Christian utopia?

[Drich]

I see where atkins bible was put fourth to be examined by the congress for official US use... That right there douche is enough to end the argument. or do you not understand that if congress is reviewing bibles for official state/federal government use you loose the argument...

Oh well, here's from actual Christians, maybe they can persuade you:

One of the hardiest Christian America myths is the idea that Congress gave financial support to print the first American-published Bible in 1782, or even that Congress printed it themselves. Neither is true, though Congress did give an endorsement to the Bible printed by Robert Aitken. In the past, Christian America writers such as David Barton have routinely circulated mistaken ideas about the connection between the 1782 Congress and the Bible.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...can-bible/

clearly you are way in over your head.. you are one of he who demands evidence for God but has no idea how to rate evidence as itis given. you don't know what for beats another or if two conflict how to determine which is true.

So I will do you a solid.. yes the man who has problems spelling words that are second nature to you knos something solid about research and evidence gathering you and all of you spelling ability is clueless about.

Evidence gathering is based on a three tier system meaning there are three primary grades of written evidence. 
1) you have primary sources
2) secondary sources
3) teteriary sources
(read the link to learn why primary source material always trumps teteriary material and how to identify primary over tertiary.
https://www.crk.umn.edu/library/primary-...ry-sources

get it? do you see why you quoting and posting some preachers commentary does not trump page 574 of the congressional journal? The congressional journal are the actual recorded minutes from the meeting meaning there is no material that can be considered any more primary than this. even if thomas jefferson was in attendance and in a letter wrote that the meeting was about something else the congressional journal would trump jefferson's letter!

Why? because the journal's primary purpose was to record the happenings in the continental congress as an official record. Jefferson's letter would be considered a secondary source.

This latest link you left is barely a tertiary source as 1 it is a commentary and two it conflicts with the written official record that says congress endorsed this bible for official and private use. not only that commissioned him to go ito full print with their complete endorsement.. page 574 settles all arguements, and you are a damn fool for posting it!!!

Not only that sport, the bible was only the beginning of th video what of all of the other things he mentioned? including jefferson preaching sermons while i office?

---

Are you in denial or delude? She says SHE WILL CHANGE DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS VIEWS TO FIT MODERN FREEDOMS.

What she actually said:

Yes, we’ve nearly closed the global gender gap in primary school, but secondary school remains out of reach for so many girls around the world. Yes, we’ve increased the number of countries prohibiting domestic violence, but still more than half the nations in the world have no such laws on the books, and an estimated one in three women still experience violence. Yes, we’ve cut the mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth.

All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

As I have said, and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the twenty-first century, and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

Ok so we seem to be on the same page of what she said...

However i do not think you understand the ramifications/costs that implementing 'women's rights' will cost every citizen. it start with freedom of religion.
again abortion and easily discernible topics for christian women aside. lets say this woman wants to be a preacher. now there are hundreds of different expressions of christianity that will allow this, but that is not what this woman wants. let say she wants to be a teacher in a church that do not allow women to teach. now according to clinton manifesto deeply held religious beliefs that conflict with a woman's rights will be changed. to change this prohibition of teaching women there has to b a law that mandates this woman be allow to teach in a church that will not allow it.

This literally means congress shall have to make a law regarding how a given religion is practiced! this violates the 1st amendment thus it needs to be changed not only will religious freedom be redacted freedom of speech is also on the chopping block

look again not speculation sport it already happened rather the dims in the house already passed a amendment change that would all clinton's manifesto to allow the government to enforce laws in churches, and change the freedom of speech clause to the freedom of 'reasonable' speech. Again sport this his a historical event. if it where not for the majority i the senate this bill would have went to clinton and she vowed by your own recogning to sign this bill that according to ted cruise abolishes the first amendment.

He is not saying that to sensationalize some democratic policy, he reads the bill and the language is clear. even 2/3 into the video when the dims have their  rebuttal they can not defend what ted charges. they only point back to first amendment president which get undone if this bill passes!

Don't pretend this is a what if or i have things wrong. again watch the video! 8 months ago your party trying to sneak a constitutional amendment that would eliminate our religious rights freedom of the press and or right to speak our minds, all the while winging you douche bags p lke toys with the idea they where going to impeach trump for not doing anything they claimed he did!

---

in essence your party is trying to roll back our constitutional rights, the rights that keep tyrants at bay, under the banner of supporting women's rights or children's rights.