This Is Was America

[james bond]

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

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

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

Haha. Nope -- Was George Washington Really Offered a Chance to Be King of the U.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.

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.

Get lost.

 

[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.

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.

Get lost.

Absent your phony, cut and paste ''quotes'', you're really just a buffoon.

 

[alang1216]

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.

It's been said that the more things change the more they stay the same. Government is an expression of society which is us. I don't see them as the problem. Our world is changing. When I was young, most mothers stayed at home, whether they wanted to or not. There was little opportunity for them in the business world. In my generation, most mothers worked, at least part time, so life for me and my kids was different than it was for me. Different is not necessarily worse.

I've lived in the same house for 30 years and I know most of my neighbors, especially if they have dogs too. We have worked to be a part of this community. Our schools are not fenced in but they lock their doors to keep out shooters. Small stores have disappeared but more in reaction to Safeways, Walmarts, Home Depots and Amazon

 

[Taz]

"....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 .

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!

 

[rylah]

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.

Polarized conformity.
I'll ask again, and explain if You can if that's inappropriate,
but what spiritual void does it feel in the story of the American society?

Where lies the need to overcompensate in such polarizing manner?

 

[Meriweather]

Polarized conformity.
I'll ask again, and explain if You can if that's inappropriate,
but what spiritual void does it feel in the story of the American society?

Where lies the need to overcompensate in such polarizing manner?

We may be coming at this from different perspectives. While they were growing up, I taught my daughters that major problems aren't caused by any one thing--look for at least three, and then tackle each one by one. Remember, they may be more, but here are three problems I see that may be contributing not just to the mobs, but also those behind the mobs.

1. No accountability for our elite political leaders. Examples: Susan Rice, under the direction of the sitting President, went on TV and outright lied to America and all nations that the murders in Benghazi were because of a video. No one ever called her into account. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State who was ultimately responsible for the mess, fled to South America for a vacation because of recurring headaches. Everyone, of course, left her alone. Later when legitimate authorities wanted her emails, she destroyed them all. No matter. She wasn't held to account for that either. Then, it takes FOUR YEARS of investigating before someone is charged with changing an email for political benefit. Meanwhile, the rest of us were expected to pay fines for things as small as parking violations or face even bigger penalties. We certainly don't have four years before the law gets around to charging us.

2. Pharmaceuticals. I haven't been to a doctor in thirty years. The last time I went I had an ear infection and knew I needed antibiotics to get it to clear. I told the doctor the problem, and that I also reacted badly even to over-the-counter products. I wanted the mildest antibiotic possible (and yes, even with this I had to endure the rash). He did not even bother to look into my ears, wrote the prescription and then immediately began to give me samples of new products that were shortly due to become over-the-counter medicines to help with my symptoms. This woke me up to what was going on all around me: People going to the doctor or Emergency Room for colds, for sprains, minor aches and pains--and pharmaceutical advertising for any and all kinds of physical problems. Drug pushers for everything. They got rich while our health (most of which can be cared for on our own with proper diet and exercise) got worse. Medicine wasn't satisfied. They wanted more money, and since not all people could afford this, they simply pushed the government to herd them their way and pay the bills.

3. Family division through divorce (or not marrying at all) and abortion and both parents working. Children shuttled off to day care. There is one foundational cause for all of this, and it is actually covered quite well in the final chapters of Genesis. How can we tell when a society is starting to crumble? Instead of sexual discipline, it becomes very loose and undisciplined. It is no longer sex within the boundaries of marriage, there are no boundaries, which of course leads to unwanted pregnancies and abortion. Unfortunately, the past reveals that all societies when faced with a choice of returning to sexual discipline and saving their society, all chose unbridled sex over what was best for the community. So, we are doomed. The past has been written and therefore, so has our future.

The spiritual void comes from ignoring the First Commandment of God is first. He is before political gain, He is before wealth, He is before what self wants personally. The spiritual void is then widened when our fellow man (families, neighbors, colleagues) become secondary to self. So what if day care is not the best option for children...self wants a career. So what if after a divorce children are shuttled between parents because each parent wants his/her own place. (Why don't children get their own place and the parents do the shuttling?)

What void are they trying to fill? They want to fill their emptiness with a higher power. With no belief in God, a dictator becomes acceptable. They want someone to care for them. With uncaring neighbors, opt for a government who says it will take care of them.

(After all of this, aren't you sorry you asked my opinion? )

 

[Gdjjr]

This doesn’t sound quite right.

It's a simplified, succinct version- how it sounds is immaterial. It's History. It is fact. There is evidence to support it.
Conservative is a derivative of "conserve"- (in today's vernacular that is status quo, which is what is played out and we're livig the results since nothing really changes except to place more limits/restrictions from a "central" power)- there were people here who wanted the King style of governance "conserved" into a New Style governance (it was even touted to have George Washington made King)- those who opposed it were, for the most part, Classical Liberals (opponenets of a "central" power)- therefore not "conservative" since they didn't want a *centralized* (conserving/maintaining, if you will) power dominating their lives.

