This Is Was America

[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.

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.

Ha ha ha. A charter is not the legal framework of this nation. It is the Constitution that defines the framework of the Federal Government of this nation. The body of the Constitution, the articles which establish said framework makes no mention of Jeebus and / or Christian gods.

 

[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.

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.

Correct. There is no mention of any of the Christian gods.

Can you cut and paste a ‘quote” to address why the framers of the Constitution somehow forgot to include mention of the Christian gods in that document?

Maybe they forgot?

 

[Meriweather]

When it comes to making laws compromise is important and we usually have to settle for 'good enough'.

Which law(s) are you thinking of where compromise was/is necessary?

 

[alang1216]

When it comes to making laws compromise is important and we usually have to settle for 'good enough'.

Which law(s) are you thinking of where compromise was/is necessary?

Every law. Gun control, abortion, taxes, environmental regulations, etc.

 

[LittleNipper]

....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.

Correct. There is no mention of any of the Christian gods.

Can you cut and paste a ‘quote” to address why the framers of the Constitution somehow forgot to include mention of the Christian gods in that document?

Maybe they forgot?

The mention of GOD is initially mentioned in the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE
Eugene Volokh
July 5, 2015 at 4:07 p.m. EDT
People occasionally debate the degree to which the Declaration of Independence relies on religious references. The familiar “their Creator,” in “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” near the beginning of the Declaration refer to God; but some argue that it just refers to a “watchmaker God” who set up the universe — and a natural order from which natural rights are inferred — and then left it alone.

But this misses, I think, the less well-known phrase that starts the last paragraph: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions ….” (The last paragraph also speaks of “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”)
This isn’t just God as Creator — it’s God as Judge, who apparently isn’t leaving the world alone but is judging it. It needn’t be seen as limited to a specifically Christian, or even Judeo-Christian God, but (unsurprisingly) it seems to be tracking at least two of that god’s major attributes.

It’s also worth recalling that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Jefferson drafted a year later, included similarly religious language. As introduced in 1779, it read (emphasis added),

Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested His supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time. …

This doesn’t refer to God the Judge (though it doesn’t deny that theory, either), but does speak not just of God the Creator but of God the Almighty, God the Holy, and God the Lord Both of Body and Mind — words of reverence to a God who is present in people’s lives, and not just one who made the world a long time ago. (The three accomplishments that Jefferson asked to be listed on his epitaph were that he was “Author of the Declaration of American Independence,” author “of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom,” and “Father of the University of Virginia.”)
Now what Jefferson actually believed can be contested. Lawyers and politicians often craft persuasive arguments that are aimed at fitting the audience’s beliefs, even if they depart in some measure from the speaker’s own. But it does, I think, help indicate just how pervasive religious language was in governmental documents of the time — and how legitimate such language was seen as being — including in documents drafted even by Jefferson himself, who is often seen as one of the more religion-skeptical leaders of that era. I myself am not religious, but it’s hard for me to deny that the Framing generation was quite comfortable with not just religious but even theological rhetoric in government speech.

How much this — and other evidence like it — should influence our modern view about what the Establishment Clause allows or forbids by way of religious government speech is a complicated matter. But if one thinks that historical practice is at all relevant here, then it’s worth remembering not just the opening lines of the Declaration but its closing ones as well.
UPDATE: I originally focused on “the Creator” from the beginning of the Declaration, since “Nature’s God” seemed to me to be much in the same vein; but a comment persuaded that I should expressly mention both, so I revised the post accordingly. I also added the “divine Providence” passage, likewise for the sake of completeness.

 

[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.

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.

Correct. There is no mention of any of the Christian gods.

Can you cut and paste a ‘quote” to address why the framers of the Constitution somehow forgot to include mention of the Christian gods in that document?

Maybe they forgot?

The mention of GOD is initially mentioned in the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE
Eugene Volokh
July 5, 2015 at 4:07 p.m. EDT
People occasionally debate the degree to which the Declaration of Independence relies on religious references. The familiar “their Creator,” in “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” near the beginning of the Declaration refer to God; but some argue that it just refers to a “watchmaker God” who set up the universe — and a natural order from which natural rights are inferred — and then left it alone.

