This Is Was America

[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?

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

Is that Your 'Temple'?

What safeguards the holly in America, when people stray spiritually?

 

[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.

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.

And the 'Universal church' doesn't?
Tell me how the Christian identity typically crosses national borders...

 

[norwegen]

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?

True enough, but we should remember that no religion except Christianity was represented either at Independence Hall or the Constitutional Convention. The Americans’ progress toward liberty and prosperity and a more harmonious union generally hinged largely on such common values.

Lawyer and jurist Joseph Story wrote that the real object of the First Amendment, in addition to prohibiting a state church, “was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.”1

Judaism doesn’t prostrate Christianity, BTW, but Islam does.

The Christian faith was the only faith of any relevance in America’s formation. Historian Mark Noll said, “the colonial background of the new states was so overwhelmingly Protestant that it was simply assumed that such things as Sunday legislation, laws prohibiting atheism and promoting public morals, and the regular use of Christian language by government officials were appropriate.”2


1 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United states, (Quid Pro Books 2013), Kindle e-book.
2 Quoted from Larry Schweikart, 48 Liberal Lies about American History (New York: Penguin Group, 2009) 75.

 

[alang1216]

Ideology may win a battle but never a war.

That is because your reality will insist on beating down the ideal to settle for good enough...which never is.

My reality? I thought there was only one.

 

[rylah]

I hope it doesn't get across as if I try to cynically bite at things so dear to Americans,
as an Israeli, I might have crossed the polite line in this conversation at the door,
but these seem basic philosophical questions are close to heart here as well.

I don't assume to know, show me what I'm missing.
You talk in 'Jude-Christian' terms, I'm an Israeli - let's talk Judeo.

OTOH "to Ceasar..." OTOH Parliamentary-Monarchy (to be) and Temple.

Show me how America solved this without cutting off the holly from public sphere, the national.


Prayer time, later.

 

[norwegen]

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.

This doesn’t sound quite right.

Since the likes of such explorers as Thomas Harriot set foot in the New World, British Americans had grown increasingly Whiggish. Unlike the Tories, who supported the king as the head of both civil and ecclesiastical adjudication, the Whigs believed in power shared between the Crown, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. An unchecked sovereign, in their minds, was dangerous. The word “Tory” reminded them of the Irish word for “outlaw.”

The Whigs believed in distributed power, or better, in limited power, just like conservatives do.

 

[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.

Is that Your 'Temple'?

What safeguards the holly in America, when people stray spiritually?

I've explained your mistake to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.

 

[Meriweather]

True enough, but we should remember that no religion except Christianity was represented either at Independence Hall or the Constitutional Convention. The Americans’ progress toward a liberty and prosperity and a more harmonious union generally hinged largely on such common values.

This is true, but it is also true they certainly opened the door for other religions to potentially become as common--or more common--than Christianity.

 

[Meriweather]

My reality? I thought there was only one.

Whether there is only one reality might be a nice discussion!

However, my intent was only to reference what you brought up, i.e. "reality".

 

[norwegen]

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!

The law that Jesus fulfilled does not include Talmudic or rabbinic law. He fulfilled temple law, which collapsed when the temple collapsed. Not only did that law end, but it was also Jewish law; Romans, Northern Europeans, far-east Asians, and Canaanites were never subject to it.

Jesus fulfilled that law because that law could not redeem the Israelites from the law of sin and death. As holy, righteous, and good as the Mosaic Law was, it was not sufficient to salvation.

Christian tradition springs from Jewish tradition in that sense. The new Israel, the new Jerusalem, the kingdom of God, now includes proselytes and former pagans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. "Pelosi endorses jihad Jew-hating Rep. Omar for re-election
....Pelosi could have endorsed Omar’s much more moderate primary opponent Antone Melton-Meaux. She won’t do that. To Speaker Pelosi Jewish lives don’t matter. They never have. That is because no matter how badly the Democrat Party betray’s their Jewish voters, Speaker Pelosi could always count on them for their votes and obscene amounts of money. Shame on any Jewish American who supports the Democrat Party. #EXODUS! "
Pelosi endorses jihad Jew-hating Rep. Omar for re-election - Geller Report News
Party of hate.
gellerreport.com




10. Seems a regular thing with Democrats.

“On August 21, 1991, …. an enraged black mob shouting “Kill the Jews” waged an all-out riot, beating and robbing scores of defenseless Jews and smashing Jewish property….response to a full-scale civil disturbance was to let the rioters “vent.”” Rabbi Avi Weiss: Remembering The Carnage, Crises And Politics Of The Crown Heights Riots



Democrat NYC Mayor David Dinkins allowed a actual pogrom by blacks against the Jewish community. “John Taylor, writing in New York magazine in 1993, noted that “Not only were Jews singled out for attack — a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a pogrom — but just as happened during Kristallnacht, the anti-Semitic rampage seemed to the Jews on the streets to have official sanction. Police on patrol in Crown Heights, threatened with suspension if they moved from their designated positions, at times did nothing to stop the violence they observed. It is a frightening enough experience to be in danger and feel that the people who are supposed to protect you are present but will not protect you.”

