This Is Was America

[PoliticalChic]

Judeo- Christian beliefs- is an oxy moron- their beliefs are not the same. Christ is the center of the New Testament. Right?
He, according to Christianity, and the New testament, has already been here- Jews don't believe that to be the case.
They (jews) also believe, as do many Christians, that they (jews) are God's chosen- THAT is their religion- their politics are as varied as Christians when it comes to voters- however, in the District of Criminals Israel is ALWAYS favored by the Christian populated chambers of horror inside the beltway. That, in and of itself, IS discriminatory against ANY other religion- especially Christianity and Islam. Therein lies a political bias- follow the money see the agenda.

BTW, in the days of the Founders- conservatives sided with the King- hence, to conserve- in today's vernacular that is status quo- Classical Liberals were "enlightened", which the King was not a part of. To conscript a word to favor a belief is no better than Democrats conscripting the word Liberal- conservatives favored more gov't in the arguments/discussions about the constitution. Liberals favored the Articles of Confederation (very little federal authority)- the constitution was ratified only after the Bill of Rights was inserted. The Bill of Rights was what the Liberals wanted, not the Conservatives- and, BTW, some thought they needed a King and wanted Washington to be the first to fill the role- those would be the conservatives.

One doesn't have to be religious to be political or vice versa- BOTH sides have made being an acolyte inseparable from the Party of the Duopoly and a must be to be popular/fashionable in certain circles (the Party congregation(s))- R and D hacks (political and civilian) fan the flames of hate and discontent. Period. And they do it religiously. Thus, acolytes. BOTH sides has its tools and its enemies and it will remain thus until people wake up and see with eyes wide open vs eyes wide shut- there are more than two choices, politically and there are more than two religions in this world-

You should stop posting about subjects you clearly have no knowledge of.

Judeo-Christian......both begin with the Old Testament, and the Ten Commandments.

The faith is Judeo-Christian….not two separate faiths.

The Old Testament laws remain in effect…as per Matthew 5:18 is the eighteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has just reported that he came not to destroy the law, but fulfil it. In this verse this claim is reinforced.

Matthew 5:17–18 is a key text for interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and the entire gospel of Matthew:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Here Jesus says that not one iota (jot) or dot (tittle) will pass away from the law. These most likely refer to the smallest strokes of the Hebrew alphabet, indicating that the Old Testament is completely trustworthy, even to the smallest detail. This is consistent with Jesus’ attitude elsewhere. Never do we find Jesus disagreeing with Scripture.



In your face, booooyyyyyyeeeeeee!

 

[rylah]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

In light of all this, how do You interpret the "give Ceasar what is to Ceasar..."?

In reality, that isn't a question.

Articulate what you are trying to say.

This separation of holliness from one of society's central aspects,
is fundamentally counter to Jewish tradition, while emphasized in Christianity.

We seem to share much in common, but this one, except the other obvious aspect of Christian tradition,
fundamentally runs all along as the horizon line between both traditions.

Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?

There's an argument to be made about Marxists-Left essentially driving their ideology into pure religion,
being VERY religious about their beliefs, as in filling some void long rejected by society's consensus.

This separation tears the individual (and national) spirit apart.

"Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?"


This represents a glaring error in your understanding.

There is no such '"separation of church and state" in any of America's founding documents.

It was inserted by the man that FDR, who despised Jews, put on the Supreme Court, a KKKer.



The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist

George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.



From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

Nos. 83-812, 83-929.

Argued Dec. 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1985.​

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian faith.

When You say "founded on the Judeo-Christian",
that means a fusion between two traditions of state running?

If that is the case, there might be an argument for a more universalist structure anchored on Jewish tradition/law,
which I fail to recognize, but somehow made "to the Ceasar" obsolete. Not one main national tradition, but the interaction of plurality of traditions in public sphere as a social institution?

What represent the holiness in American Republic?

 

[PoliticalChic]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

In light of all this, how do You interpret the "give Ceasar what is to Ceasar..."?

In reality, that isn't a question.

Articulate what you are trying to say.

This separation of holliness from one of society's central aspects,
is fundamentally counter to Jewish tradition, while emphasized in Christianity.

