Reading the Bible

the entire Holy Bible will be read by some 84 distinguished people, and hour each, including President Trump.

That's because Trump thinks it's a book about him.

Hmmmm

What is a distinguished person.

And what did they actually read.

Though for sure, religious style creation and existence hypotheses are interesting works of mythical pseudo-scientific fiction...And certainly the more popular Christian versions were adapted and modified in the second millennium AD so that even "distinguished" people could read them.

And is Donald the attention seeker distinguished?

Well to be fair, distinguished is as distinguished does I suppose.

And of course, propaganda exercises are what they are...And if you've got a free week and nothing better to do, then reading a book has got to be better that killing Muslim civilians...Hasn't it.

Though if the Holy Bible says thou must blow up schools, then who are we to argue.

Quite simply the vast majority of the Bible is fake news - not myth and not history: e.g. there's is zero chance that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon converted to Judaism and issued a death warrant for enemies of Judaism. There is zero chance the High King of Egypt was defeated by an omnipotent deity drowning his soldiers. There is zero chance there was a King Solomon with 700 wives and 300 concubines.

i.e. the Tanakh ("Old Testament") in particular is the work of malevolent liars - not pious theologians/poets and not historians.

if the Holy Bible says thou must blow up schools, then who are we to argue.

The Bible does not say that, as the preceding "if" implies just by it leading your sentence. If/then statements are all counter-logic because the "if" implies it's clause does not describe an existing condition. Therefore, "then," even just implied, cannot be justified.

But, more than that, the Bible is not, is not, is not, infallible. That's what prayer is for. Ask the boss what's what. The Bible does tell us too do that.

While I think it's a bit ironic? That Trump is involved,

It's a cool idea for an event.

. . .

Any Democrats reading?

Not meant as a jibe or gotcha,

(Organizers say they invited dozens of Democratic members of Congress and none responded.) 

https://www.sfexaminer.com/trump-will-participate-in-a-marathon-bible-reading/article_050f7e44-01ab-5fa5-be28-6358470d4a5b.html

Hm, but who knows if invites were in good faith, timely, to available people.

. . . Another possibility is people not wanting to associate with Trump or think there should be bigger separation of Church and State.

. . .

Reminds me a bit of that Joe Rogan podcast though, Kamala refusing it.

But maybe I'm making more of this event than it is.

. . .

I wonder how well, or badly, Trumps reading will go.

separation of Church and State.

And where, pray, tell, is that phrase codified? Not in any Constitution I've ever read that is codified. In a couple of SCOTUS syllabi, yes, but they are just precedent. In fact, Madison, in the Federalist Papers, and in several letters to colleagues, envisioned more of an intersection than a separation. Two institutions in cooperation to achieve the ideal of the Preamble's "more perfect union." I'll go with Madison.

I know Tommy Jefferson suggested that "separation" phrase, and a lot of people like it, but... Tommy was in France as our French minister [ambassador], separated from church AND state, while the Constitution was being written, signed, passed and ratified. He never signed it.

Trump is no artist, so that's not a self-portrait. But, nice try. Back to reality, ok?

I've an older post where I thought about this once.

More of the here and now though,

I think that the separation of Church and State can also be understood informally.

In the way that unspoken but assumed rules are.

Of course people 'vary in how much they think Church and State should be separated, 'plenty of lawmakers heavily involve Church and State together.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11231-ten-commandments-in-classrooms

"Separation of church and state" is a metaphor paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in discussions of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#:~:text="Separation%20of%20church%20and%20state"%20is%20a%20metaphor%20paraphrased%20from,an%20establishment%20of%20religion%2C%20or

Well, state government isn't 'Congress.

"In keeping with the lack of an established state religion in the United States, unlike in many European nations at the time, Article Six of the United States Constitution specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#:~:text="Separation%20of%20church%20and%20state"%20is%20a%20metaphor%20paraphrased%20from,an%20establishment%20of%20religion%2C%20or

In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled in Torcaso v. Watkins that a person could not be denied the office of notary public for not being a believer because it "unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States."

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/11/10/7-states-ban-atheists-office-but-bans-unenforceable/6352254001/

But 1961 is a long way from 1776,

And yet seven of the states mentioned in the post have language in their constitutions explicitly prohibiting atheists from holding office. Mississippi’s constitution, for example, states that "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state." In Pennsylvania, the eighth state noted in the post, the rule is not as clear cut.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/11/10/7-states-ban-atheists-office-but-bans-unenforceable/6352254001/

Thomas Jefferson was not the 'sole definer of what people wanted of their government, or considered the law to be.

