Jewish Principles and the Founding of the United States of America

Many Americans assert that the United States of America was founded on Christian principles. I respectfully disagree with that perspective.

It is undeniable fact that Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism. If one wants to say that America was founded on the principles of any one religion, then I postulate that the United States was founded on the principles of Judaism.

The United States was not founded exclusively on Jewish principles, but its founding was significantly influenced by the Hebrew Bible, Jewish ideas of law and morality, and the Puritanical identification with ancient Israel. While rooted in Enlightenment philosophy and Christian traditions, key concepts such as freedom of conscience, the rule of law, and a “covenantal” view of government were largely derived from Hebraic tradition. 

Influence of Jewish Ideas and Biblical Tradition

Biblical Foundation: Early American settlers and founders frequently referenced the Hebrew Bible, viewing themselves as a "new Israel" escaping tyranny, similar to the Exodus story.

Theological & Legal Impact: Concepts such as equality, individual liberty, and universal rights (e.g., “endowed by their Creator” in the Declaration of Independence) are rooted in biblical Jewish thought.

Cultural Influence: Several colleges (e.g., Columbia, Dartmouth) and early political symbols incorporated Hebrew words. 

Contextual Debates and Nuances

Not Specifically Jewish Law: While religious thought was present, the founders did not establish a theocracy or implement religious law, instead creating a secular government based on Enlightenment principles.

Individual Liberty: The focus on religious liberty, crucial to Jewish involvement in the founding era, actually arose from a desire to escape religious persecution in the Old World, fostering a pluralistic society. 

In summary, Hebrew scriptures and Jewish moral concepts were essential influences in the cultural and intellectual background of the American founders. 

Behavior of Democratic Congressmen at the February 26th 2026 State of the Union Address

 The behavior of Democratic members of Congress during the most recent State of the Union highlights just how divided today’s political climate has become. Increasingly, the chamber is used not only as a venue for the President’s address, but also as a stage for political expression.

Many Democrats chose not to stand during portions of the speech. Party leaders described this as “silent defiance” — a deliberate but non-disruptive form of protest.

Here’s the context behind that decision:

1. A Calculated Form of Protest

For Democratic lawmakers, remaining seated was a way to signal opposition to the President’s agenda and rhetoric without resorting to verbal interruptions or dramatic confrontations that have sparked controversy in past years. Leadership encouraged members either to attend and remain silent or to skip the address altogether and participate in alternative events.

2. The President’s “Test Questions”

During the speech, President Donald Trump framed certain policy proposals — particularly on immigration enforcement and border security — as direct challenges to lawmakers. At times, he urged members to stand if they supported his position. Critics viewed these moments as attempts to box opponents into a public display of agreement. Many Democrats remained seated to avoid appearing to endorse positions or premises they fundamentally rejected.

3. Deep Policy and Ideological Differences

The decision not to stand was not merely symbolic; it reflected substantive disagreements.

Disputes over factual claims: Some Democrats argued that the speech contained misleading or inaccurate statements, especially regarding the economy and the impact of administration policies.

Objections to tone and rhetoric: Lawmakers expressed concern about the President’s language surrounding immigration and political opponents.

Targeted protests: A number of members wore pins or displayed small signs — including references to issues such as the Jeffrey Epstein files — to call attention to specific concerns about administration actions.

4. Shifting Norms in the Chamber

Over time, the State of the Union has evolved from a largely formal and restrained address into a more theatrical and partisan event. In recent years, members of both parties have used standing, applause, silence, or visible protest to signal approval or disapproval. This shift mirrors the broader polarization within Congress, where even traditional decorum has become part of the political contest.

For the Democrats who remained seated, standing would likely have been interpreted as an endorsement of the President’s words and policies — an endorsement they were not prepared to give.