Status quo is BOTH sides *tweaking* unconstitutional power (centralized) to adjust it to a liking of whichever the way the wind is blowing at a point in time. I guess that could be called a balancing, but, as we all know, with age balance becomes a precarious undertaking. And, the Country is aging- it is still an age old thing that some people are scared to death of freedom and there are those who are ready to step in and offer the unattainable to garner a vote.

There are many variables along the way, as with any long path. But, to correct (fix) any problem, real or perceived, or lied about, the root of the problem must be addressed. The root of the problem is education. It can't be implemented any other way. It has to start (come) early and stay late, unwelcomed (therefore forced), to ensure it is completed- that can only be done from a centralized power. The centralized power takes advantage of the improper (read piss poor) education, forced by an unconstitutional power that has but one thing as an agenda. Maintain itself. Self preservation is the highest order of any being. Entity or Individual. The entity, in this case is the centralized control with the alleged authority and unquestionable power to use force, but relies on coercion and threat of force or loss of something (up to and including ones life, not to mention property) to ensure and insure control from a "centralized" power. That, boys and girls is to conserve, i.e., status quo.

 

[Gdjjr]

What void are they trying to fill? They want to fill their emptiness with a higher power. With no belief in God, a dictator becomes acceptable. They want someone to care for them. With uncaring neighbors, opt for a government who says it will take care of them.

Can I ask a sincere question? Why is a "higher power" necessary?

What's wrong with living life, to the best of one's ability and working diligently to leave one's space a little better than they found it? Why does a "higher power" have so many rules and rituals? Working to leave your space a little better than you found it has but one rule and no rituals. Leave your space a little better than you found it. It ain't rocket science difficult. Does one have to have someone else (or a higher power)make a rule to determine for another what "better" describes? Care for one's self. Then one can care for another. Until then it's all show and no substance. Example is the best teacher. Period. Rules and rituals teach rules and rituals and one has to but look around to see the rules and rituals fix nothing. It could be said, and I will say it, just for the record, rules are made to be broken. Some live for it. Some get paid to figure out how and others emulate rule breakers. Some come by it naturally, others learn it and actually pay others to teach them how to break them legally. No "higher power" will change those dynamics. No rules will change them, nor rituals. Only Individual Effort will- and it will not happen over night. Seeds must be sown for fruit to be born. That requires time. A "higher power" will not change, or even have a noticeable impact, on that.
So, why the reliance on a higher power?

 

[norwegen]

This doesn’t sound quite right.

It's a simplified, succinct version- how it sounds is immaterial. It's History. It is fact. There is evidence to support it.
Conservative is a derivative of "conserve"- (in today's vernacular that is status quo, which is what is played out and we're livig the results since nothing really changes except to place more limits/restrictions from a "central" power)- there were people here who wanted the King style of governance "conserved" into a New Style governance (it was even touted to have George Washington made King)- those who opposed it were, for the most part, Classical Liberals (opponenets of a "central" power)- therefore not "conservative" since they didn't want a *centralized* (conserving/maintaining, if you will) power dominating their lives.

Status quo is BOTH sides *tweaking* unconstitutional power (centralized) to adjust it to a liking of whichever the way the wind is blowing at a point in time. I guess that could be called a balancing, but, as we all know, with age balance becomes a precarious undertaking. And, the Country is aging- it is still an age old thing that some people are scared to death of freedom and there are those who are ready to step in and offer the unattainable to garner a vote.

There are many variables along the way, as with any long path. But, to correct (fix) any problem, real or perceived, or lied about, the root of the problem must be addressed. The root of the problem is education. It can't be implemented any other way. It has to start (come) early and stay late, unwelcomed (therefore forced), to ensure it is completed- that can only be done from a centralized power. The centralized power takes advantage of the improper (read piss poor) education, forced by an unconstitutional power that has but one thing as an agenda. Maintain itself. Self preservation is the highest order of any being. Entity or Individual. The entity, in this case is the centralized control with the alleged authority and unquestionable power to use force, but relies on coercion and threat of force or loss of something (up to and including ones life, not to mention property) to ensure and insure control from a "centralized" power. That, boys and girls is to conserve, i.e., status quo.

In retrospect, the classical liberals were the conservatives. But values don’t change just because people change labels. And really, Constitutionalists were calling themselves conservatives early in the 1800s. Conservative values prevailed in the American colonies and in the American founding. Living in a free society of commonwealth states, in fact, the people were not well acquainted with tyranny at all.

