mmm I bet it was mildly entertaining to the
young ones. For some reason, reading that
made me recollect a grandfather I never knew.

Hey 'feral', this is so great!!!

Your 'outburst' just put me in touch with such a rich memory of my beloved 'grandfather'!!!

At family gatherings, he was the ultimate patriarch! Entertaining everyone with war , business, or '...Last time President, or Senator so and so called me for advice!!!...' stories.

After dinner, and with quite a few glasses of his favorite wine flowing through his bloodstream, GranPa would sit with all of us in the large family room, or huge outdoor deck,
... and fall asleep in his favorite chair, often with a 'Monte-Cristo' hanging in the corner of his mouth!

This is the part where you reminded of him 'feral'.
In the middle of his snooze, DISCONNECTED that he was from what everyone else was saying around him, he would raise up from his chair and loudly profess something like ...

'... FREEDOM!!! FREEDOM!!! Fight for FREEDOM with all your heart, and every once of energy, or risk dying from facism!!!...'

He would sit right back down in his chair, not having lost a wink of sleep!

Everyone would kind of be silent for the 15 seconds it took him to deliver his 'non-sequitour' comment. Some would be betting on prediciting the exact time it would happen after dinner, others would matter of factly warn the youngs ones not to talk during the 'moment', and each conversations would carry on from the exact point they were interrupted.

Everyone would get a chuckle out of 'granpa's non-sequitours'.

The comments never really meant anything, nor were they seeking to be addressed or answered, but they so 'out-of-the-blue' entertaining!!!

An outburst yeah!

I never said, or implied I didn't like it!!! What you believe and how you believe is your business. Passing any form of judgment over such is a 'divine' waste of time!!!

It is the the 'out-of-left-fiel-non-sequitor' outburst that my comment was addressing.

And NO! I don't find anything wrong with your non-sequitor comments, as was the case with my 'grandpapa's' non-sequitors!!!

Ok...back to the topic of sharing on the history of religions.....
before sharing on the history of christianity,
thought I'd start with the history of Judiasm first.

........................

Early History of Judaism

Circa 2000 BCE, the G-d of the ancient Israelites established a divine covenant with Abraham, making him the patriarch of many nations. From his name, the term Abramic Religions is derived; these are the three religions which trace their roots back to Abraham: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The book of Genesis describes the events surrounding the lives of the four patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Moses was the next leader. He led his people out of captivity in Egypt, and received the Law from G-d. After decades of wandering through wilderness, Joshua led the tribes into the promised land, driving out the Canaanites through a series of military battles.

The original tribal organization was converted into a Kingdom by Samuel; its first king was Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the religious and political center. The third king, Solomon built the first temple there.

Division into the Northern kingdom of Israel and the Southern kingdom of Judah occurred shortly after the death of Solomon in 922 BCE. Israel fell to Assyria in 722 BCE; Judah fell to the Babylonians in 587 BCE. The temple was destroyed. Some Jews returned from captivity under the Babylonians and started to restore the temple in 536 BCE. Alexander the Great invaded the area in 332 BCE. From circa 300 to 63 BCE, Greek became the language of commerce, and Greek culture had a major influence on Judaism. In 63 BCE, the Roman Empire took control of Palestine.

Three religious sects had formed by the 1st century AD: the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. Many anticipated the arrival of a Messiah who would drive the Roman invaders out and restore independence. Christianity was established initially as a Jewish sect, centered in Jerusalem. Paul broke with this tradition and spread the religion to the Gentiles (non-Jews). Many mini-revolts led to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE. The Jewish Christians were wiped out or scattered at this time. The movement started by Paul flourished and quickly evolved into a separate religion. Jews were scattered throughout the known world. Their religion was no longer centered in Jerusalem; Jews were prohibited from setting foot there. Judaism became decentralized and stopped seeking converts. The local synagogue became the new center of Jewish life, and authority shifted from the centralized priesthood to local scholars and teachers, giving rise to Rabbinic Judaism.

