Recently, I attended my local GOP caucus for my precinct pertaining to my desire to vote for Mitt Romney as GOP Presidential candidate. I instead could have attended the DFL one (being that both the GOP and DFL were being held in the same school building), in order to cast my straw vote for Obama rather than That Woman (i.e. that cutesy Inferior-Gender Weaker-Sex Scandaless) who was his main opponent.
The caucus leader was a little tricky, and I was a bit impulsively too naiively eager, in that he asked for volunteers "to read a couple of letters" (without concurrently specifying who those letters were from and what they promoted). When I discovered they were from the State Governor supporting the GOP presidential candidate I did not intend to vote for, I read the letters, explaining before and after to the audience that I was reading something from someone I did not intend to vote for.
It just so happened that the result of the straw vote among the caucus attendees in that small schoolroom was a slight majority choice for Mitt Romney with a few votes for Huckabee and for Ron Paul, besides The Other Candidate. So when asked by the caucus leader who would like to nominate themselves as delegates, I promptly raised my hand, and a goodly number of the group voted for me by secret ballot to be one of five delegates.
As I watched TV that evening at home, I was delighted to discover that Romney had won a majority of GOP caucus votes in my State, but I was disappointed that he and Huckabee lost to The Other Candidate who won most of the other states of the union throughtout America. Consequentially, I do not know if I should show up as a delegate at the upcoming District Convention to obviously be expected to support The Other Candidate I do not support - which, if I so do in that case, an alternate delegate will replace me. But don't get me wrong: I generally am very much in agreement with most of the Republican Platform (but also of the Constitution Party Platform I have also read).
I brought up a couple of resolutions at the caucus that evening, both of which were promptly and vigorously objected to by a couple of ACLU-type "jewish" young women (which, again, reminded me of the situation the NON-ANTISEMITIC Hebrew Old-Testament prophets suffered from wayward israel and judah as did the refractory and trouble-causing jews who so persecuted both Christ and Saint Paul as indicated in the New Testament).
Getting back to the resolutions, the first was an amendment I proposed replacing the phrase (in the Civil Rights section of The Republican Platform) of: "government chaplains are allowed to refer to a deity in their prayers" with instead: "government chaplains are allowed to refer to God, the Lord, or Jesus Christ in their prayers." At the mention of the words Jesus Christ, the jewish women flew into a somewhat-contained rage (which objections would NOT be sustained within the Jesus-name-mentioning Constitution-Party Platorm). [Apparently, the two jewish women would have no problem having some islamic chaplain refer to allah in his prayer - contrary to the directives of their own jewish religion relating to the will of God expressed within Jewish Scripture (the non-apocryphal Old Testament, as we Christians call it) which includes the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.
To try to [concoct] a positive side to the [prejudicial suppression] [imposed] by those two jewish women, it is acknowledged that the holy and sacred name of G-d (with reference to His Son, Jesus) must only be mouthed with reverence and preferably by Jews only and not defiled gentiles such as yours truly (or is the Lord more inclusive-minded pertaining to that)? Pertaining to both Jews and Gentiles, not only does the Bible state that the jealous God will not forgive the sins of the impenitent (Joshua 24:19), but those of them who are wicked do not have the right to pray to Him (Psalm 50:16 and Jeremiah 11:15) and will not be inquired of by them in prayer (Ezekiel 20:3 and Ezekiel 20:31). However, salvation is available to both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 11:18, Romans 3:29, and Romans 9:22-24).
Notwithstanding, I withdrew the resolution to prevent a long drawn-out fight by stating that: "the way the platform piece is now worded, it still is possible for a government chaplain to begin and end prayers in the name of the deity Jesus Christ, although the way it is put also allows the despicable and obnoxious chance of some islamic chaplain irritating Christians (and Jews) who hear him referencing the [false and make-believe] [pseudo]-deity "allah."
That of course is why the Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution used the if-not-vague, at least adaptive, multi-purpose, and pluralistic word: "religion" in the First Amendment's non-establishment-yet-non-prohibition clause.
