Can you volunteer to teach trump how to read. He needs a mentor and melania can’t get him past the third grade level.

Read from that IF you like...........the rest of us will read from Two Corinithians.

Who Wrote the Book of 2 Corinthians?

BIBLE SURVEY – 2 CORINTHIANS

Stop me if ya heard this one. So these 2 Corinthians walk into a Church; see........and the first one sez........

Posted by dino27 on 1/4/2021 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 1/4/2021 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/4/2021 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 1/3/2021 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Here's the bottom line. (for me anyways). Christians like to claim this Country was founded by/based on Christianity. They're right AND wrong about that.

WE ARE a Country founded (largely) by Christian believers BUT they expressly formed and instituted within their original Laws a secular Country.
Many Christians just can't handle the truth!

This isn't really true. The founding fathers by and large envisioned a Christian country. Many of them intended secularity only inasmuch as it implied nondenominational Christianity. Notwithstanding what John Adams approved in the Treaty of Tripoli, the private writings of most of the founders (conspicuously not including Franklin and Madison, who were strong opponents of state-sponsored religion) indicate strongly that they intended the country to be based upon Christian ideals. It's worth noting that while the 1st Amendment prohibited Federal establishment of religion, states were allowed to and did have established state-funded religion well into the 19th century. And Congress immediately hired a Christian minister to provide moral guidance.

John Adams primarily authored the Massachusetts Constitutions, which says something along the lines of religion being necessary to good governance. Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and George Washington supported a bill - it was Henry's bill - to institute state funding for churches in Virginia in the 1780s. And while Jefferson offered his own bill opposing the establishment of religion in the state of Virginia - the bill which won out over Henry's - it was based upon the fact that God had created man with free will, and thus still presupposes a creating God.

I think it's fair to say that while the founding fathers as a group rather homogeneously opposed forcing the practice of religion on individuals, the healthy majority absolutely did support the adherence to Christian ideals as a core principle of good governance.

I take no issue with this viewpoint of our beginnings as a Government. I made no reference to the INTENT of the founders, however..........just what they enshrined into Law. The words they (Madison, mostly?) drafted have significant meaning. They became what we now have. The Constitution. (It took them many years (12?) to actually draft and adopt them). That Law (as presently interpreted) has resulted in a multitude of "beliefs/believers" (and NON believers) all having the right to practice their religion freely (supposedly) without (expressly without Federal) favor or malice.

I have no idea (for sure) their collective "intent" and have no doubt that the majority "envisioned" some kind of majority Christian Nation. But that wasn't what they gave us!! Not enough of a scholar to speculate why that is..........maybe it has something to do with the influence of the Seven Nations Laws that were favored by some and even somewhat incorporated (at least the concepts) into the eventual Document. Our Native American Brothers tended to be a little more tolerant of differing religious views than the white-eyes at the time.

To my understanding some of the founders were Christians....some Jews......some deists.......some atheists and all had a repulsion for a state sponsored religion or denomination hence the revolution.
they did share as you so well say an appetite for the multitude of possible religious beliefs and expressions and to my understanding they shared a secular belief in the judaeo- Christian principles or values not as religious expression but as guiding principles for society and governance.

I refer you back to my original post. Everything I'm pointing back out here is factually correct. You can google it in 30 seconds.

The statement that "all had a repulsion for a state sponsored religion or denomination hence the revolution" is completely false. The revolution was mostly about finances and political autonomy.

The states - run, in large part, by the same founding fathers - in some cases continued to establish religion. Massachusetts funded the Congregational church with tax revenues until the 1830s. The Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, refers to religion as necessary for good governance.

Patrick "Give me liberty or give me death" Henry sponsored a bill in the Virginia legislature in the 1880s proposing a state tax to fund the church. George Washington - the "Father of His Country" - quietly supported the bill. Richard Henry Lee, the man who officially proposed independence in the Continental Congress, vocally supported the bill.

Police in the nation’s capital on Monday arrested the leader of the Proud Boys, who is accused of burning a Black Lives Matter banner that was torn down from a historic Black church in downtown Washington last month.

Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, 36, was arrested by Metropolitan Police Department officers after he arrived in Washington ahead of protests planned by supporters of President Donald Trump to coincide with the congressional vote expected Wednesday to affirm Joe Biden’s election victory.

Tarrio was taken into custody after a warrant was issued for his arrest for destruction of property, police said. He was also facing a weapons charges after officers found him with two high-capacity firearm magazines when he was arrested, a police spokesman said.

