>>>That is from a religious magazine who's mission is to pump people full of their 'christian values'. Hardly a reputable authority. You might want to actually read one of their magazines and some of the articles in it before using one of their editorials as an example to push your opinion. They do not understand one of the fundamental elements of our country -- separation of church and state.
>
>LOL. Many of those who enshrined separation of church and state still went to church or congregated per their own beliefs. The first amendment doesn't demonize or penalize religion, just says that the state can't pick favourites as had been the case with Church of England. Yet again, worth examining the actual words rather than paraphrase: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." According to you, freely exercising their beliefs in their own magazine or website indicates they don't understand their right to do so and makes them pushers. Just a subtle hint: I don't see them bursting onto sites like this with loud insistence that their version of events is the only one with merit, while everybody else is doomed/stupid.

The publication that this guy works for wants a Theocracy -- which we do not want (and that is the reason for the desired separation of church and state)

>>>And why are you still here in this conversation anyway? It's about a video you have not watched so you really have nothing to contribute to the actual topic.
>
>You're decreeing that unless one watches a full outpouring selected by you from a foul-mouthed "comedian," one has no right to participate? This, from the same person who clearly didn't read a whole website before writing it off for espousing Christian beliefs? You're equipped to form judgments about source, but nobody else is?

Hey you can join whatever threads you want here -- I'm just saying that you're participation on something you did not watch means you're comments on the subject of it's contents will be without merit.

>Not sure where you found the quote, but its author Zac Davis is a fairly well-known liberal who does NOT like Trump's administration. Instead he despairs that Oliver's brand of WHADABOUTTRUMP is anti-intellectual and a recipe for apathy rather than resistance to Trump. Did you not see my earlier reference to resistance? The author is a fellow liberal on YOUR side, just like the fellow liberal author of the autopsy, with both warnings willfully ignored because the Titanic is renamed WHADABOUTTRUMP with deck chairs needing urgent re-arrangement.

I found the entire article
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/02/10/please-stop-watching-john-oliver

..and Zac Davis is an Assistant Editor for that rag of a magazine. ..why don't you go read some of the other things this weirdo has written?
https://www.americamagazine.org/voices/218283