Matt Lavine

Yeah, right game, wrong date. Long overdue. Great to have great leadership now. Finally.

Art Monk's jersey will be retired next week, right?

What is the significance of affirming American democracy by lauding the support of folks whose government operates by permission of the King of England?

Was this prayer meeting before or after they did "solemnly swear [to] support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same [and] faithfully discharge the duties of the office?"

Until Americans have a firm grasp on the ideas that moved rebelling colonists to revolution, we cannot distinguish between a reasonable public policy dispute and an attack on the defining principles of the American Republic. Viva Historical Scholarship!

I've quoted in these parts one or two speeches made in Congress circa 1865 about the freedmen's faith in the US and the reparations they earned for fighting with the US Army. Historian Donald Miller's book, Vicksburg, includes some inspiring accounts of freedmen's heroism fighting with Grant.

Every time I think Mandami is more than a handsome young fellow with all the depth of a vacuous preppie, with a hint of Jew hatred, he opens his mouth and utters more adolescent nonsense.

I have no idea what your words mean, but they made laugh. Thank you. By the way, only the US Government has the legal authority to engage in foreign affairs.

Your posts are always insightful, which is why I add my thoughts. Religious groups rarely seem to sustain their organizing principles over time.

This divide is neither new among Americans nor uniquely American nor distinctively Christian. The novelty may be in the erasure of the past. Unlike Anglo-Va aristocracy, Baptists called slaves their brothers and sisters, included them in their churches and in ritual baptisms. Anglicans enslaved.

If I recall correctly, my comments were supportive of the original post by Talia. As I understood her post, she was suggesting that democracy is inconsistent with excluding people solely because they believe in the existence of one or more gods.

I referred to abolitionists who worked to free the people who were enslaved in the American Republic. The First Congress met in March 1789. The 13th Amdt was ratified in December 1865. While not specified, I was thinking of a Union soldier's letter in 1862 and a Congressman's speech in 1865.

YouTube video by Matt Lavine The Seventh American Commandment

youtu.be/PVMoQm7R4C0?...

Not an assumption. I've read the speeches and letters of the era.

I have found that people deploy the theological doctrine (or parse the underlying text) to claim the honor of their actions and ideas. At the age of 5, I was beaten, and defended, by kids who went to the same church. The event led me to a six decade search for American nationhood.

YouTube video by agaiz Frank Sinatra -- High Hopes

I still have faith. Blame my Mom - or Sammy Cahn.

youtu.be/S94Bh3Qez9o?...

The evidence does not show that all people, with faith in the divinity of an otherworldly being, want to stone me for concluding that Trump committed treason on Jan 6.

Hence faith. Mine remains in the American people, a faith no more difficult to maintain in the real world than any other faith. .

People of faith, by which I presume you mean members theistic religions, have, in our history, sacrificed for our declared American precepts. Both Union soldiers and abolitionists declared their faith in an otherworldly being as granting them the wisdom and courage to free the enslaved.

I offer one question to determine whether the respondent believes in the only religion relevant to the survival of the American Republic: "What is the difference between Jan 6 2021 and the attack on Ft. Sumter?" And the only "faith" relevant to the Republic is the American Religion.

--> kept me apart from my wife, who can lain Torah better than anyone there. I later asked: "Shalom bayit and segregated seating are only reconcilable if you disregard the humanity of women, a concept inconsistent with the Torah's noteworthy departures from ancient norms re: women."

Knowing full well his answer, I asked my Rabbi, "would you go to a segregated church?" "Absolutely not," he replied. He then realized the context, and he added, "but I believe in Shalom Bayit." Thus the son of 1st woman elected to a MD judgeship went to a B Mitz, where a wall -->.

While I am no expert, it appears that you are quoting Maimonides. He ranks far below my favorite Moses, as well as below both Edwin and Malone. The Torah and American nationhood teach that people - not nations - have a right to exist. And the purpose of life is to create a just nation.

I think you're responding to a comment I made that tribalism existed long before people referred to themselves as "white." If I understand correctly, your response buttresses my assertion.

I just watched a clip of a Georgetown Law Professor testifying before the Senate about "States' Rights" and "State sovereignty." She teaches Const'l Law, evidently based on the twisted teachings of Jefferson Davis. Others decry rising socialism or fascism. Beware the neo-Confederates.

An Urgent Prayer for the Protection of Human Life With hearts broken over the ongoing violence in Gaza, especially with the news this week of the most recent killing of humanitarian aid workers, my friend and hevruta Rabbi Andy Vogel and I used ou…

rabbi360.com/2024/04/03/a...

When Reagan blamed the Nation's ills on "welfare queens" and declared unregulated capitalism the essence of the Republic, how was he *conserving* the achievements gained by the Revolution or the Civil War? Other than style, is not Trump the logical result of Reagan?

While it is true that Ms. Babbit died while died as a result of her effort to "levy war against the US," the enduring historic failure lies with those who failed to charge her leader with treason. Trump should have a parade for Raskin and Garland every Jan 6.

I don't think the blame for our Republic's ills is best directed at the people whom you call "really stupid."

This is the standard? How 'bout the failure of U.S. government officials to enforce (or even charge) the Constitution's only criminal provision against the holder of the office that delegates at the 1787 Convention predicted was the likely source of treason?