We seem to share much in common, but this one, except the other obvious aspect of Christian tradition,
fundamentally runs all along as the horizon line between both traditions.

Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?

There's an argument to be made about Marxists-Left essentially driving their ideology into pure religion,
being VERY religious about their beliefs, as in filling some void long rejected by society's consensus.

This separation tears the individual (and national) spirit apart.

"Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?"


This represents a glaring error in your understanding.

There is no such '"separation of church and state" in any of America's founding documents.

It was inserted by the man that FDR, who despised Jews, put on the Supreme Court, a KKKer.



The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist

George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.



From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

Nos. 83-812, 83-929.

Argued Dec. 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1985.​

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian faith.

When You say "founded on the Judeo-Christian",
that means a fusion between two traditions of state running?

If that is the case, there might be an argument for a more universalist structure anchored on Jewish tradition, law,
which I fail to recognize, but somehow made "to the Ceasar" obsolete. Not one main national tradition, but the interaction of plurality of traditions in public sphere as a social institution?

What represent the holiness in American Republic?

The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.

And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.



1. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


2. 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders.


Sources:

David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review



There is actually a reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.

 

[denmark]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

You are correct: Politics & Religion (ie, Culture & subCultures) have many links.
In the case of Islamic states, they are the same.
Do USA Conservatives want the same “same”?

 

[rylah]

Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?

There's an argument to be made about Marxists-Left essentially driving their ideology into pure religion,
being VERY religious about their beliefs, as in filling some void long rejected by society's consensus.

This separation tears the individual (and national) spirit apart.

I believe the Founding Fathers envisioned all religions in the public square--not just one--which was what was being done in the 'Old Country'. However, in the 1960s, the Supreme Court's vision seemed to be, "No religion in the public square." These are two very different perspectives.

Another thought that has crossed my mind is whether instead of three branches of government, we should have included the fourth branch of religion as a bridge to that individual and national spirit. But how would this fourth branch work?

That's the point, refugees running from religious Monarchies that didn't serve them.
There's no archetype to run such a thing that comes from that place they escaped.

Only in one place. Maybe two, both in the middle east.

Again, if only I miss something about America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

In light of all this, how do You interpret the "give Ceasar what is to Ceasar..."?

In reality, that isn't a question.

Articulate what you are trying to say.

This separation of holliness from one of society's central aspects,
is fundamentally counter to Jewish tradition, while emphasized in Christianity.

We seem to share much in common, but this one, except the other obvious aspect of Christian tradition,
fundamentally runs all along as the horizon line between both traditions.

Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?

There's an argument to be made about Marxists-Left essentially driving their ideology into pure religion,
being VERY religious about their beliefs, as in filling some void long rejected by society's consensus.

This separation tears the individual (and national) spirit apart.

"Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?"


This represents a glaring error in your understanding.

There is no such '"separation of church and state" in any of America's founding documents.

It was inserted by the man that FDR, who despised Jews, put on the Supreme Court, a KKKer.



The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist

George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.



From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

Nos. 83-812, 83-929.

Argued Dec. 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1985.​

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian faith.

When You say "founded on the Judeo-Christian",
that means a fusion between two traditions of state running?

If that is the case, there might be an argument for a more universalist structure anchored on Jewish tradition/law,
which I fail to recognize, but somehow made "to the Ceasar" obsolete. Not one main national tradition, but the interaction of plurality of traditions in public sphere as a social institution?

What represent the holiness in American Republic?

Any religion, or none, is allowed in the United States of America as long as it does not contravene the Constitution.

I would argue that the religion of the Left, Militant Secularism, does contravene the above....

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

You are correct: Politics & Religion (ie, Culture & subCultures) have many links.
In the case of Islamic

That is an interesting door you are opening.
Please finish the thought.

 

[rylah]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

You are correct: Politics & Religion (ie, Culture & subCultures) have many links.
In the case of Islamic

Sharp turn from "Judeo-Christian",

but many commonalities in how both Islam and Christianity are imperialist in nature,
rather than national.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “…to Catholics, as to Jews, Washington personified the Constitution’s promise of religious freedom through his words and deeds. In his career in the military as well as in his innovative business ventures — the later topic of which I write about in my new book, George Washington, Entrepreneur — Washington became close friends with members of the Catholic faith.

