Hans Blaster said:

Then what on the gravitationally bound ball of rock that is the Earth, are you talking about by "public square"?

Click to expand...

Public events, public employment, that sort of thing.

Hans Blaster said:

There are appropriate and non-appropriate questions and ways to reply to any inquries. Questions about a teacher or students religion would seem to lie in the non-appropriate category. (If they asked about your sex life it certainly would be a question you could shut down with some sort of "that's not appropriate for discussion in class" response.)

Click to expand...

There are appropriate conversation topics, sure. But personal disclosure isn't something that should be off limits, provided it doesn't completely derail the lesson. That religion is somehow treated as a third rail is exactly part of the problem, because open polite discussion of such matters seems necessary for a pluralistic society to develop consideration for diversity of belief. Requiring it to be a secretive endeavor in no way seems reasonable to me.

Hans Blaster said:

I said nothing about taxing churches. Form 990 is filed by non-profits detaining their income and expenses and officers. It is filed by organizations that *don't* pay taxes.

Click to expand...

Ah, I misunderstood. What benefit is such a form supposed to produce that isn't already covered by current oversite practices?

Fervent said:

I don't think you're giving children enough credit here.

Click to expand...

And if they have the courage of their convictions they can go stand in the hall until you're done, right?

Fervent said:

Well, that's a failing on the part of the district since it's de facto establishment. Why do you think this is relevant?

Click to expand...

Because it's what can happen when sectarian religious observances take place in schools.

Hans Blaster said:

American government has been secularized for 200 years. American society has been rapidly secularizing for the last 50-60 years. The American *people* have been secularizing for the last 20 years. With that, church attendance and religiosity has declined in America.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Religion served a civil, ceremonial function in government and society, such as congressional chaplains, and from the beginning, none of the Founders were hostile to the civil institution of religion, that wasn't how they thought of the construction of the 1st Ammendment. French style secularism wasn't part of it.

Hentenza said:

I see you don’t have an answer either. From my perspective I don’t recall socialism ever working for long.

Click to expand...

What is probably most workable is a controlled hybrid of capitalism (not corporatism) and social welfare systems.

More of what the US was developing prior to the Reagan era, which smashed unions and unfettered corporatism.

Aryeh Jay said:

President Trump tries to reduce the suffering of the average American family from the longterm effects of Biden's disaster of an economy that people are still feeling the financial pain from and on and is ruthlessly attacked by the liberals.

Click to expand...

Trump's going to save us from there effects of the Trump Recession!

How?

With another recession!

RileyG said:

It must be very difficult to be a vegan considering how much animal products is in everything. Do you also not use honey or wear leather? Just curious.

Click to expand...

I don't buy leather or honey.

I'm probably not the strictest vegan, though. I don't take veganism to impractical lengths. There are all kinds of possible picayune debates that vegans can have about minutiae.

Landon Caeli said:

We are now the Richest, Most Respected Country In the World, With Almost No Inflation, and A Record Stock Market Price

Click to expand...

About that stock market:

The [US] stock market lags dozens of countries, in a year of record highs The U.S. stock market lags behind dozens of countries, even in a year of record highs



Why did the US market start lagging the rest of the world after Trump took office?

BCP1928 said:

A group of children under the authority of a teacher are not really in a position to give informed consent in such matters.

Click to expand...

I don't think you're giving children enough credit here.

BCP1928 said:

Here's another example: The famous Texas football game prayer case, Santa Fe School District v. Doe. The practice was to have a student-led prayer over the loudspeakers at football games, always an Evangelical Protestant prayer. A group of parents sued the school--no, not "secularists, Catholics and Mormons. Early on in the proceedings, they offered a compromise, that the prayer should be rotated around the different faith groups present in the student body but the district turned them down flat. It had to be an Evangelical Protestant prayer or nothing. In the end, they got nothing.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a failing on the part of the district since it's de facto establishment. Why do you think this is relevant?

Studyman said:

Let me know where you think I'm off the rails, if indeed you do. Thanks for the discussion.

Click to expand...

Studyman said:

I don't "ignore" any verse written in the Holy Scriptures, Ever! Please stop doing the exact same thing you accuse and complain about others doing to you.

Click to expand...