But this misses, I think, the less well-known phrase that starts the last paragraph: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions ….” (The last paragraph also speaks of “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”)
This isn’t just God as Creator — it’s God as Judge, who apparently isn’t leaving the world alone but is judging it. It needn’t be seen as limited to a specifically Christian, or even Judeo-Christian God, but (unsurprisingly) it seems to be tracking at least two of that god’s major attributes.

It’s also worth recalling that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Jefferson drafted a year later, included similarly religious language. As introduced in 1779, it read (emphasis added),

Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested His supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time. …

This doesn’t refer to God the Judge (though it doesn’t deny that theory, either), but does speak not just of God the Creator but of God the Almighty, God the Holy, and God the Lord Both of Body and Mind — words of reverence to a God who is present in people’s lives, and not just one who made the world a long time ago. (The three accomplishments that Jefferson asked to be listed on his epitaph were that he was “Author of the Declaration of American Independence,” author “of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom,” and “Father of the University of Virginia.”)
Now what Jefferson actually believed can be contested. Lawyers and politicians often craft persuasive arguments that are aimed at fitting the audience’s beliefs, even if they depart in some measure from the speaker’s own. But it does, I think, help indicate just how pervasive religious language was in governmental documents of the time — and how legitimate such language was seen as being — including in documents drafted even by Jefferson himself, who is often seen as one of the more religion-skeptical leaders of that era. I myself am not religious, but it’s hard for me to deny that the Framing generation was quite comfortable with not just religious but even theological rhetoric in government speech.

How much this — and other evidence like it — should influence our modern view about what the Establishment Clause allows or forbids by way of religious government speech is a complicated matter. But if one thinks that historical practice is at all relevant here, then it’s worth remembering not just the opening lines of the Declaration but its closing ones as well.
UPDATE: I originally focused on “the Creator” from the beginning of the Declaration, since “Nature’s God” seemed to me to be much in the same vein; but a comment persuaded that I should expressly mention both, so I revised the post accordingly. I also added the “divine Providence” passage, likewise for the sake of completeness.

The bottom line is really very simple: If the founders had wanted the nascent nation they envisioned to be a "Christian nation", they could have stated that in the Constitution.

 

[Bush92]

....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.

Greatest nation ever conceived by man... until liberals (aka Marxist) began to destroy it in the 1960's.

 

[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.

Greatest nation ever conceived by man... until liberals (aka Marxist) began to destroy it in the 1960's.

I certainly can see your point.

I've read some interesting explanations....


1. One interesting explanation involves the numbers of individual coming of age at the time, who must be civilized by their families, schools, and churches. A particularly large wave may swamp the institutions responsible for teaching traditions and standards.

1. 1. “Rathenau called [this] ‘the vertical invasion of the barbarians.’” Jose Ortega y Gasset, “The Revolt of the Masses,” p. 53. The baby boomers were a generation so large that they formed their own culture. The generation from 1922-1947 numbered 43.6 million, while that of 1946-1964 had 79 million. Would it surprise anyone if this culture was opposed to that of their parents?
2. The human attempt for self-gratification is usually kept in check, within bounds, by religion, morality, law, and, by the necessity to work hard based on the fear of want. Much of the former was removed by the French Revolution, and in modern America, and another restriction was removed by the rising affluence of the last century; suppressed by WWI, and then by the Depression, but released by the 9-year expansion of the 1960’s. The effect of affluence was increased, multiplied, by the fact that parents, who had known the hardships of the Depression, and WWII, were determined to give their children every comfort that they could.
   1. A leader of SDS wrote :” Without thinking about it, we all took the fat of the land for granted.” Todd Gitlin, “The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage,” p. 104
   2. Rage fueled by money, unlike previous generations, they cared not that either lack of study, or unacceptable behavior, as barriers in their futures. They would travel, organize, incite from campus to campus.
3. Affluence brings the boredom of a life built on consumption, devoid of meaning. The only thing many were wanting for…is ‘want’ itself and saw suburbia as a great wasteland. The power of boredom is a much underrated emotion. The anodyne for this ‘ache’ often includes alcohol, narcotics, cruelty, pornography, violence…and zealotry in a political cause.
   1. A Peter Berger quote of the times: “…not so much motivated by sympathy with black people in slums and yellow people in rice paddies as by boredom with Connecticut.” Berger and Neuhaus, “Movement and Revolution,” p. 60
4. Gitlin, once a leader of SDS, revealed that his generation was, to a degree, shaped by the understanding that it’s a “rock bottom fact that life ends.” (Gitlin, p. 34) Having lost the meaning that religion often gives, radical politics became a substitute, a way to seek meaning. With the understanding that modern liberalism is, to its proponents, a matter of faith, one can understand why rational argument is less than persuasive. Nor, even, is experience.

