We were told, for example, that expressions like "Nature's God" and "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence are references to the God of the Christian Bible. But this question was never entertained: If the authors of the Declaration really wanted to clearly identify that God, why didn't they say something like "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"? That would have done it, right? But they didn't say that. And with reason.
The expression "Nature's God" is about as broad and generic as you can get. Contrary to Miller's assertion, references to deity in the Declaration would mean just as much to a colonial-era Deist--or to a contemporary Hindu or a Muslim for that matter--as they would to any Christian. This point is completely suppressed.
The speaker was just as inconsistent when he came to the separation of church and state. The idea, he said, "is not a Constitutional concept" and was nowhere in the minds of the Framers.
But the facts speak otherwise. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation" to describe his vision of the relationship between church and state. Any number of historians and constitutional scholars have concluded that Jefferson's remark is a good summary of his thinking in regard to church-state relations.
This view was upheld in 1879, for example, when the Supreme Court noted that Jefferson's observations could be "accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."
Similar language is found in the writings of James Madison, commonly considered the Father of the Constitution (pictured above, and never mentioned by Miller). In the early 1800s, Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Again, in 1819, he observed that the religious devotion of the American people had been encouraged by "the total separation of the church and state."
When he referred to the phrase that Jefferson used, Miller said that there are only two possible understandings. Either it means that there is a government ban on all public expression of religion, or it means that the government cannot interfere at all with religious expression. Take your pick. But those aren't the only alternatives when it comes to understanding the intent and right application of the First Amendment.
Such are what I see as just some of the inconsistencies and the question begging to be heard in the "Silencing of God Seminar." But you can listen for yourself to the audio portion of all five presentations.