In 1843, a contributor to Boston’s The Daily Atlas expressed alarm at the “active, untiring, audacious,” spirit of radicalism creeping into society after the formation of the Democrat Party, contrasting it with the “Conservative portion of the community,” a portion “slow, cautious, and timid in its movements, honest in its intentions, and patriotic in its efforts, but hardly active enough to counteract the vigilant effrontery of its deadly and implacable enemy” that changes the tenure of government and politics “through the basest acts of popular flattery.”1


1. “Conservatism and Radicalism,” The Daily Atlas, Vol. XI, no. 196, Boston, MA, February 16, 1843.

 

[Meriweather]

Can I ask a sincere question? Why is a "higher power" necessary?

What's wrong with living life, to the best of one's ability and working diligently to leave one's space a little better than they found it? Why does a "higher power" have so many rules and rituals? Working to leave your space a little better than you found it has but one rule and no rituals. Leave your space a little better than you found it. It ain't rocket science difficult. Does one have to have someone else (or a higher power)make a rule to determine for another what "better" describes? Care for one's self. Then one can care for another. Until then it's all show and no substance. Example is the best teacher. Period. Rules and rituals teach rules and rituals and one has to but look around to see the rules and rituals fix nothing. It could be said, and I will say it, just for the record, rules are made to be broken. Some live for it. Some get paid to figure out how and others emulate rule breakers. Some come by it naturally, others learn it and actually pay others to teach them how to break them legally. No "higher power" will change those dynamics. No rules will change them, nor rituals. Only Individual Effort will- and it will not happen over night. Seeds must be sown for fruit to be born. That requires time. A "higher power" will not change, or even have a noticeable impact, on that.
So, why the reliance on a higher power?

My perspective: I don't ask if a higher power is necessary, but simply observe what is. In your post, I see many references to a higher power: Your best ability. Leaving things better. Individual effort. Where did those ideals come from? Is it something you invented or created, or was it learned? If it was learned, who was the original teacher, far back in time?

Notice that you list your rules for yourself, but then go on to criticize rules in general. Every single one of us feel that rules are a very good thing--for everyone else. Every single one of us feels we are the exception to the rule. For people in power, there are powerful rules, but the powerful have as little qualm about breaking their powerful rules as we have about sometimes breaking our household or work rules. After all, we found the exception, and we trust ourselves over any rule.

These two things are an ironic dichotomy, are they not?

It is clear that you feel there is something (not necessarily a being, but something) that is greater than you: Leaving things better; effort; teaching by example. Are these rules? What if someone else feels what is here is here for the taking, first come first serve; that others should wait on them; that people can find their own example, not push that responsibility on any other. Are you okay with a great number following those rules?

 

[Gdjjr]

Can I ask a sincere question? Why is a "higher power" necessary?

What's wrong with living life, to the best of one's ability and working diligently to leave one's space a little better than they found it? Why does a "higher power" have so many rules and rituals? Working to leave your space a little better than you found it has but one rule and no rituals. Leave your space a little better than you found it. It ain't rocket science difficult. Does one have to have someone else (or a higher power)make a rule to determine for another what "better" describes? Care for one's self. Then one can care for another. Until then it's all show and no substance. Example is the best teacher. Period. Rules and rituals teach rules and rituals and one has to but look around to see the rules and rituals fix nothing. It could be said, and I will say it, just for the record, rules are made to be broken. Some live for it. Some get paid to figure out how and others emulate rule breakers. Some come by it naturally, others learn it and actually pay others to teach them how to break them legally. No "higher power" will change those dynamics. No rules will change them, nor rituals. Only Individual Effort will- and it will not happen over night. Seeds must be sown for fruit to be born. That requires time. A "higher power" will not change, or even have a noticeable impact, on that.
So, why the reliance on a higher power?

My perspective: I don't ask if a higher power is necessary, but simply observe what is. In your post, I see many references to a higher power: Your best ability. Leaving things better. Individual effort. Where did those ideals come from? Is it something you invented or created, or was it learned? If it was learned, who was the original teacher, far back in time?

Notice that you list your rules for yourself, but then go on to criticize rules in general. Every single one of us feel that rules are a very good thing--for everyone else. Every single one of us feels we are the exception to the rule. For people in power, there are powerful rules, but the powerful have as little qualm about breaking their powerful rules as we have about sometimes breaking our household or work rules. After all, we found the exception, and we trust ourselves over any rule.

These two things are an ironic dichotomy, are they not?

It is clear that you feel there is something (not necessarily a being, but something) that is greater than you: Leaving things better; effort; teaching by example. Are these rules? What if someone else feels what is here is here for the taking, first come first serve; that others should wait on them; that people can find their own example, not push that responsibility on any other. Are you okay with a great number following those rules?

It seems you're attempting to read way more into simplicity than is required. Is that to justify your beliefs or trying to denigrate what I know to be true? Example is the best teacher. Period. That doesn't require esoteric knowledge.