The period from the destruction of the temple onward give rise to heavy persecution by Christians throughout Europe and Russia. The latter held the Jews continuously responsible for the execution of Jesus. In the 1930s and 1940s, Adolf Hitler and the German Nazi party drew on centuries of anti-Semitism (and upon their own psychotic beliefs in racial purity) when they organized the Holocaust, the attempted extermination of all Jews in Europe. About 6 million were killed in one of the world's greatest examples of religious and racial intolerance.

A Zionist movement was a response to persecution. Their initial goal was create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The state of Israel was formed on 1948-MAY-18. There are currently about 18 million Jews throughout the world; about 7 million live in North America.


Jewish Texts

The Tanakh corresponds to the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) in the Christian bible. It is composed of three groups of books:

. the Torah Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
. the Nevi'im, the Prophetic books of Isaiah, Amos, etc.
. the Ketuvim, the "Writings" including Kings, Chronicles, etc.

The Talmud contains stories, laws, medical knowledge, debates about moral choices, etc. It is composed of material which mainly comes from two sources:

. the Mishnah, 6 chapters containing a series of laws from the Hebrew Scriptures, arranged about 200 CE.
. the Gemera (one Babylonian and one Palestinian) which is an assembly of comments from hundreds of Rabbis from 200 - 500 CE, along with a passage from the Mishnah.



Jewish Beliefs

They include:
. G-d is the creator and absolute ruler of the universe
. Jewish belief is unlike the Christian concept of original sin (the belief that all people have inherited Adam and Eve's sin when they disobeyed G-d's instructions in the Garden of Eden). Judaism affirms the inherent goodness of the world and its people as creations of G-d. Believers are able to sanctify their lives and draw closer to G-d by fulfilling mitzvot (divine commandments). No saviour is needed as an intermediary.

. The Jews are G-d's chosen people
. The Ten commandments, as delineated in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuterotomy 5:6-21, form the core of Jewish life
. The need to follow the many dietary and other laws of the Torah
. Boys reach the status of Bar Mitzvah (literally son of the commandment) on their 13th birthday; girls reach Bat Mitzvah (daughter of the commandment) on their 12th birthday. This means that they are recognized as adults and are personally responsible to follow the Jewish commandments and laws; they are allowed to lead a religious service; they are counted in a "minyan" (a quota necessary to perform certain parts of religious services); they can sign contracts; they can testify in religious courts; theoretically, they can marry, although the Talmud recommends 18 to 24 as the proper age for marriage.



Jewish Practices

They include:
. Observation of the Sabbath (day of rest), starting at sundown on Friday evening.
. Strict religious discipline governs almost all areas of life
. Regular attendance at Synagogue
. Celebration of the annual festivals including:
The Passover, which is held each Spring to recall their deliverance out of slavery in Egypt. A ritual Seder meal is eaten in each observing Jewish home at this time. Some Passover dates are: 1998 - 11th April, 1999 - 1st April, 2000 - 20th April ,
The 10 days from Rosh Hashanah (New Year) to Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) which are days of fasting and penitence. Some Rosh Hashanah dates are 1998 - 21 September, 1999 - 11th September, 2000 - 30tth Spetember
. Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah ceremonies are commonly held to recognize the coming-of-age of a Jewish youth. Shortly after their birthday, (13th for a male; 12th for a female), they recite a blessing during a Saturday Shabbat service. In most cases, they might handle additional functions, like reading the assigned text from the Torah, or leading the congregation in prayer. etc.. They often make a speech which, by tradition, starts with "Today I am a man." The youth's father often recites a blessing in appreciation for no longer being burdened with the responsibility of his child's sins. Within Orthodox and Chasidic practice, women are not allowed to take leadership roles in religious services. For them, a Bat Mitzvah celebration is basically a party.
. The local synagogue is governed by the congregation and led by a rabbi who has been chosen by the congregation. The Chief Rabbis in France and Great Britain have authority only by the agreement of those who accept it. Two Chief Rabbis in Israel have civil authority in areas of family law.