You asked where I thought you went off the rails. If you didn’t ask I would not have said. And If you did not want to know, don’t ask.
When I have more time I will look at the meat of your post annd respond accordingly. I appreciate your depth and time. Blessings

Fervent said:

Sure, but that's not really here nor there. It's rather ironic that so many "secularists" seem to think that their values should be normative on everyone else, while objecting to Christians expecting their values to be normative.

Did you miss the qualifier "voluntary"? Do you believe in the heckler's veto in general, or just in the case of expressions of faith?

Click to expand...

A group of children under the authority of a teacher are not really in a position to give informed consent in such matters.

Here's another example: The famous Texas football game prayer case, Santa Fe School District v. Doe. The practice was to have a student-led prayer over the loudspeakers at football games, always an Evangelical Protestant prayer. A group of parents sued the school--no, not "secularists, Catholics and Mormons. Early on in the proceedings, they offered a compromise, that the prayer should be rotated around the different faith groups present in the student body but the district turned them down flat. It had to be an Evangelical Protestant prayer or nothing. In the end, they got nothing.

Douggg said:

Paul was not implying that man of sin's action to sit in the temple was the abomination of desolation.

You are right about the abomination of desolation's position will be that of standing.

What Paul described is what is called in Daniel 8:13 as the transgression of desolation (TOD). A transgression is an act.

Click to expand...

Paul is referring to Matt. 24:15 and Dan. 9:27. Dan. 8:12-14 is the same event. The 2300 "days" is really 2300 Evening and Mornings or 1150 days.

Douggg said:

No, not that simple as meaning Agreement. In Daniel 9:4, Daniel referred to the Mt. Sinai covenant.

Click to expand...

The Covenant my friend will be exactly what I explained, Israel will join the E.U. In Dan. 9:4 Daniel was just reminding God of his promise to free Israel after 70 years in Babylon.

Douggg said:

So the covenant in Daniel 9:27 is referring to the Mt. Sinai covenant. Required to be confirmed on a 7 years cycle in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

Click to expand...

God is not dealing in a Covenant He sees as evil now. Those who trust in the Law over the Promise will not be in God's favor. My time is short tonight, gotta run, have a blessed day/night.

ThatRobGuy said:

In a way, yes...

Because there are multiple channels by which "influence leveraging" can be carried out.

I know this to be the case because people were understandably suspicious when Don Jr. was using his dad's name to carve out some nice deals for himself.

One could argue that "letting it happen, because there may be a little something in it for me later" is corruption-by-proxy, wouldn't you agree?


As history would have it, Hunter Biden's entire adult life was holding outsized positions that were way out of his league and expertise. His Dad being a long time senator, then a VP, then a P, certainly isn't coincidental.

He got a high ranking position (Executive Vice President) within MBNA (a bank holding company in Delaware) while his Dad was a senator there... for those who remember, Joe used to be referred to as "The Senator from MBNA".

His Dad was taking him on Air Force 2 to close business deals in China.

Hunter ended up getting appointed to the Department of Commerce by his dad's buddy Bill Clinton. Joe had nothing to do with that?

And then of course there was the Burisma fiasco, where he was put on the board of an industry in which he had zero experience, in a country whose language he didn't speak.

His dad (and his dad's position) had nothing to do with that? People with severe substance abuse problems just "luck into" 8 figure board positions in overseas energy companies with zero experience in the sector all the time, right?

His dad was clearly "hooking up" him up?


There's only two options:
1) Joe was using his positions over the years to help his family make some money.
2) Hunter is the most over-achieving, luckiest cocaine addict in the history of the United States.

There's only 2 kinds of people who can make that kind of money while being mediocre and having a substance problem. Kids of "connected" people who pull some strings, and members of Fleetwood Mac.

Click to expand...

Feom the little I've seen i can't say thr evidence of corruption from hunter was particularly convincing. Whereas it's just naked with the trumps.


To give trump family a blind pass to this after tearing hunter down smacks of "you're opinion means nothing". This is not your by rhe way

BPPLEE said:

I've lost 40 pounds now, still have a long way to go

Click to expand...

Congratulations!

Where on earth do some people get their information? Never heard of this conspiracy theory before.

Praying for the persecuted Church!