…the first Catholic church in Virginia, the St. Mary’s congregation in Alexandria. It has long been church lore that Washington gave one of the initial contributions to get St. Mary’s off the ground, and there is now strong — if not conclusive — evidence for Washington’s generous gesture. Kitty Guy, a historian of the congregation, points to diary entries from Washington showing that he attended the St. Patrick’s Day dinner at Fitzgerald’s home in 1788 at which fundraising for construction of the church was discussed and also that he gave a contribution to a church — unnamed in the diary — on the same day.

Today, St. Mary’s and the Jeshuat Israel congregation of the Touro Synagogue stand as monuments to Washington’s vision of religious freedom.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review


This will never be taught in government school.

 

[rylah]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

In light of all this, how do You interpret the "give Ceasar what is to Ceasar..."?

In reality, that isn't a question.

Articulate what you are trying to say.

This separation of holliness from one of society's central aspects,
is fundamentally counter to Jewish tradition, while emphasized in Christianity.

We seem to share much in common, but this one, except the other obvious aspect of Christian tradition,
fundamentally runs all along as the horizon line between both traditions.

Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?

There's an argument to be made about Marxists-Left essentially driving their ideology into pure religion,
being VERY religious about their beliefs, as in filling some void long rejected by society's consensus.

This separation tears the individual (and national) spirit apart.

"Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?"


This represents a glaring error in your understanding.

There is no such '"separation of church and state" in any of America's founding documents.

It was inserted by the man that FDR, who despised Jews, put on the Supreme Court, a KKKer.



The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist

George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.



From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

Nos. 83-812, 83-929.

Argued Dec. 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1985.​

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian faith.

When You say "founded on the Judeo-Christian",
that means a fusion between two traditions of state running?

If that is the case, there might be an argument for a more universalist structure anchored on Jewish tradition/law,
which I fail to recognize, but somehow made "to the Ceasar" obsolete. Not one main national tradition, but the interaction of plurality of traditions in public sphere as a social institution?

What represent the holiness in American Republic?

Any religion, or none, is allowed in the United States of America as long as it does not contravene the Constitution.

I would argue that the religion of the Left, Militant Secularism, does contravene the above....

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

The "Left", and Militant Secularism are closer to Islam, than Christianity, from ideological/spiritual perspective.

Question remains - neither of them are national, what fills that void in America?

 

[PoliticalChic]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

You are correct: Politics & Religion (ie, Culture & subCultures) have many links.
In the case of Islamic

Sharp turn from "Judeo-Christian",

but many commonalities in how both Islam and Christianity are imperialist in nature,
rather than national.

This???

During this perennial jihad that began in the seventh century, almost three-quarters of Christendom's original territory – including all of North Africa, Egypt, Greater Syria and Anatolia – was permanently swallowed up by Islam.

European nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim occupation (sometimes for centuries) include: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Iceland, Denmark, England, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta and Sardinia.

Between the 15th and 18th centuries alone, approximately five million Europeans were abducted and enslaved in the name of jihad.”
The Dire Consequences of Rewriting Western-Muslim History



Do you have a similar list for Christianity?

 

[PoliticalChic]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

In light of all this, how do You interpret the "give Ceasar what is to Ceasar..."?

In reality, that isn't a question.

Articulate what you are trying to say.

This separation of holliness from one of society's central aspects,
is fundamentally counter to Jewish tradition, while emphasized in Christianity.

We seem to share much in common, but this one, except the other obvious aspect of Christian tradition,
fundamentally runs all along as the horizon line between both traditions.

Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?

There's an argument to be made about Marxists-Left essentially driving their ideology into pure religion,
being VERY religious about their beliefs, as in filling some void long rejected by society's consensus.

This separation tears the individual (and national) spirit apart.

"Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?"


This represents a glaring error in your understanding.

There is no such '"separation of church and state" in any of America's founding documents.