A pro-Trump rally in December ended in violence as hundreds of Trump supporters, some wearing the signature black and yellow of the Proud Boys, sought out confrontations with a collective of activists and counterprotesters attempting to bar them from Black Lives Matter Plaza, an area near the White House. By nightfall, vandals tore down a Black Lives Matter banner and sign from two historic Black churches in downtown Washington and set the banner ablaze.

Video posted online showed people pouring an accelerant on a Black Lives Matter banner near the Asbury United Methodist Church and setting it ablaze in the street as others cheered and cursed last month. One of the videos showed someone walking up about a minute later and using a fire extinguisher to put out the flames.

Tarrio told The Washington Post he had participated in the burning of the Black Lives Matter banner and said he would plead guilty to destruction of property and pay the church the cost of the banner.

Another video showed men removing a Black Lives Matter sign at the Metropolitan A.M.E. Church.

“We just want to see justice be done,” the Rev. Dr. Ianther Mills, senior pastor at Asbury, said in an interview Monday night.

The church community is ”in some ways of course feeling some relief" following the arrest, Mills added. Even so, she said, “we still remain concerned” about the high number of expected protesters in the area.

Mills said Asbury saw another Black Lives Matter sign taken from its location over the Christmas holiday, prompting her to formally request extra protection for the church during Wednesday's planned protests. Local police already have begun conducting extra surveillance in the area, she said.

A police spokesman told The Associated Press last month that investigators were probing the incidents as potential hate crimes

Wrong Number Draws Mistaken Calls, Ire From Trump Supporters

A former Michigan resident was briefly amused to be mistaken for a high-ranking legislator by President Donald Trump supporters who demanded nullification of President-elect Joe Biden's election victory in the state.

But when a trickle of calls and texts Sunday became a torrent of hundreds that continued into Monday, it wasn't funny anymore.

The recipient, who goes by the name O Rose and uses non-gendered they/them pronouns, has a phone number nearly identical to that of Lee Chatfield, former Republican speaker of the Michigan House, whose term expired this month.

In social media postings Sunday, the president's campaign organization targeted Chatfield and Lee Shirkey, a Republican and the Senate majority leader. “Hear the evidence ... Correct false statements ... Demand vote on decertification,” the campaign said on Facebook.

The posting provided email addresses and phone numbers for Chatfield and Shirkey. But the number listed as Chatfield's actually belonged to Rose, who moved from northern Michigan to the Oakland, California, area five months ago.

“People are calling me from every single state. It's weird, very weird,” Rose said in a phone interview Monday with The Associated Press. The 28-year-old provided a first initial but withheld their full first name because of concerns about security.

Rose said they initially found the mix-up, first reported by the Petoskey News-Review, humorous and responded with texts of funny memes — “pictures of pancakes, squirrels, something absurd so they'd know I wasn't a government official.”

But people kept calling, many refusing to believe Rose wasn't Chatfield.

“They'd argue with me. They said everything I was saying was a lie," Rose said. “One of them called me three times. He said, ‘Well, if you're happening to have lunch with Chatfield or something, could you tell him?' I said, ‘No, dude, I don’t know this person.”

Rose unsuccessfully tried to notify the campaign and enlisted friends to post messages explaining the mistake to the president's Facebook and Twitter feeds. Those, too, drew a barrage of denials and accusations from Trump backers.

An email message seeking comment was sent to a Trump campaign spokesman.

Biden received 2,804,040 votes in Michigan, or 50.6%, while Trump got 2,649,852 votes or 47.8%.

The results were certified by the bipartisan Michigan Board of State Canvassers despite baseless claims of fraud by the president's backers. Chatfield and Shirkey met with Trump at the White House shortly before the board voted. But both said repeatedly the legislature had no power to intervene. Biden, a Democrat, was awarded the state's 16 electoral votes.

No legal avenue remains for the Trump campaign to change the outcome in Michigan, said Tracy Wimmer, spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office, which oversees elections.

Rose's phone number was still on the campaign's Facebook post Monday evening.

Although none of the callers made threats, Rose plans to get a new phone number — pronto.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/5/2021 2:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 1/4/2021 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 1/4/2021 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/4/2021 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 1/3/2021 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Here's the bottom line. (for me anyways). Christians like to claim this Country was founded by/based on Christianity. They're right AND wrong about that.

WE ARE a Country founded (largely) by Christian believers BUT they expressly formed and instituted within their original Laws a secular Country.
Many Christians just can't handle the truth!