Lord have mercy! Praying for a revival for this Archdiocese!

Clare73 said:

Note the "IF", not "when."

Click to expand...

No, we get too technical translating these words at times, and we also then fail to see why Paul's IF if it was not some other word that did not quite mean if, is then overridden by Pau in vs. 25 where he says emphatically that ALL Israel (he means all 12 tribes will be represented in this repentance not ever Jew, of course, Zech. 13:8-9 tells us that only 1/3 repent, but since there are 8 Billion Gentiles and only 1/8 of us make it to heaven, yest I know there are now 2 billion Christians, but 5 of the 10 virgin brides do not make the wedding call or rapture. So, 33% is a lot higher than 12-13%.

Clare73 said:

And the rest of the story. . .(Gal 3:29)

Click to expand...

I have taught on Gal chapter 3 many times sister, its not what you think it is, as a matter of fact its just the opposite. I can go into detail, but I will just give a brief understanding for now.

During the whole chapter Paul is rebuking the Galatians for moving away from the faith, and unto the Law of Moses. So, some converted Jews no doubt came along and said BUT....you still have to keep Moses' Law. That is why Paul juxtaposed FAITH (Spirit) vs. FLESH (Law) over and over in Gal. 3. Then at the end to bring it home, he's saying STOP TRYING TO BE Jewish in order to make it to heaven, we all make it the same way, Jew, Greek, Male & Female BY FAITH ALONE. You and others wrongly surmise this means Paul is saying the Church are all one, if that is what he mean, that Jews and Males are now all ONE, why did he use Males and Females because we are not ALL ONE are we? Males are males and females still are the only gender that can have babies in this world. So, males and females are all one in what manner? How we come unto Christ Jesus by.....................FAITH ALONE....Not by keeping Moses' Law. Likewise, the same thing was meant about Jews and Greeks (Gentiles) all being ONE. Both Jew and Gentile must come unto God by FAITH ALONE. This is why Israel can not repent until after the Pre Trib. Rapture, because God has turned the mantle of taking the Gospel unto all the world over to the [mostly] Gentile Church(Time of the Gentiles [SERVICE unto God]. Only after we are Raptured will Gd call Israel, as a nation, unto repentance, as a matter of fact, its our Rapture (which is 1 Billion people dying at the same time) of our Spirit Man, which starts the ball rolling for a lot of the Jews, ALL THOSE WHO DIED were Christians. Then Elijah and Moses shows up to finish the job.

Never let one chapter or verse send you down a wrong path sister.

seeking.IAM said:

A long time ago a colleague once told me, "Some people are just malcontents." (colorful adjective omitted). Others are just determined to have their own way. Communication to navigate differences assumes both parties are at least semi-reasonable. Not everyone is.

Click to expand...

That is true (that not everyone is at least semi-reasonable). But my question then becomes, being a malcontent, or determined to have one's own way, are surely not signs of Christian maturity? How then do we address such immaturity in our communities?

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

You make a good point—although employer-sponsored insurance has benefits, it also has drawbacks like job loss and high co-pays. That's why a single-payer system seems sensible.

However, the key question remains: how much must each individual contribute in taxation to achieve universal health care?

Click to expand...

Reasonable, data based estimates have been shown to you over and over. How can you say that question remains?

BCP1928 said:

You can advocate for them all you like., but your morals are no more normative on the rest of us than those of any other faith groups. The other thing to remember is that the laws of a secular state like the US are not moral statements. They can be and usually are informed by the moral sentiments of "we, the people," but the laws in themselves are not morals, just a set of rules we agree to live by, whatever our morals may be.

Click to expand...

Sure, but that's not really here nor there. It's rather ironic that so many "secularists" seem to think that their values should be normative on everyone else, while objecting to Christians expecting their values to be normative.

BCP1928 said:

Why should any teacher of any faith be allowed to lead her students in a sectarian prayer which may be offensive to some of them?

Click to expand...

Did you miss the qualifier "voluntary"? Do you believe in the heckler's veto in general, or just in the case of expressions of faith?