There was the perception that Mayor David Dinkins’ “courteous demeanor,” added New York magazine, “masks a racial bitterness,” a belief “that the expression of black rage was, up to a point, justified … he was fearful of alienating his black base, and wanted,” until it became impossible, “to avoid siding with whites in a race riot.” What The ‘Pogrom’ Wrought


A central player in instigating the pogrom was Democrat Obama’s close friend, Democrat Al Sharpton.

See that common denominator?

 

[norwegen]

True enough, but we should remember that no religion except Christianity was represented either at Independence Hall or the Constitutional Convention. The Americans’ progress toward a liberty and prosperity and a more harmonious union generally hinged largely on such common values.

This is true, but it is also true they certainly opened the door for other religions to potentially become as common--or more common--than Christianity.

I don't think so. They were aware of Native American cosmologies, but ignored them. Though now present in America via the slave trade, Islam also remained negligible and ignored in American culture. The only faith the Americans had any concern for at all was Christianity (and maybe Judaism a little bit). They did not envision opposing cosmologies infiltrating their first principles.

 

[alang1216]

My reality? I thought there was only one.

Whether there is only one reality might be a nice discussion!

However, my intent was only to reference what you brought up, i.e. "reality".

Ahh, so if reality is only 'good enough' you wouldn't accept it. Ok, that is your right.

 

[Hollie]

....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.

1. Actually, America was founded with the signing of the Constitution.

2. There are no judeo-Christian gods identified anywhere within the text of the Constitution that sets the basic framework for the nation.

3. As your participation in threads is limited to cutting and pasting “quotes”, you wouldn’t know that.

 

[norwegen]

....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.

1. Actually, America was founded with the signing of the Constitution.

No it wasn't.

 

[Meriweather]

Ahh, so if reality is only 'good enough' you wouldn't accept it. Ok, that is your right.

What I am saying is reality can always be improved upon until it becomes closer to the ideal. I think, as a society, too many are satisfied, not with the ideal, but are willing to settle for a reality of good enough. What say you?

 

[Hollie]

....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.

1. Actually, America was founded with the signing of the Constitution.

No it wasn't.

Oh, well. If you say so.

However, the legal basis for the nation, how the nation functions and what its limits are, has been, and always will be the Constitution, and all arguments regarding what the nation is permitted to do is contained within that document (with a nod to expansion vis a vis constitutional amendments). So yes, America was founded with the signing of the Constitution.

 

[norwegen]

....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.

1. Actually, America was founded with the signing of the Constitution.

No it wasn't.

Oh, well. If you say so.

However, the legal basis for the nation, how the nation functions and what its limits are, has been, and always will be the Constitution, and all arguments regarding what the nation is permitted to do is contained within that document (with a nod to expansion vis a vis constitutional amendments). So yes, America was founded with the signing of the Constitution.

Ha ha ha. Rationalize all you want, but the nation had already existed for eleven years before the Constitutional Convention.

America's first codified document - its charter - mentions and honors God no fewer than four times.

 

[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.

1. Actually, America was founded with the signing of the Constitution.

No it wasn't.

Oh, well. If you say so.

However, the legal basis for the nation, how the nation functions and what its limits are, has been, and always will be the Constitution, and all arguments regarding what the nation is permitted to do is contained within that document (with a nod to expansion vis a vis constitutional amendments). So yes, America was founded with the signing of the Constitution.

Ha ha ha. Rationalize all you want, but the nation had already existed for eleven years before the Constitutional Convention.

America's first codified document - its charter - mentions and honors God no fewer than four times.

If you don't mind....

There are four references to ‘Divine’ in D of I…
1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.

 

[alang1216]

Ahh, so if reality is only 'good enough' you wouldn't accept it. Ok, that is your right.

What I am saying is reality can always be improved upon until it becomes closer to the ideal. I think, as a society, too many are satisfied, not with the ideal, but are willing to settle for a reality of good enough. What say you?

I think an example might be useful. If you are thinking of engineering, building a bridge that is 'good enough' to hold up for 100 years may be preferable to one that would last 1,000 years but cost 10 times as much. When it comes to making laws compromise is important and we usually have to settle for 'good enough'.