It was inserted by the man that FDR, who despised Jews, put on the Supreme Court, a KKKer.



The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist

George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.



From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

Nos. 83-812, 83-929.

Argued Dec. 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1985.​

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian faith.

When You say "founded on the Judeo-Christian",
that means a fusion between two traditions of state running?

If that is the case, there might be an argument for a more universalist structure anchored on Jewish tradition/law,
which I fail to recognize, but somehow made "to the Ceasar" obsolete. Not one main national tradition, but the interaction of plurality of traditions in public sphere as a social institution?

What represent the holiness in American Republic?

Any religion, or none, is allowed in the United States of America as long as it does not contravene the Constitution.

I would argue that the religion of the Left, Militant Secularism, does contravene the above....

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

The "Left", and Militant Secularism are closer to Islam, than Christianity, from ideological perspective.

Question remains - neither of them are national, what fills that void in America?

Absolutely.


Both Militant Secularism and Islam demand submission, while the faith that founded this nation is based on free will.



"Question remains - neither of them are national, what fills that void in America?"

I don't understand your question....it's apples and oranges.

Both of those are materialist, territorial, rather than spiritual.

 

[rylah]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

In light of all this, how do You interpret the "give Ceasar what is to Ceasar..."?

In reality, that isn't a question.

Articulate what you are trying to say.

This separation of holliness from one of society's central aspects,
is fundamentally counter to Jewish tradition, while emphasized in Christianity.

We seem to share much in common, but this one, except the other obvious aspect of Christian tradition,
fundamentally runs all along as the horizon line between both traditions.

Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?

There's an argument to be made about Marxists-Left essentially driving their ideology into pure religion,
being VERY religious about their beliefs, as in filling some void long rejected by society's consensus.

This separation tears the individual (and national) spirit apart.

"Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?"


This represents a glaring error in your understanding.

There is no such '"separation of church and state" in any of America's founding documents.

It was inserted by the man that FDR, who despised Jews, put on the Supreme Court, a KKKer.



The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist

George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.



From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

Nos. 83-812, 83-929.

Argued Dec. 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1985.​

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian faith.

When You say "founded on the Judeo-Christian",
that means a fusion between two traditions of state running?

If that is the case, there might be an argument for a more universalist structure anchored on Jewish tradition, law,
which I fail to recognize, but somehow made "to the Ceasar" obsolete. Not one main national tradition, but the interaction of plurality of traditions in public sphere as a social institution?

What represent the holiness in American Republic?

The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.

And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.



1. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


2. 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders.


Sources:

David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review



There is actually a reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.

That's a common attitude towards Bible,
we can pick and choose what fits the narrative, but I'm talking more structural.

Biblical govt structure,
not selective inspirational principles.

Who are Your national priests, Levites?
Is there an "American" Temple?

 

[Dagosa]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

This is a comedy routine, right ?

And here, the typical vapid response from another government school grad.

It's what they post when I stick my finger in the eye of the propaganda they swallowed.

I see there is nothing in the post you linked to that you are prepared to dispute.

You must be afraid

It is a question of reality conflicting with ideology and reality will always win in the long term.

Isn't it a question of reality winning the battle, but in the end, crumbling, and losing the war?

Ideology may win a battle but never a war.

Tell that to Japan. Nationalizing Industrial might did them in, not ideology.

 

[rylah]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

In light of all this, how do You interpret the "give Ceasar what is to Ceasar..."?

In reality, that isn't a question.

Articulate what you are trying to say.

This separation of holliness from one of society's central aspects,
is fundamentally counter to Jewish tradition, while emphasized in Christianity.

We seem to share much in common, but this one, except the other obvious aspect of Christian tradition,
fundamentally runs all along as the horizon line between both traditions.

Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?

There's an argument to be made about Marxists-Left essentially driving their ideology into pure religion,
being VERY religious about their beliefs, as in filling some void long rejected by society's consensus.

This separation tears the individual (and national) spirit apart.

"Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?"


This represents a glaring error in your understanding.

There is no such '"separation of church and state" in any of America's founding documents.