"In contrast to this emphasis on separation, the Supreme Court in Zorach v. Clauson (1952) upheld accommodationism, holding that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and governmental recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of a state church the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit.[3][4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#:~:text="Separation%20of%20church%20and%20state"%20is%20a%20metaphor%20paraphrased%20from,an%20establishment%20of%20religion%2C%20or

There are many other examples on Wikipedia,

But I'm just skimming,

At a skim though, it 'looks to me that a state 'can according to the Constitution, have the 10 Amendments in a school,

Or the Satanist 10 Commandments, if they had enough public and government official support.

There is zero chance the High King of Egypt ...

Zero? That king [more appropriately, pharaoh, likely Ramses II, son of Seti I [who also raised Moses] was a powerful pharaoh, no doubt, during a period of Egyptian glory. But "zero chance" that he was defeated by the God of Abraham, who [Abraham, that is] left his own mark on Egypt? Egyptian temple design after that period is remarkably similar to the original Solomon's temple, possibly also from designs Abraham may have taught to his son and grandson, Isaac and Jacob, ands passed on through that genealogy. Sorry, can't agree with you. No, Ramses did not personally suffer consequence of the Israelite departure from Egypt led by Moses, other than loss of whatever portion of his army he had with him. In fact, Egyptian history does not mention it, at all, according to records uncovered to date.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Yes, I'm very familiar with the phrase. I've read the Constitution completely every month, and have for the last 30+ years. But it merely says Congress will not make a law to establish a religion, nor prohibit the people from their free exercise of religion, but it DOES NOT say government shall not cooperate with it nor make any use of its trappings. How else do you justify that House and Senate begin each daily session with prayer, and the Supreme Court opens invoking God ["God save the United States and this honorable Court"]?

Cynicism and satire faux, as you well know.

Your current spate of English tuition is unnecessary and not really much of an argument.

I don't doubt your intelligence, so don't doubt mine.

And prayer is either an internal or vocalised self to self conversation, or a communal utterance that might offer some benefit to it's performers.

But as you are not sure what or who the boss is in guessing that your questions are falling upon imaginary ears.

prayer is either an internal or vocalised self to self conversation

Wrong. MY questions go exactly where intended, and I have response.

When only Christians matter, even though there's nothing in the constitution that says you have to be a Christian to be a citizen.

As you say, the claim that only Christians matter is not of constitutional origin, so, no, that is not to be assumed. It may be the attitude that some have, but, just as racism is not systemic, even though that is claimed, it is clearly an individual racism issue, even if more than one individual is racist. It is not systemic because it is not current statutory text. It used to be, yes, but no longer. No current federal or state or municipal law contains racist text. period. Same for religious preference, just that all religions are to be respected, nor none, just as with race [which doesn't biologically exist, anyway, according to the Human Genome Project].

That is wishful thinking Faux... An unprovable brain construct...In simple terms, not actually true.

Your "wishful thinking" is flawed. "Unprovable" assumes you depend only on the 5 senses many unfortunates recognize as "proof" of theory as fact, or "true:" sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. But who says these are the limit of empirical knowledge when some animal forms exhibit additional senses: echo location, magneto perception, hemosensation, and others, some of which humans have between able to demonstrate learning to sense. Were the animals exhibiting these senses sufficiently sentient, they would laugh at your limitation to 5 senses. Well, in that added volume of dependable senses, I add faith, the ability to sense not just divine truth, but all truth in every quarter of the body of knowledge. I suspect you include in such an idea as "belief," and not the assurance of truth. And just as the sense of smell is limited to things that actually emit an odor, faith is operable only in things which are already true, or it is mere belief with no substantial evidence of truth.

Nope, I said unprovable brain construct.

I didn't specifically refer to sensory perception....It was you who raised the issue.

You have a tendency to fly off at tangents.

Nonetheless you are implying that output is not necessarily dependant upon sensory input...Which may be correct but is "Unprovable"...Hence you refer to it as faith.

And for sure, in terms of correctness of idea, incorrectness is not misfortune, but simply incorrectness.

I didn't specifically refer to sensory perception....It was you who raised the issue.