Say it aint so said:

Judge appears skeptical of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney​

At a James Comey / Leticia Jame motion hearing at federal court today, the Judge in anticipating of receiving the Grand Jury transcript that Lindsey Halligan neglected to provide the first time it was requested, came up at today's motion. The Judge noted despite the second request the transcript is still not there. In response the DOJ with Halilgan at the helm responded, one doesn't exist. And the reason why it didn't exist was because there was no court reporter there. I kid you not. In their motion defense the DOJ lawyer argued that DOJ Pam Bondi had reviewed the transcript in a signed statement.

""Justice Department attorney Henry Whitaker urged Currie to treat questions about Halligan’s appointment as, at most, a “paperwork error” and emphasized that Bondi had reviewed the grand jury materials and agreed to retroactively “ratify” Halligan’s actions, even if her initial appointment is deemed invalid.​

​

But Currie said the missing component of the grand jury transcript called into question the sufficiency of Bondi’s review.​

​

“It became obvious to me that the attorney general could not have reviewed those portions of the transcript presented by Ms. Halligan,” Currie said. The judge also questioned why Bondi signed a statement saying she had reviewed Halligan’s actions before the grand jury when transcripts of some of that presentation “did not exist.”​

​

“She couldn’t have,” Currie said.""​

I mean either someone or all of them are lying to the judge. Under any other presidency or congress these folks would have been hauled into congress to answer questions of incompetancy and/or fired. But this is the Trump admin where competence takes a back seat to loyalty.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's reason to believe they were lying to the judge. As noted here:

I assume the AG was not trying to mislead the court. She had no doubt reviewed the portion of the proceeding that had been transcribed earlier — the testimony of the sole witness presented. What was missing was the colloquy between the prosecutor and the grand jury, including legal instructions. Those are often not transcribed. The witness testimony is routinely transcribed because it is often turned over to the defense under discovery rules; the prosecutor’s interaction with the grand jury is recorded but often not transcribed — it’s not discoverable unless there is some colorable allegation of impropriety in the grand jury proceeding.

and

I am not implying that Halligan did something nefarious; I think she’s just inexperienced in the practice of criminal law. As I’ve explained, grand jury proceedings can get chaotic. That’s why most U.S. attorneys’ offices require new prosecutors to observe a few grand jury presentations, then do a few presentations of seemingly simple cases under the watchful eye of an experienced supervisor, before flying solo.

All of this seems to be more likely Halligan having never done a grand jury presentation before (or having prosecuted a case) and messing things up due to the inexperience than anyone actually trying to lie.

Fervent said:

Sounds like you're telling Christians how to live their lives. Normative ethics is a part of public life, so why should Christians sit silently while baseless "moral"s run rampant instead of holding firm to the normativity of their ethical principles?

Click to expand...

You can advocate for them all you like., but your morals are no more normative on the rest of us than those of any other faith groups. The other thing to remember is that the laws of a secular state like the US are not moral statements. They can be and usually are informed by the moral sentiments of "we, the people," but the laws in themselves are not morals, just a set of rules we agree to live by, whatever our morals may be.

Why should any teacher of any faith be allowed to lead her students in a sectarian prayer which may be offensive to some of them?

Fisherking said:

The word Covenant in Hebrew simply means Agreement. The Agreement will be with the AC and in Dan. 7 we see the 10 horns and Rev. 13 we see it has 7 Heads and 10 Horns.

Click to expand...

No, not that simple as meaning Agreement. In Daniel 9:4, Daniel referred to the Mt. Sinai covenant.

4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;

So the covenant in Daniel 9:27 is referring to the Mt. Sinai covenant. Required to be confirmed on a 7 years cycle in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

I do agree with you though, that once the person become the beast, his kingdom will be that of the EU. Our main difference is that I am saying the person must go through the stages to get to that point. One of those stages being as the Antichrist - King of Israel, false messiah. For a while, about 3 years.

Once the person becomes the beast, in Revelation 17:17, the ten EU leaders will give their kingdom over to the beast to essentially be dictator of the EU.

17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

zippy2006 said:

I would suggest reading the article you posted in your OP.

Click to expand...

I. Of course, did. What do you believe I am missing?

Bradskii said:

So I call bulldust.

Click to expand...

So are we just allowed to make little adjustments and that’s allowed?

If I claimed Trump was “grabbing them in their purse”, would that be fine.