It was inserted by the man that FDR, who despised Jews, put on the Supreme Court, a KKKer.



The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist

George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.



From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

Nos. 83-812, 83-929.

Argued Dec. 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1985.​

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian faith.

When You say "founded on the Judeo-Christian",
that means a fusion between two traditions of state running?

If that is the case, there might be an argument for a more universalist structure anchored on Jewish tradition/law,
which I fail to recognize, but somehow made "to the Ceasar" obsolete. Not one main national tradition, but the interaction of plurality of traditions in public sphere as a social institution?

What represent the holiness in American Republic?

Any religion, or none, is allowed in the United States of America as long as it does not contravene the Constitution.

I would argue that the religion of the Left, Militant Secularism, does contravene the above....

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

The "Left", and Militant Secularism are closer to Islam, than Christianity, from ideological perspective.

Question remains - neither of them are national, what fills that void in America?

Absolutely.


Both Militant Secularism and Islam demand submission, while the faith that founded this nation are based on free will.



"Question remains - neither of them are national, what fills that void in America?"

I don't understand your question....it's apples and oranges.

Both of those are materialist, territorial, rather than spiritual.

You say apples and oranges...
I say that's exactly the horizon in the 'Judea-Christian'

To Ceasar...
how did You solve it if tradition, not even religion, is a non-national institution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

In light of all this, how do You interpret the "give Ceasar what is to Ceasar..."?

In reality, that isn't a question.

Articulate what you are trying to say.

This separation of holliness from one of society's central aspects,
is fundamentally counter to Jewish tradition, while emphasized in Christianity.

We seem to share much in common, but this one, except the other obvious aspect of Christian tradition,
fundamentally runs all along as the horizon line between both traditions.

Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?

There's an argument to be made about Marxists-Left essentially driving their ideology into pure religion,
being VERY religious about their beliefs, as in filling some void long rejected by society's consensus.

This separation tears the individual (and national) spirit apart.

"Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?"


This represents a glaring error in your understanding.

There is no such '"separation of church and state" in any of America's founding documents.

It was inserted by the man that FDR, who despised Jews, put on the Supreme Court, a KKKer.



The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist

George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.



From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

Nos. 83-812, 83-929.

Argued Dec. 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1985.​

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian faith.

When You say "founded on the Judeo-Christian",
that means a fusion between two traditions of state running?

If that is the case, there might be an argument for a more universalist structure anchored on Jewish tradition, law,
which I fail to recognize, but somehow made "to the Ceasar" obsolete. Not one main national tradition, but the interaction of plurality of traditions in public sphere as a social institution?

What represent the holiness in American Republic?

The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.

And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.



1. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


2. 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders.


Sources:

David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review



There is actually a reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.

That's a common attitude towards Bible,
we can pick and choose what fits the narrative, but I'm talking more structural.

Biblical govt structure,
not selective inspirational principles.

Who are Your national priests, Levites?
Is there an "American" Temple?

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

This is a comedy routine, right ?

And here, the typical vapid response from another government school grad.

It's what they post when I stick my finger in the eye of the propaganda they swallowed.

I see there is nothing in the post you linked to that you are prepared to dispute.

You must be afraid

It is a question of reality conflicting with ideology and reality will always win in the long term.

Isn't it a question of reality winning the battle, but in the end, crumbling, and losing the war?

Ideology may win a battle but never a war.

Tell that to Japan. Nationalizing Industrial might did them in, not ideology.

And here, the typical vapid response from another government school grad.

It's what they post when I stick my finger in the eye of the propaganda they swallowed.

I see there is nothing in the post you linked to that you are prepared to dispute.

 

[rylah]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

You are correct: Politics & Religion (ie, Culture & subCultures) have many links.
In the case of Islamic

Sharp turn from "Judeo-Christian",

but many commonalities in how both Islam and Christianity are imperialist in nature,
rather than national.

This???

During this perennial jihad that began in the seventh century, almost three-quarters of Christendom's original territory – including all of North Africa, Egypt, Greater Syria and Anatolia – was permanently swallowed up by Islam.

European nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim occupation (sometimes for centuries) include: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Iceland, Denmark, England, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta and Sardinia.

