AR.

Glenn,   I have watched you and listened to you, but I have to say I am upset with you right now.  You are not taking a conservative Christian view on gay marriage.  God is supposed to be first in our lives.   You have pulled us conservatives in from day one and now you are starting to change on us, a lot like Fox News, we are the ones who have made you successful and bought all of your books.  It is really sad to see you be for Gay Marriage.  It is a great disappointment in the stance you are taking.  Why?

You are 100% correct!

    The Treaty of Tripoli was writtten by Joel Barlow in 1796 and later sent to the Senate in 1797. Barlow was a Deist and a strong advocate of Church State separation.(But not the same separation we hear about today) Barlow  in1791 wrote a Book entiltled ” Advice to Privileged Order in the Several States of Europe Resulting From the Necessity and Property  of a General Revaltion in the Principle of Government” In chapter two of his book he attacks organized established churches. Eventhough  an advocate of Church state separation,he makes it clear that  the distinction between a State sponsed Church as an ally of an authoritian government is different from” Plain Religion”.(He was of course refering to the Church Of England and the King— in comparison to just plain religion)  He notes that separation of Church and State means that established Churches as religion in his opinion or indeed different from a State authorized sponsered religion in alligance with government. The quote noted above is Article 11 of 12 articles in the Treaty.Since the United States was indeed consdiered to be a “Christian” Nation founded on Christian principles stemmng from the Bible,.Barlow in writting the Treaty to Muslims(who hate Christanity) is explanning to them that the United States government does not have an alligiance or is controlled by a “State” (meaning government sponsered) “Religion” that is Christian. The treaty was intended to create peace between Tripoli pirates and the US,but failed. Pres John Adams did sign the treaty,but not only did he understand what Barlow was trying to explain to the Muslims ,but also signed it because it was politically correct to avoid a war.
Since 1797 numerous groups including athestists have attempted to use their false intrepration of Barlow’s statement in the Treaty to promote the erronous idea that the United States in not a Christian Nation founded on Chritian principles stemming from the Bible. The United States was indeed Not founded on One Christian religion–Catholicism,Protestantism,etc.In that respect alone— Jacob you are right,but your understanding of what Barlow wrote is wrong.Trying to promote your opinion by leaving out the rest of the story/using only part of the information won’t work.

We have always been a Christian Nation! 

Excuse me,but who died and made Penn Jillette an expert. This guy is an entertainer,Right?.
When did he become “The” authority on marriage, government  or anything else. Glenn likes him so he brings him on the show and they talk. His opinion isn’t worth any more than someone else’s opinion. And that’s all it is His opinion. What— because he is a Libertarian and Glenn is a Libertarian —what he says is gospel —-carved in stone? That’s  like asking Mao,Hitler or Stalin what they think of Capitalism and the Declaration of Independence.
No thank You–Glenn on a scale of 1 to 10 you get a minus 5.
I don’t care what he thinks about marraige or chocolate milk.
Giving him a  public platform to expouse his propaganda is ridiculous.