 

[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?

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

What I see is pointing fingers at a common direction Islamists/Marxists/Militant Atheists,

and no introspection.

So let me ask it differently: what spiritual void do these ideologies fill?

 

[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.

What I see is pointing fingers at a common direction Islamists/Marxists/Militant Atheists,

and no introspection.

So let me ask it differently: what spiritual void do these ideologies fill?

"What I see is ...."

Your 'sight' is akin to that of a block of wood.


Who said there was anything 'spiritual' about Militant Secularists?

 

[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?

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

What I see is pointing fingers at a common direction Islamists/Marxists/Militant Atheists,

and no introspection.

So let me ask it differently: what spiritual void do these ideologies fill?

"What I see is ...."

Your 'sight' is akin to that of a block of wood.


Who said there was anything 'spiritual' about Militant Secularists?

Strange that You have to resort to personal name calling (projecting much?).
Even the biggest lie has a spark of truth and life to it, from which it gets its existence.
All these are waiting to be corrected, but can't if You see the world in simplistic black and white.

So what is the void they're filling?

 

[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.

What I see is pointing fingers at a common direction Islamists/Marxists/Militant Atheists,

and no introspection.

So let me ask it differently: what spiritual void do these ideologies fill?

"What I see is ...."

Your 'sight' is akin to that of a block of wood.


Who said there was anything 'spiritual' about Militant Secularists?

Strange that You have to resort to personal name calling (projecting?).
Even the biggest lie has a spark of truth and life to it, from which it gets its existence.
All these are waiting to be corrected, but can't if You see the world in simplistic black and white.

So what is the void they're filling?

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve



The beatings will continue until I see the light of learning on your part….and then they will continue for the sheer joy of it.

 

[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?

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

What I see is pointing fingers at a common direction Islamists/Marxists/Militant Atheists,

and no introspection.

So let me ask it differently: what spiritual void do these ideologies fill?

"What I see is ...."

Your 'sight' is akin to that of a block of wood.


Who said there was anything 'spiritual' about Militant Secularists?

Strange that You have to resort to personal name calling (projecting?).
Even the biggest lie has a spark of truth and life to it, from which it gets its existence.
All these are waiting to be corrected, but can't if You see the world in simplistic black and white.

So what is the void they're filling?

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve



The beatings will continue until I see the light of learning on your part….and then they will continue for the sheer joy of it.

You're starting to sound irrational and arrogant.

I keep asking simple questions...You don't seem to want to answer.

 

[rylah]

Who said there was anything 'spiritual' about Militant Secularists?

Ponder on this question... its right in Your face, self telling.

It wouldn't be as strong without a spark of a (rejected) fundamental spiritual truth in it.

 

[rylah]

When people miss (reject) sparks of truth,
because of jumping at the obvious...

 

[Meriweather]

So what is the void they're filling?