Between the 15th and 18th centuries alone, approximately five million Europeans were abducted and enslaved in the name of jihad.”
The Dire Consequences of Rewriting Western-Muslim History



Do you have a similar list for Christianity?

I meant more in the trajectory of Christianity having no national borders enshrined in its 'covenant'.
Islam at least defined the Arabian peninsula for themselves, but there's nothing that prevents
Sharia to apply worldwide, that's the goal, imperialist in nature.

Jewish law is confined to the Promised Land.
No apples and oranges, that's the apple and orange in a wedding being one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

In light of all this, how do You interpret the "give Ceasar what is to Ceasar..."?

In reality, that isn't a question.

Articulate what you are trying to say.

This separation of holliness from one of society's central aspects,
is fundamentally counter to Jewish tradition, while emphasized in Christianity.

We seem to share much in common, but this one, except the other obvious aspect of Christian tradition,
fundamentally runs all along as the horizon line between both traditions.

Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?

There's an argument to be made about Marxists-Left essentially driving their ideology into pure religion,
being VERY religious about their beliefs, as in filling some void long rejected by society's consensus.

This separation tears the individual (and national) spirit apart.

"Has the experiment of "separation of church and state" run it's course to a conclusion?"


This represents a glaring error in your understanding.

There is no such '"separation of church and state" in any of America's founding documents.

It was inserted by the man that FDR, who despised Jews, put on the Supreme Court, a KKKer.



The following written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist

George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH, et al., Appellants v. Ishmael JAFFREE et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.



From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

Nos. 83-812, 83-929.

Argued Dec. 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1985.​

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian faith.

When You say "founded on the Judeo-Christian",
that means a fusion between two traditions of state running?

If that is the case, there might be an argument for a more universalist structure anchored on Jewish tradition/law,
which I fail to recognize, but somehow made "to the Ceasar" obsolete. Not one main national tradition, but the interaction of plurality of traditions in public sphere as a social institution?

What represent the holiness in American Republic?

Any religion, or none, is allowed in the United States of America as long as it does not contravene the Constitution.

I would argue that the religion of the Left, Militant Secularism, does contravene the above....

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

The "Left", and Militant Secularism are closer to Islam, than Christianity, from ideological perspective.

Question remains - neither of them are national, what fills that void in America?

Absolutely.


Both Militant Secularism and Islam demand submission, while the faith that founded this nation are based on free will.



"Question remains - neither of them are national, what fills that void in America?"

I don't understand your question....it's apples and oranges.

Both of those are materialist, territorial, rather than spiritual.

You say apples and oranges...
I say that's exactly the horizon in the 'Judea-Christian'

To Ceasar...
how did You solve it if tradition, not even religion, is a non-national institution?

You really don't get it.

The Judeo-Christian faith is not based on gaining or holding territory, or material wealth.



There is a clear understanding of an afterlife, in the New Testament.

The Old Testament appears to be clear, if subtle, on the issue of an afterlife.

In telling Abraham, the first Jewish person, of his future, there is this:

15.15 As for you, You shall go to your fathers

“Often, in describing death, the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible use the phrase “gathered to one’s kin.” Here, the Torah describes Abram’s eventual death as Abram going “to your fathers.” For reasons I will explain at length, the Torah never directly declares there is an afterlife. But throughout the Torah, an afterlife is clearly implied. Sarna notes, “In whatever form, the phrase certainly originates from the belief in an afterlife in which one is reunited with one’s ancestors irrespective of where they are buried.” Dennis Prager, “Genesis”

 

[PoliticalChic]

....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over.



1.There is no way to extricate the intimacy between religion and politics. One chooses one political view or the other based on a religious outlook. Boiled down to the essentials, this is the political choice:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists…Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.



2. The choice of one’s religion ineluctably follows, either the Judeo-Christian faith of Western Civilization, or the Militant Secularism of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx. A clear example of the denying religious choice is the Democrat’s forbidding of religious freedom to The Little Sisters of the Poor.