Jewish Sects

There are five main forms of Judaism in the world today:
. Conservative* Judaism: This began in the mid-nineteenth century as a reaction against the Reform movement. It is a main-line movement midway between Reform and Orthodox.
. Humanistic Judaism: This is a small group, mainly composed of atheists and agnostics, who regard mankind as the measure of all things.
. Orthodox* Judaism: This the oldest and most conservative form of Judaism. They attempt to observe their religion as close to its original forms as possible. They look upon every word in their sacred texts as being divinely inspired.
. Reconstructist Judaism: This is a new liberal movement started by Mordecai Kaplan as an attempt to unify and revitalize the religion. They reject the concept that Jews are a uniquely favored and chosen people. They have no connection at all with Christian Reconstructionism, which is an ultra-conservative form of Christianity.
. Reform* Judaism: They are a liberal group, who follow the ethical laws of Judaism, but leave up to the individual the decision whether to follow or ignore the dietary and other traditional laws. They use modern forms of worship.
* These are the largest forms of Judaism




Holy Days in Judaism

1. 1st of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah; "Head of the Year", The Jewish New Year, and the anniversary of the completion of creation.
2. 10th of Tishri ,Yom Kippur; "Day of Atonement", A day of fasting and praying which occurs 10 days after the first day of Rosh Hashanah. The holiest day in the year.
3. 15th of Tishri, Sukkot; "Season of our rejoicing; Feast of Tabernacles", The Feast of Booths is an 8 day harvest festival; a time of thanksgiving. This was considered the most important Jewish festival in 1st cent.
4. 25th of Kislev, Hanukkah, Chanukah; "Feast of Dedication", The Feast of Lights is an 8 day Feast of Dedication. It recalls the war fought by the Maccabees in the cause of religious freedom.
5. 14th of Adar, Purim; "Feast of Lots", The Feast of Lots recalls the defeat by Queen Esther of the plan to slaughter all of the Persian Jews, circa 400 BCE.
6. 15th Nissan, Pesach; "Passover" , The 8 day festival recalls the exodus of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt circa 1300 BCE. A holiday meal, the Seder, is held at home.
7. 6th of Sivan; 50 days after Pesach, Shavouth; "Festival of Weeks", Pentacost (a.k.a. Feast of Weeks) recalls God's revelation of the Torah to the Jewish people.



With thanks to the Religious Tolerance Organisation of Ontario for the Information on this page

That's because they're 'BEING way too RELIGIOUS' in their approach to 'politics'!!!

They are 2000 years behind in their religion, and 200+ behind in their politics!!!

They haven't gotten the 'Separation of Church and State' of the first amendment yet!!!

It's all about 'BEING RELIGIOUS'!!! I tell'Ya!!!

Voile;

Of course - being up in Canada, I would not expect you to know this but there is nothing in the first amendment about "Separation of church and state".

the wall between church and state is one referencing the elitism accompanying tradition, as in the case with England and the Church of England at the time of the framing of the US Constitution, which is designated so as the faith adhered to by the Royals of that sovereignty.

In such a traditional establishment as that, the swaying of the Royal family can sway the guidance and governance of the people as subjects of the Sovereign and the sovereign's God given authority as has been assumed to be a 'christian' stance regarding all authorities and governments as being of God and subject to obedience by one particular New Testament letter.

The freedom of religion and the 'separation of church and state' reflected in the US Constitution is more aptly focused on disallowing any to control a representative governance by and of and for the people based solely on the whims and inclinations of those representatives bearing sway at any one time over the levers of power in sovereign governance and collective defence of liberties of a free and united people.

The hope was more about preventing wars between nations and sovereigns and a free people not bound by the traditions and inheritances of the Old World as dictated by the advantaged and privileged of their day, with the hopes and aspirations of posterity and civil society being governed by reason and consensus of and by and for the people so governed.

Alas, that has not come to pass, either.