Or, perhaps, what void are they expanding, hoping if they dig deeper, they might find something, the something government takes away in the name of progress. Start with something simple like zoning laws. All the cottage industries of people working out of their homes, suddenly have to move their business downtown, which means no one is there to watch the kids. These children had been used to gathering with all the other neighborhood children in quite a large area because there was no fencing between houses. Hairdressers, nurses, repairmen, bakers, seamstresses, tailors, you name it were around their houses and someone was sure to see any dust up between the kids. Dogs, also, kept a close eye on their charges. If there was a dust up between adults, and the the police chief was called, he grabbed--not a gun, but a bag of cookies--and was on his way to make things right. No TV, of course, so summer evenings were spent strolling or on one's porch, chatting with whatever groups happened to form that night.
Then with cities growing, zoning laws became popular everywhere and the cottage industries were force to move to a business district. Along with that, leash laws were mandated, which meant people had to build fences. Kids, who were used to freely playing were gathered up and put in day care because no one was home to watch out for them. The police chief, who wasn't too interested in enforcing zoning and leash laws was replaced with men who showed up with guns instead of cookies. All in the name of government and orderliness--homes here, businesses there, dogs contained..

My grandparents knew everyone around them, the names of the children, even the names of the dogs. Then suddenly, zoning and leash laws and the advent of television made quite a change.

Yeah, think Mayberry, but remember that tight of community life isn't always idyllic. Gossip, people remembering those who are now seniors in high school wetting their pants when they were in first grade. Still, I think it may be community that is missing. How many of us know all the neighbors on our own street, let alone for blocks around. Do we know the names of the children, let alone the names of their cats and dogs? Instead of the outdoors, children are more used to being surrounded by walls, or if not walls, then fences. Recently, all of our schools have had to be completely fenced in for safety reasons. Walls and fences and media screens. No wonder our young adults and children have this gut feeling something is missing. They are in a prison, and instinctively they want out. However, more government is not the way to resolve this issue. Government is what started it.

 

[rylah]

So what is the void they're filling?

Or, perhaps, what void are they expanding, hoping if they dig deeper, they might find something, the something government takes away in the name of progress. Start with something simple like zoning laws. All the cottage industries of people working out of their homes, suddenly have to move their business downtown, which means no one is there to watch the kids. These children had been used to gathering with all the other neighborhood children in quite a large area because there was no fencing between houses. Hairdressers, nurses, repairmen, bakers, seamstresses, tailors, you name it were around their houses and someone was sure to see any dust up between the kids. Dogs, also, kept a close eye on their charges. If there was a dust up between adults, and the the police chief was called, he grabbed--not a gun, but a bag of cookies--and was on his way to make things right. No TV, of course, so summer evenings were spent strolling or on one's porch, chatting with whatever groups happened to form that night.
Then with cities growing, zoning laws became popular everywhere and the cottage industries were force to move to a business district. Along with that, leash laws were mandated, which meant people had to build fences. Kids, who were used to freely playing were gathered up and put in day care because no one was home to watch out for them. The police chief, who wasn't too interested in enforcing zoning and leash laws was replaced with men who showed up with guns instead of cookies. All in the name of government and orderliness--homes here, businesses there, dogs contained..

My grandparents knew everyone around them, the names of the children, even the names of the dogs. Then suddenly, zoning and leash laws and the advent of television made quite a change.

Yeah, think Mayberry, but remember that tight of community life isn't always idyllic. Gossip, people remembering those who are now seniors in high school wetting their pants when they were in first grade. Still, I think it may be community that is missing. How many of us know all the neighbors on our own street, let alone for blocks around. Do we know the names of the children, let alone the names of their cats and dogs? Instead of the outdoors, children are more used to being surrounded by walls, or if not walls, then fences. Recently, all of our schools have had to be completely fenced in for safety reasons. Walls and fences and media screens. No wonder our young adults and children have this gut feeling something is missing. They are in a prison, and instinctively they want out. However, more government is not the way to resolve this issue. Government is what started it.

Community comes on the basis of connecting to forefathers.
What I sense in Your post is a strong sense of family in the nation that extends to community.

May I ask how old are You? And how You interpret identity politics in this context?

 

[LittleNipper]

....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.

Correct. There is no mention of any of the Christian gods.

Can you cut and paste a ‘quote” to address why the framers of the Constitution somehow forgot to include mention of the Christian gods in that document?

Maybe they forgot?

The mention of GOD is initially mentioned in the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE
Eugene Volokh
July 5, 2015 at 4:07 p.m. EDT
People occasionally debate the degree to which the Declaration of Independence relies on religious references. The familiar “their Creator,” in “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” near the beginning of the Declaration refer to God; but some argue that it just refers to a “watchmaker God” who set up the universe — and a natural order from which natural rights are inferred — and then left it alone.