This isn't really true. The founding fathers by and large envisioned a Christian country. Many of them intended secularity only inasmuch as it implied nondenominational Christianity. Notwithstanding what John Adams approved in the Treaty of Tripoli, the private writings of most of the founders (conspicuously not including Franklin and Madison, who were strong opponents of state-sponsored religion) indicate strongly that they intended the country to be based upon Christian ideals. It's worth noting that while the 1st Amendment prohibited Federal establishment of religion, states were allowed to and did have established state-funded religion well into the 19th century. And Congress immediately hired a Christian minister to provide moral guidance.

John Adams primarily authored the Massachusetts Constitutions, which says something along the lines of religion being necessary to good governance. Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and George Washington supported a bill - it was Henry's bill - to institute state funding for churches in Virginia in the 1780s. And while Jefferson offered his own bill opposing the establishment of religion in the state of Virginia - the bill which won out over Henry's - it was based upon the fact that God had created man with free will, and thus still presupposes a creating God.

I think it's fair to say that while the founding fathers as a group rather homogeneously opposed forcing the practice of religion on individuals, the healthy majority absolutely did support the adherence to Christian ideals as a core principle of good governance.

I take no issue with this viewpoint of our beginnings as a Government. I made no reference to the INTENT of the founders, however..........just what they enshrined into Law. The words they (Madison, mostly?) drafted have significant meaning. They became what we now have. The Constitution. (It took them many years (12?) to actually draft and adopt them). That Law (as presently interpreted) has resulted in a multitude of "beliefs/believers" (and NON believers) all having the right to practice their religion freely (supposedly) without (expressly without Federal) favor or malice.

I have no idea (for sure) their collective "intent" and have no doubt that the majority "envisioned" some kind of majority Christian Nation. But that wasn't what they gave us!! Not enough of a scholar to speculate why that is..........maybe it has something to do with the influence of the Seven Nations Laws that were favored by some and even somewhat incorporated (at least the concepts) into the eventual Document. Our Native American Brothers tended to be a little more tolerant of differing religious views than the white-eyes at the time.

To my understanding some of the founders were Christians....some Jews......some deists.......some atheists and all had a repulsion for a state sponsored religion or denomination hence the revolution.
they did share as you so well say an appetite for the multitude of possible religious beliefs and expressions and to my understanding they shared a secular belief in the judaeo- Christian principles or values not as religious expression but as guiding principles for society and governance.

I refer you back to my original post. Everything I'm pointing back out here is factually correct. You can google it in 30 seconds.

The statement that "all had a repulsion for a state sponsored religion or denomination hence the revolution" is completely false. The revolution was mostly about finances and political autonomy.

The states - run, in large part, by the same founding fathers - in some cases continued to establish religion. Massachusetts funded the Congregational church with tax revenues until the 1830s. The Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, refers to religion as necessary for good governance.

Patrick "Give me liberty or give me death" Henry sponsored a bill in the Virginia legislature in the 1880s proposing a state tax to fund the church. George Washington - the "Father of His Country" - quietly supported the bill. Richard Henry Lee, the man who officially proposed independence in the Continental Congress, vocally supported the bill.

They funded a church but didn’t make it a state religion and religious freedom was part of the revolution.
I said that values from religion were considered a part of governance which is different from a state religion which repulsed them.

Oh the robbing and looting. How terrible. They took my banner and burned it. That's wrong and should be punishable, but it's not like destroying most of a major City or 3.

Most of a city any exaggeration much.
7 people were arrested for vandalizing a federal building in Philadelphia.
guess what all white.
But it takes a racially challenged person to mock the taking of a special banner from an historical black church From inside it- a racially motivated act.

Hey all3 - what’s your rap on the substance of the BLM causes.
any opinion or not interested.

What BLM causes?? Grazing on our Federal Lands?

“Destroying most of a major city” ok

Posted by Uofa2 on 1/5/2021 11:23:00 AM (view original):
“Destroying most of a major city” ok

As usual, a worthless, pointless attempted come-back that contains ZERO substance.

Posted by laramiebob on 1/5/2021 11:22:00 AM (view original):
What BLM causes?? Grazing on our Federal Lands?

I believe there are those within BLM that have great intentions on addressing certain issues. I applaud anyone who does so. I just really hate the name. TO ME, it implies that brown lives, and red lives, and yellow lives, and white lives and whatever other color you want to add, lives don't matter.