Yes, I did, because sensory perception is how science develops answers to theories and assumes to prove truth. I'm also saying we're not limited to 5 modes of perception, and that is contrary to current science's assessment for anthropomorphic capability; something they call "empirical evidence." They self-limit to 5 perception modes, only. Unfortunate, but, there it is. Plato spoke of shadow on the wall of a cave... shadows because we have more senses available to us to investigate and have experience using, and then the shadows will come into the light to reveal themselves for what they truly are: Among other things, more modes of perception of truth than we originally thought. But, what muddles the experience of life is the assumption that some modes of learning are fully-developed sciences, such as climate change. It's only 200 years old, trying to be physics, which is thousands of years in existence, and therefore has a healthy dose of maturity and reality. Climate change is not yet a science, but it has managed to become a get-rich-quick scheme, or at least a re-appropriation of funds scheme and little else. Example: show me a climate on Earth that sustains an environment of ±1.5º C. There's not a single climate on Earth that does that. Nor does it consider that the human mind can conceive of means to survive environments that fluctuate hundred of degrees in excess of that limited scope that some idiot like politician AlGore, inconveniently pulled out of his arse and called it "science."

The assertion that climate change is not yet a science is incorrect; climate change is a well-established scientific field with over 150 years of research and a 97% to 99% consensus among climate scientists that human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning, are the primary cause of current global warming.

1. Established Facts: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and major scientific bodies like NASA state that human influence on the warming climate has evolved from theory to established fact since systematic assessments began in the 1970s. 
2. Scientific Basis: The greenhouse effect, understood since the 1850s, is driven by gases like carbon dioxide that trap heat; atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by more than 30% since 1958, a rate 100 times faster than any natural cycle. 
3. Evidence: Scientists use instrumental data, historical records, and physics-based models to confirm that observed warming is not due to natural cycles, solar activity, or volcanic activity, which have either remained stable or moved in opposite directions to the observed temperature rise.

While scientists acknowledge that climate models cannot predict every specific local weather event or definitively weigh all economic costs, the core science confirming that human-caused greenhouse gases are warming the planet is robust and uncontroversial within the scientific community.

97% to 99% consensus among climate scientists

I did note that climate science has been around for 200 years, nit just 150. I also noted that physics is thousands of years old. I will also note that our mammalian ancestors 140M years ago had much the same physiology as we humans have today, and sustained and survived a much more noxious atmosphere with rampant vulcanism than we experience today. Our "climate change" is a picnic compared to then, and they survived and thrived. What does "climate science" say about that? I'm still waiting because they don't talk about it. They're infants compared to physicists and geologists, not to mention pure mathematicians. So, that a high percentage of them agree is no surprise to me; they lack depth, and their alleged measurement techniques and consistency of measurement process and equipment use is disastrous. Such matters were my career as a process engineer and manager; I am a Six Sigma Black Belt, and measurement accuracy was my bread and butter. Climate science is a petulant child. How often, do you think, is just their temperature measurement tools calibrated, and do they use the same equipment worldwide? No.

Let me tell you about one such...

Scientists use instrumental data, historical records, and physics-based models

The steel tanks used to "measure" ocean tsunami effects? Rectangular tank, flat bottom, perpendicular sides, and a paddle to create "ocean" waves? Show me that ocean that is "duplicated" measured by such playthings.. I've been in four of the five of those oceans, missing the Southern Antarctic.. Never saw one that looks like a shoe box, metal or cardboard. Physical based? Sure, if the ocean is a box. Hint: it ain't.

Well another dig at Al Gore for the sake of another dig at Al Gore...Such is an obsession relating to a former democratic politician.

Nonetheless climate changes relative to influences, and scientists (not Al Gore) confidently tell us that climate has been dramatically influenced over a relatively short period of time by human activity...Notably, the burning of fossil fuels and the production CO2, and also the production of other gases from industrial activity....The outcome of these effects can be ignored, but cannot be denied.

And to suggest that no one other than yourself knows how to calibrate a thermometer is absurd.

Such is an obsession relating to a former... 

fill in the blank. And are you not just as obsessed with my claim that faith is a sense we can learn to use?

Did I claim I am the only one who can calibrate a thermometer? Show me. I said I know how to calibrate, not that I am the only one who can. Or are you just putting words in my mouth again just to justify your denial position. Stop.

scientists (not Al Gore) confidently tell us that climate has been dramatically influenced over a relatively short period of time by human activity

I have never denied that. But, I also accept other, more experienced scientists in more experienced sciences who say the Earth's climate has been, millions of years ago, more noxious and violent than it is now, and mammals like us still survived, regardless, while lacking the science to artificially change their environment by building protective structures. Al Gore denies that, so why not criticize him? All I'm saying is that we may not be suffering an existential threat quite to the degree AlGore, and others claim. Bitching about our climate has, so far, not solved anything but transfer of wealth to un. deserving pockets. Big deal, one use, as I have repeatedly asked: where is the magical AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum? You have yet to answer the question. Isn't it about existential time?

Climate change. Canadas forest fires are a good example.