I'm not going to argue with anything he said, but, like most other folks making his point, he fails to point out that the case he is making is for the government (federal only) not interfering with religion. He doesn't even mention that several state governments had established religions well after the constitution was ratified. This was possible because the founders believed that local/state government, i.e. the people, is where the authority to make decisions should lie. Therefore, if a state wanted to vote to support a particular religion, that was/is perfectly ok by the constitution.

I'm not advocating for anything in particular except that when someone claims to be an historical authority and doesn't present the entire history, its worth pointing out his failure and potential motive for that failure so that people can make informed decisions.

[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]