“ In August 2011, not long after [Obama] had repeatedly vowed not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty, his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.” Obama's War on the Little Sisters of the Poor | RealClearPolitics!



“Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions”

Joe Biden Promises to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Fund Abortions - LifeNews.com

Abortion activists were livid yesterday that the Supreme Court protected the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to fund abortions. But presidential candidate Joe Biden has some words of reassurance for them. he promises, if elected, that he will force the Catholic nuns to fund abortions. As...

www.lifenews.com

3. Now, let’s get to the ‘was’ America. How very different the Founders were when we see what the Democrat Party has become.

“George Washington championed freedom for Jews, Catholics, and other religious minorities

…Sephardic Jews who had migrated from Lisbon, Portugal, to Newport, R.I.,…. many Jews in the new United States, numbering only around 2,000 in a total U.S. population of 2.5 million when the American Revolution began, found hope in the words of George Washington and the Founding Fathers on religious liberty and equality under the law.

Soon after Washington arrived in Newport in August 1790, [Moses] Seixas presented him with a letter from the members of Congregation Jeshuat Israel. Accounts differ as to how Seixas delivered the letter. An entry on Founders Online, a digital repository of letters maintained by the National Archives and University of Virginia, speculates that “Seixas probably presented it to GW on the morning of 18 Aug. 1790 when the town and Christian clergy of Newport also delivered addresses to the president.” Yet articles in the authoritative Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia say Washington actually visited the synagogue during that trip.

What is undisputed, however, are the powerful messages of religious freedom and equality under the law from the Jewish congregation’s letter and Washington’s swift response.”
When George Washington Met Moses | National Review



Today we find a Democrat Party that Marx and Stalin would be proud to call their own, one rife with anti-Semitism and biases of all sorts.

You are correct: Politics & Religion (ie, Culture & subCultures) have many links.
In the case of Islamic

Sharp turn from "Judeo-Christian",

but many commonalities in how both Islam and Christianity are imperialist in nature,
rather than national.

This???

During this perennial jihad that began in the seventh century, almost three-quarters of Christendom's original territory – including all of North Africa, Egypt, Greater Syria and Anatolia – was permanently swallowed up by Islam.

European nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim occupation (sometimes for centuries) include: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Iceland, Denmark, England, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta and Sardinia.

Between the 15th and 18th centuries alone, approximately five million Europeans were abducted and enslaved in the name of jihad.”
The Dire Consequences of Rewriting Western-Muslim History



Do you have a similar list for Christianity?

I meant more in the trajectory of Christianity having no national borders enshrined in its 'covenant'.
Islam at least defined the Arabian peninsula for themselves, but there's nothing that prevents
Sharia to apply worldwide, that's the goal, imperialist in nature.

Jewish law is confined to the Promised Land.

Wrong.

Both communism and Islam strive for world domination.


Iran is led by psychopaths who need war and destruction to gain global domination.
"Iran: Their foreign policy is aimed at world domination under the leadership of the 12th Imam.

The Hidden Imam, as he is also known by his followers, will only return after a period of cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed – what Christians call the Apocalypse –


“ The hidden Imam who is expected to return....
....beware of doubting, for to doubt the order of God, the Mighty, the Sublime, is apostasy (Kufr). Ibn Khaldun also states that “ When imprisoned with his mother in the house, he entered a sort of well or pit in the house that his family occupies at Samarrah, Iraq, and there he disappeared, but he is to come forth at the end of the age to fill the earth with justice”.
The Twelfth Imam, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (Al-Mahdi-Sahibuz Zaman) (The hidden Imam who is expected to return)


12th Imam
12th Imam



"IRANIAN CLERIC EBAD MOHAMMADTABAR: WHEN THE HIDDEN IMAM ARRIVES, THE WHOLE WORLD WILL CONVERT TO ISLAM OR DIE; WE WILL CONFRONT, DEFEAT THE JEWS, ZIONISM
October 07, 2019
Iranian Cleric Ebad Mohammadtabar: When the Hidden Imam Arrives, The Whole World Will Convert to Islam or Die; We Will Confront, Defeat the Jews, Zionism


The maniacs look forward to a world conflagration.