The politics of greed and avarice have seen to that.

Moral decay that has followed that propensity has obscured the original intent of the first amendment and succeeded in reducing the intent to a quaint footnote, be it Jeffersonian or Madisonian.

As Madison has warned in the Federalsit Papers, it is the Hamltonian doctrines of a debt and credit driven economy that wouldsupplant the premise for our national preservation under the Constitution as given and designed and tratified into law, for and by, and of the people themselves. Especially those with a stake in it's survival or demise, not necessarily those that would burden themselves with further enslaving a free people in servitude to the wealthy ruling classes that reigned over commerce and sought supreme rule over all peoples as their prerogative, seeing that they themselves thought they knew better than sovereigns and publicans and statesmen what was best for the masses.

This Hamiltonian doctrine has roots in Masonry, which has roots in wrestling the sharing of power from sovereigns as their prerequisite justification, by virtue of their successes in negotiating privilege and advantage, historically speaking. After all, they did and do assume that they have the weighted say in the outcome of the fruit of their labors which has and had and does and will continue to make them rich in the things of this world, specifically in the control and dispensation of capital.

Today, this country would feign socialism even while capital flees the borders into global markets and global governance suitable to preserving the stauts quo of capital.

That has nothing to do with religion, just as Hamiltonian doctrines have nothing to do with Madislnian doctrines and the Fedrealist Papers efficacy of purpose and intent regarding the 'separation of church and state'.

NOw, pithy is and pithy was.

Those are the facts, and we are where we are as a people in defiance of the true meaning of what constituted the free exercise of religion as intended by the fathers of the US Constitution.

They, like many others of their day, recognized the dangers presented by both organized religious institutions in league with sovereigns, on the one hand, and the forces of economic enterprise on the other. Both of which were polar influences sought to be emasculated once and for all by the adoption of what appeared to be at the time the most careful of disciplined courses for governance and sovereignty of a free and diverse people to prosper and defend themselves from the most viscious threats purposed in avarice and greed and intolerance for the liberties of the common citizenry not so advantaged and privileged.


It did not work.

But the Hamiltonians did succeed in finally removing the gold standard from the currency protections of this once great nation.

Nixon was their tool to finally accomplish that which had been stayed off since Madison's Federalist paers had been published.

Both Lincoln and Kennedy came out publicly against such a drastic move as that. Robert Kennedy, too.

Winston Churcill ( in 1928) was run out of office the first time in England when their currency was taken off the Gold standard for value, just before the Great Depression. That did not happen in a vacuum then and it has not happened in a vacuum now.

Nor have we seen the end of the matter and what is in store for this country.

It is not the separation of church and state that was central to the issue between these two diverse doctrines when this nation's laws were ratified, but rather, included to prevent what was known to exist as a threat to a democracy by and for and of the people in the form of a representative governance for the pirposes of national defence, not national religous practice.




Dare to suppose that I am off my rocker and ignorant and imaginative.

I laugh at that prospect.

Few there be that understand the smallest details of the founding principles of this nation.


What angered the English was the destrucvtion of goodds and property belonging to those under the protection of the King of England, and the King himself who suffereds loss as well when the taxes anticipated on the tea sent here by the East India Co ( one of many brands under an umbrella holding company whose moniker is eluding my memory at the moment) were thrown in the harbor by the Masons.

It was called the Boston Tea Party. It is wrapped in the ditty about Paul Revere. And it was this one event which precipitated the war between England and the colonies.

This was the brand of 'separation of church and state' being safeguarded against, but being used by the Masons in their attempt to reign supreme as the merchants and captains of industry in the colonies with autonomy.


What remains an abrogation of intent of the framers of this country's laws is not religious but economic, and economic in the form of taxatiuon without representation in the name of revenue enhancement and not by the will of the people in consensus, but by the will of the advantaged and privileged and the sway they hold over office holders of this representative governance gone awry.( i.e., patents and legislating uncompetitive market access and privilege to the advantaged by way of legal machinations assuming validity of purpose in adjudicating 'rules of precendence'.