The saying is what I came up with through observation. The Individual is ALWAYS the one remembered. Period. Nothing happens without Individual effort. Period. The fact that seeds bear fruit is undeniable. Any action, good, bad or indifferent will be emulated, in some small way, in a sphere of influence which can be extrapolated to a society- there are no rules, or rituals involved. Period. The Individual, not an entity, (gov't or church or political group), decides what is "better" for anyone other than themselves, which could be as simple as butter on bread.

And you didn't answer my question. Why the need for a "higher power"? To give an excuse for bad behavior and someone/something to beg forgiveness from for said bad behavior? Why? Like I said, it ain't rocket science.
There's absolutely nothing esoteric about it. No need to make the simple difficult. No rules no rituals to ensure (or insure) forgiveness when one strives to leave his space a little better than he found it.

Humans, have been referring and deferring to a "higher power", since forever. And here we are with the same problems that have always plagued man. I guess the "higher powers" are too busy to bother with we mere mortals who find ways to circumvent rules and make rituals prevalent in a society grasping onto itself for dear life.

 

[Gdjjr]

In retrospect, the classical liberals were the conservatives.

Retrospect? TODAY?! Conserve is to keep. In political vernacular, that is status quo. The Founders were Classical Liberals- the polar opposite of Conservatives, today and yesterday, had strongly differing opinions on federalism- Classical Liberals wanted new and different. Not "status quo". Had that been the desire George Washington would have been a King (status quo) and not a POTUS. They fought a war, some giving their life and fortunes, to stop a centrally controlled gov't from interfering in their daily lives. Yet, here we are. Gov't interference in everything we do. From light bulbs to commodes.

The constitution would not have been ratified had the Bill of Rights not been put in at the very top of the list. Those "constitutionally protected rights" were not the same old, same old, status quo. The "conservatives" agreed and ratified the document- the anti-federalist beliefs (hard core Classical Liberals, not lip service classical liberals) were mirrored in the Bill of Rights which were not there prior.
Anti-federlist abhorred federalism. Federalism is what we're operating under and the anti- fedralist wrote long letters expressing their concerns- and they were correct. We're living the results. Securing Liberty is defunct in the Federal Government. It deems itself an omnipotent, an ultimate, central, authority, although that power was not granted in the original document. The "status quo" has put us in that position. BOTH sides subscribe to the borrow to spend to perpetuate a global hegemony and world colonization with Military Bases as the colonies, spreading the "borrowed" Federal Reserve Notes approved by the "status quo" (central power) abdicating their "granted authority" to coin money and set the value there of- BOTH SIDES. The turn over is very small- it is a self perpetuating Criminal organization and I seriously doubt that was the intent of the anti-federalist.

 

[Erinwltr]

....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.

"....prior to the neo-Marxist take-over." What specific date?

 

[Meriweather]

It seems you're attempting to read way more into simplicity than is required. Is that to justify your beliefs or trying to denigrate what I know to be true? Example is the best teacher. Period. That doesn't require esoteric knowledge.

How do you get "justification" from pointing out that in learning from example, one has to first have the example to follow? What do you see me justifying here? Which one of my beliefs? Are you sure you even know any of my beliefs?

 

[Meriweather]

And you didn't answer my question. Why the need for a "higher power"?

And I said, "My perspective: I don't ask if a higher power is necessary, but simply observe what is."

 

[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 Declaration of Independence is a stirring document and it’s importance to the theme of this nation is noted. However, it remains (I believe undeniable), that the DOI is not a legal document with respect to the laws of the United States. It is the Constitution that establishes the legal framework of the country.

 

[Meriweather]

Humans, have been referring and deferring to a "higher power", since forever. And here we are with the same problems that have always plagued man. I guess the "higher powers" are too busy to bother with we mere mortals who find ways to circumvent rules and make rituals prevalent in a society grasping onto itself for dear life.

And there are some humans, since forever, lack a belief in God, if that is what you are referring to when you say, "Higher Power." All my life there have been believers and non-believers in my family. While good parents do the best they can to pass on lessons they have learned, the hard truth is that every child has to learn some lessons the hard way--through personal experience. There is also the the reality of a changing world and people learning to deal with those changes

 

[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 .

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!

Sure I can. The TRUTH is Donald Trump will beat Joe Biden and have another four years unless the Democrats cheat in voting. It would be a trickle down victory for creationists and creation science. Maybe they'll start to teach it again in schools instead of science by consensus.

 

[Hollie]

"....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 .

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!

Sure I can. The TRUTH is Donald Trump will beat Joe Biden and have another four years unless the Democrats cheat in voting. It would be a trickle down victory for creationists and creation science. Maybe they'll start to teach it again in schools instead of science by consensus.

The answer is no. Creation nonsense is not going to be taught in public schools.