Controversial and inadequte indeed it would be if the First Amendment stated that: 'Judaism must not be established, while the free exercise of Islam must not be prohibited.' Equally wrong would be a rewording of: 'Evangelical Baptistism and Lutheranism shall not be established, while the free exercise of cultic-catholic anglicanism, episcopalianism, plus apocryphal/maryolatrous/purgatorial/eucharistic-self-sacrificing-thus-self-atoning catholicism, along with the Church of Satan and Hinduism, shall not be prohibited.'
To establish a State religion of sectarian denominationalism must understandably not be done by Congress nor any other body of government including the public school system, but the free exercise of [lawful] religions must not be prohibited [with "lawful" determined by the Sacred-66-books HOLY BIBLE]!
Now, pertaining to interpretations of the First Amendment Non-Establishment/Non-Prohibition Clauses in terms of actual applications of what "religion" and religious doctrines and practices should be present throughout American society both publicly and privately in groups can and should discriminatingly be adjudicated in basically the latter of two interpretations:
1. Congress shall make no law establishing Christian religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise of anti-Christian religion (especially in public schools)......or
2. Congress shall make no law establishing anti-Christian religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise of Christian religion (particularly in public schools).
Can you guess which of the two opposing interpretations above this webauthor would go along with?
Which brings us to the other resolution I publicly proposed at the caucus meeting and against which the two "jewish" women objected vigorously by claiming allegiance to the present [pseudo]-"legal" status of what I consider ["non-officially"] illegal at present but (hopefully) to eventually be "officially" declared illegal by the U.S. courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court but now comprised of differing-attitudes judges.
I again wanted to amend part of the Civil Rights section of the GOP platorm which stated that: "abortions are performed on minors in clinics" and replace that with the words: "abortions are committed against young women in abortuaries" instead. Crimes are never "performed" but only "committed." Young women are not inferior "minors" nor are older women superior "majors." To misterm 'abortion murder chambers' as instead: 'medical' 'treatment' or 'medical' 'health' 'clinics' is reprehensible. The two jewish women reminded everyone that abortion is not now [legally] considered criminal. So much for that resolution. Perhaps I might have succeeding in rewording it as: "abortions are done which sounds more benign, I suppose.
What about those who claim to be "pro-choice" with weaselword obscurity intended? WHAT are they "pro-choice" about? Do they support choosing to commit (or doing, if you must) abortion-homicide (homicide?)....or instead do they support God's gift of free-will choice to and of created humanity irregardless of what is chosen? Perhaps the buzzword "pro-choice" could be replaced with the longer buzzword phrase: "pro-tolerance-for-abortion-choice-option." Too cumbersome, yes? It will probably never catch on because of that.
The abhorrence exhibited by those two jewish women at the mention of the words Jesus Christ inserted into a government-party platform would probably be extended and carried into their abhorrence against mentioning a couple of Jesus Christ's New-Testament Bible verses plainly proving the personhool of the body of a human-fetus child in the womb of the God-owned body of a mere-caretaker mother carrying God's-and-not-simply-their-own separate-soul infant-lifeform entity. But a misunderstanding and misapplication of the questionable-and-debatable concept of "separation of church and state" cannot override proper interpretation of the non-establishment/non-prohibition clauses of the First Amendment pertaining to Scriptural reference of both Luke 1:41 and Luke 2:16 implicitly proving the personhood of the pre-born human baby. It is true that we render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God, but with the understanding that ultimately the God of "the church" (i.e. the entire Body-of-Christ Church and not simply sometimes-deviant sectarian-denominational parts of them and not it) created, sustains, directs, and is in supreme authority over Caesar and his state [concerning or regarding church-state arguments - depending upon the situation].
Luke 1:41 (as you can read the typical English words and especially precise Greek-Text words used) states [here in paraphrase] that the [pre-born] babe John in Elizabeth's womb leaped for joy. Luke 2:16 (as you can read the common English words and especially exact Greek-Text words used) states [here in paraphrase] that the [already-born] babe Jesus was lying in a manger. In both cases, the EXACTLY-SAME-LETTERED Greek word brephos (i.e. beta, rho, epsilon, phi, omicron, sigma) is used for both the PRE-born and ALREADY-born babes - thus clearly indicating the personhood of both pre-born and already-born babes - whether "wanted" or not.
Whether or not, then when, the Supreme Court chooses to reverse Roe v. Wade on account of that, or instead take on a new case implementing the previously-mentioned Scriptural enlightenment, remains to be seen.