Dear David f,

In practice, civic affairs and religion have long
been closely intertwined in America. For example
there is the widely held belief that Americans
are a godly people and that God favours America.

The Pledge of Allegiance declares that the country
is one nation "under God." Its coins declare,
"In God we trust." Religion is an element in oaths
of office, party conventions, court room procedures,
and indeed nearly all formal public occasions.
Even the Boy Scouts give a "God and country" award.

Many of the nation's secular symbols also have a
sacred quality - the flag, the eagle, the Constitution
the Bill of Rights, the Statue of Liberty, "America
the Beautiful" "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. Political leaders
must always pay at least lip service to religious
beliefs, in fact, every Presidential inaugurational
address makes mention of God...

The actual wording of the First Amendment to the
Constitution is, "Congress shall make no laws respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." This sentence merely implies that
the state, out of respect for the principle of freedom
of religion, may not favour or penalize one belief
relative to another. However, although the state may
not become involved in religion, there is absolutely
no prohibition against religious participation in the
affairs of state.

Dear Foxy,

The United States has had both waves of scepticism and religiosity. In the nineteenth century Ingersoll was the most popular man in the United States excepting presidents and war heroes. He made an income of $100,000 a year (tremendous at that time) going around the country making speeches questioning religion.

“In God We Trust” only became the motto in 1956 during the Cold War to differentiate the US from the ‘Godless Communists.’ ‘Under God’ was added to the Pledge in 1956 for the same reason. Recent cases have been brought to remove 'under God' as unconstitutional.

Jefferson was raised as an Anglican, but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. In the spirit of the Enlightenment, he told Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, he clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error."

Supreme Court rulings in a suit brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses have recognized that one may conscientiously refuse to salute the flag. Other cases have upheld the right to burn the flag as an act of protest.

In his inaugural address President Obama characterized the US as a nation composed of “Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and unbelievers”.

On the net see “Great Awakenings” for the waves of religiosity. HRSepCnS is a site devoted to history of the Separation of Church and State.

Dear David f,
>>To Hitler he still would be a Jew<<
I spoke about respecting somebody’s Jewishness. I am sure Hitler would not be respectful of Lustiger’s Jewishness in whatever sense. All Catholics respect Edith Stein’s (ethnic) Jewishness that was part of her identity for which she died, so she was not a martyr in the technical meaning of the word (in spite of the wording of her beatification decision), nevertheless, she is venerated as a saint also because of that.

So please let us agree that I recognise and respect the ethnic Jewishness of Lustiger and Stein (whereas you don't seem to) while you respect (or just prefer?) the version of Christianity professed by bishop Spong (whereas I don't).

You "agree and disagree" that there is more that (religious) Jews and Christians have in common than what separates them. I take this as agreeing that here "more" does not refer to a quantifiable entity that you can measure on a scale, so it is rather subjective. Nevertheless, I prefer to see the glass half full rather than half empty, and I think many Jews and most Christians will see it the same way.

Indeed, Eugenio was the Christian name of Pius XII, and that is the name that Israel Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, took as his own baptismal name as an “act of gratitude to the Pope“, when he converted to Catholicism (for theological reasons, as he put it) after the war.

Dear David f,

President Obama said quite a few things on the
diversity of America but he still ended his
address with, "God Bless America!"

John F. Kennedy's inaugural, captures the idea
that America's social order and historical mission are
specifically sanctioned by God:

"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with
history the final judge of our deeds, let us
go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing
and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's
work must truly be our own."

Such sentiments are not allied to any specific faith
or political program; they are sufficiently broad to
be acceptable to almost anyone.

Philo,

Usery in NT

"And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil." - Luke 34:35 KJV

Interest? Don't even expect the full principal!

Taxes aside, "sons of the Most High" [sons of God]is an interesting phrase. A "Son" is presumably a special relationship not a term for divinity.

Oliver,
The basis of Christ objections to Judaism is not about race because he was born one of them, but he objected to their legalist religious attitidues and genetic obsession. They say "We are sons of Abraham" but he identified they do not have Abraham's faith attitudes. Jesus teaching is about relationships with all persons based in love eg the Samaritan. It is not about nationalistic observance of religious laws - see Talmud I and II.

Abraham was of Chaldean heritage and birth, but his nationality is not what determined his relationship to God. It was his faith in only one God. Jews have intermarried into many genetic tribes because they have been dispersed several times. However they cling together as an identity, similarly the Lebanese in our society.

They make much of their genetics, but a true Jew in the Abrahamic line (in Jesus concept) is not based in genetics but in their faith. However in pure Abrahamic genetics it cannot be said.

Jesus made more about a persons faith than their genetics. Example: At his inagural speech at the Jewish Synagogue at his hometown Nazareth (Luke 4:14 - 30) he uses the faith of two Gentiles; Naaman of Syria, and the widow of Zarephath, to demonstrate relationship to God is based in faith and not in genetics. This caused the Jews at synagogue to attempt to have him stoned as a cursed teacher of the pure laws of Israel.

They saw Gentiles as unclean as dogs. Jesus later used this attitude when demonstrating the Jews attitude to a Canaanites woman to test her faith. Her genetics did not determine her acceptance by God. Matthew 15: 21 - 28.

I have Orthodox Jews and Rabbi in my relatives and have attended synagogue to hear them still thank God they are not created a woman or a dog. This attitude is abhorrent to Christ.

For those who believe Christians are anti-semetic; what nation established the New Israeli State and what nation supports it? Was it not Christian Britian and America?