Now, since religous freedoms required a civics lesson, continue on with your discussion without being"RELIGIOUS" LOL.

Please, it is interesting to witness.

Much like you and the bible, you must study further than the quick and 'short' interpretation of a first degree read.

The words are not in the first amendment, but it the very principle that the first amendment was written to defend.

If you were as keen for your national history as you are for you personal religion, you might not have jumped the gun on this one.

All grant you that it is a persistent and delicate topic to this date, but it is nonetheless a 'principle' that YOUR contry is founded upon.

Here is a short extract of THE 1ST AMENDMENT OF YOUR CONTITUTION:

The Amendments Note

The following are the Amendments to the Constitution. The first ten Amendments collectively are commonly known as the Bill of Rights.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


HERE ARE REFERENCE ABOUT 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:

The Wall of Separation

Often when someone speaks of the constitutionally guaranteed right to religion, they also speak of "the wall of separation between church and state," or simply as "the separation of church and state." What does this mean, and what is the origin of this phrase?

It did not take long after the passage and ratification of the 1st Amendment for people to start interpreting it to simply mean that that federal government had no business getting mixed into religion. Of course, there is more to it than that, especially when it comes to the individual right part of the amendment. But the notion that the government should not become enmeshed in religion is an important concept, too. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government. The Wall, however, is a nice shorthand metaphor for non-establishment.

One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, is directly responsible for giving us this phrase. In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, then-President Jefferson used the phrase - it was probably not the first time, but it is the most memorable one. He said:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Jefferson did not have a hand in the authoring of the Constitution, nor of the 1st Amendment, but he was an outspoken proponent of the separation of church and state, going back to his time as a legislator in Virginia. In 1785, Jefferson drafted a bill that was designed to squash an attempt by some to provide taxes for the purpose of furthering religious education. He wrote that such support for religion was counter to a natural right of man:

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Jefferson's act was passed, though not without some difficulty, in Virginia. Eyler Robert Coates wrote that the act was copied in the acts or constitutions of several states, either in words or in concepts. Jefferson himself was in France by the time word of the act reached Europe, and he wrote back to America that his act was well-thought of and admired.

Jefferson's letter specifically pointed out by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v US (98 US 145 [1878]). For details on Reynolds, see the next section. It has been a notable metaphor for the 1st Amendment's non-establishment concept ever since.


If you wish I could provide you with numerous supreme court judgements which have all gone on the side of the 'separation od church and state'.

In spite of all this, most members of the religious left , insist on a romantic interpretation which denies or ignores the principle.

Hope that helps with your understanding of your constitution.

With the way that the Law is interpreted today - the 1st amendment no longer exists as it was intended.

I fully understand the 1st amendment - but that does not mean that I agree with the radical SCJ's that "widely" interpret it's meaning to suit their personal agenda's and beliefs. Case in point would be the passing of the Gay marriage law in Massachusetts. 4 people within the State Supreme court - mostly under the influence of one judge passed this Law, and a radical left wing Govenor has prevented it from going to vote.
That is 5 people controlling the wishes of an entire state. Most of whom would like to have a say in this matter.

With the way that the Law is interpreted today - the 1st amendment no longer exists as it was intended.

i agree with this in this sense eljay, once the top governing body of the courts (the supreme court) took it upon themselves to interpret the meaning of what the father's of the constitution meant in any given case that came before them, AND, the way in which the decisions were made, even with objection by other members, the house of cards started to crumble.

A true judgement and finding of a case should be one of FULL agreement amongst all of the judges, not SOME, they disregard there own inherent court laws that a Jury (which is what they are) can have no Nay's! or Yeas the jury must be in full agreement with no unsustained's. otherwise it is a deadlock, which means it must be either thrown out or re trialed till all can reach a conclusion of yes or no.

i find it most interesting to read the judges who find against the majority in a case to be as valid or more valid than the majority ruled and passed on.

i could go on but i wont.