But this misses, I think, the less well-known phrase that starts the last paragraph: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions ….” (The last paragraph also speaks of “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”)
This isn’t just God as Creator — it’s God as Judge, who apparently isn’t leaving the world alone but is judging it. It needn’t be seen as limited to a specifically Christian, or even Judeo-Christian God, but (unsurprisingly) it seems to be tracking at least two of that god’s major attributes.

It’s also worth recalling that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Jefferson drafted a year later, included similarly religious language. As introduced in 1779, it read (emphasis added),

Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested His supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time. …

This doesn’t refer to God the Judge (though it doesn’t deny that theory, either), but does speak not just of God the Creator but of God the Almighty, God the Holy, and God the Lord Both of Body and Mind — words of reverence to a God who is present in people’s lives, and not just one who made the world a long time ago. (The three accomplishments that Jefferson asked to be listed on his epitaph were that he was “Author of the Declaration of American Independence,” author “of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom,” and “Father of the University of Virginia.”)
Now what Jefferson actually believed can be contested. Lawyers and politicians often craft persuasive arguments that are aimed at fitting the audience’s beliefs, even if they depart in some measure from the speaker’s own. But it does, I think, help indicate just how pervasive religious language was in governmental documents of the time — and how legitimate such language was seen as being — including in documents drafted even by Jefferson himself, who is often seen as one of the more religion-skeptical leaders of that era. I myself am not religious, but it’s hard for me to deny that the Framing generation was quite comfortable with not just religious but even theological rhetoric in government speech.

How much this — and other evidence like it — should influence our modern view about what the Establishment Clause allows or forbids by way of religious government speech is a complicated matter. But if one thinks that historical practice is at all relevant here, then it’s worth remembering not just the opening lines of the Declaration but its closing ones as well.
UPDATE: I originally focused on “the Creator” from the beginning of the Declaration, since “Nature’s God” seemed to me to be much in the same vein; but a comment persuaded that I should expressly mention both, so I revised the post accordingly. I also added the “divine Providence” passage, likewise for the sake of completeness.

The bottom line is really very simple: If the founders had wanted the nascent nation they envisioned to be a "Christian nation", they could have stated that in the Constitution.

Most people back then were "Christian". They never imagined the hedonistic excuse for the likes of society we have today. I'm sure they would have been both embarrassed and appalled. The town I live in is barely one mile square --- dates back to the 17th century, and yet it contains, a Quaker Meeting House, the Anglican church (Chartered by the King of England), The Baptist church, The Episcopal Methodist church, The Presbyterian church, The Seventh Day Adventist church, and The Roman Catholic church. My guess is that the Founding Fathers simply didn't wish to have to place one denomination above another. And the truth be told, the Continental Congress likely represented a variety of denominations among its members. It is also a fact that most Anglican parishioners took on the term "Deists" because they wanted to sever ALL ties with the KING of England who was the Head of that church.

 

[Meriweather]

Community comes on the basis of connecting to forefathers.
What I sense in Your post is a strong sense of family in the nation that extends to community.

May I ask how old are You? And how You interpret identity politics in this context?

Families are never that simple, and both my paternal and maternal sides were somewhat complex. Perhaps what you see me doing is being an observer of what is best and strongest from both sides. I am 65.

The reason I am uneasy about identity politics is because it is not a good thing to categorize any person. There arises the expectation no one in that group should march to a different drummer, and worse, they are in danger of being stereotyped. Worst of all, when any group is boxed, here come the do-gooders descending upon them to solve all their problems. The condescension is sickening...that outsiders will make things better because they imagine those within that particular box cannot resolve their own issues. Then there is the manipulation factor of pitting one group against the other.

People need to feel free to grow and to change, to grow in individuality so that they may be the best person possible for him/her to be. That individuality among the family and community is what helps make them strong. My opinion.

 

[james bond]

"....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over" of Donald Trump.

Immediately after a fine and intelligent post, we get one of the most idiotic posts in the galaxy .