trottigy

Knowing how much Trump loves California I can see him adding CA as a deal sweetener.

I was glad to see he at least briefly mentioned the flood. How much the flood would have changed all that area is any guess. It's fun to see the Bible lands. One day I look forward to seeing it all myself.

She's doing pretty good, that article was from 7 years ago. I'm going to guess that if there was really a concern for liberals that a conservative would appoint another conservative justice, she would have stepped down during Biden's presidency and let him back fill the spot. Edit. Here's a crazy thought- if there's really a concern about who's on the supreme Court, it'd probably be good for Trump to replace several of the older conservatives with younger people. Here's a breakdown of the ages of the current justices: Clarence Thomas: 77 years old. Samuel Alito: 75 years old. John Roberts: 70 years old. Roberts is the same age as Sotomayor.

The 1st amendment in the US has permitted people to talk about their faith for a long time now. This is just a show with absolutely no meaning.

The French governmental anti-cult agency MIVILUDES (Interministerial Mission for Monitoring and Combating Cultic Deviances) has lost yet another case against the French Jehovah’s Witnesses—the Fédération Chrétienne des Témoins de Jéhovah de France (FCTJF). Just as it happened on June 14, 2024, the Administrative Court of Paris ruled that a number of passages concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses in a MIVILUDES report were defamatory. On July 11, 2025, the Administrative Court of Paris examined nineteen passages of the 2021 annual report of the MIVILUDES that the Jehovah’s Witnesses considered defamatory, but the mission had refused to delete from the document. The court found parts of eleven of the nineteen passages defamatory and ordered them deleted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is responsible for the MIVILUDES and was the defendant in the case. Interesting to see that made them remove this: that members of this religious movement are discouraged from turning to these [secular] courts; and finally, that their leaders do not proceed, as required by criminal law, to report certain criminal offenses to the justice system, particularly those committed against minors.” The court dismissed the Ministry’s objections that these statements are corroborated by a controversial report of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and by three declarations by apostate ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses. An Australian report “is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that Jehovah’s Witnesses in France reject the justice system,” the court commented. “The three testimonies submitted in defense [by the Ministry] are not sufficient to contradict the evidence” presented by the FCTJF (sworn testimonies and written documents) all proving that they comply with France’s child abuse reporting laws and that their internal ecclesiastical disciplinary procedure does not obstruct reporting to the French authorities.

Dang it - my favorite time to surf is at midnight when it is so dark I can't see anything 😉 Anyway, no news here in SLO other than a small blurb in the paper - see above. note: 2 foot waves are typical here - surfs up

As a local government employee for the last 30 years, I can confirm that religion has been pushed on me, but not in ways anyone thinks of as pushing religion. I regularly get notices of blood drives, I regularly get asked to sign Birthday cards, go to the Christmas party, dress up for Halloween, participate in the pumpkin/ jack-o'-lantern contest, Easter, etc. As for someone actually wanting to discuss religion - other than these religious celebrations - I've never had that happen, unless I started th conversation. I don't understand the need for an Executive Order to do what has been done for decades already.

I know things are different in different countries. I always saw this as similar to - we don't pay taxes in the US. In other countries - maybe it's the reverse. From the article: "From certain details in the Official Report “Government support for religious communities in a multi-religious Sweden” (Statens stöd till trossamfund i ett mångreligiöst Sverige) (the explanatory report) it appears that the new law, with its imprecise criteria that allow for effectively unfettered arbitrary interpretation, has been drafted specifically to inhibit Jehovah’s Witnesses from receiving State grants in future. Annually, more than 40 other religious communities receive such grants. Ulf Bjereld, who is a professor of political science, chaired the working group that drafted the explanatory report. He has gone on record as saying that the legislation was contemplated because politicians want to prevent Jehovah’s Witnesses from receiving government subsidies. The newspaper Dagen quoted Professor Bjereld: “It was not about Muslims or LGBTQ issues initially, but the question was whether Jehovah’s Witnesses would have access to tax money. We will have to see whether this legislation is enough to prevent them from receiving subsidies.” So, other religions that are registered receive a stipend or grant, but not us. If all other registered religions receive these funds, JWs who are registered should also.

Thanks, I'll add your link to our "links page", here ->

Pastors who endorse political candidates shouldn’t lose tax-exempt status, IRS says in filing | CNN Politics https://share.google/NFILrBBDGsX0jE8UP

I think it's important to review those three principles again, because it seems like some are not remembering them. The update didn't say all toasting is now okay. They just said they don't see a reason to prohibit it and instead want us to use principles for when it would be okay. If that's true for something as simple as toasting, wouldn't you have to apply these principles for everything? The slave is not saying all celebrations are okay now. This is from the transcript: 3.1. [Principle 1of3] Would Jehovah Be Offended by This? At 2 Corinthians 6:17, Jehovah gives us clear direction: “‘Therefore, get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’; ‘and I will take you in.’” This principle emphasizes that Christians must stay far away from any symbol or custom related to false religion or spiritism. 3.2. [Principle 2of3] How Would This Affect Others in the Congregation? Romans 14:19 and 21 remind us: “So, then, let us pursue the things making for peace and the things that build one another up.” “It is best not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything over which your brother stumbles.” Even if a symbol or custom isn’t wrong in itself, we need to consider how others in the congregation might view it. We would never want our actions to offend others needlessly. At the same time, as mature Christians we respect the right that others have to make their own decisions based on their Bible-trained conscience. 3.3. [Principle 3of3] How Is This Symbol or Custom Viewed by People in My Culture or Community? The Bible principle at 1 Corinthians 9:20, 21, and 23 is: “To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, in order to gain those without law.” “But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others.” The principle here is that we take into account how others feel about and view matters. Knowing how a certain symbol or custom is viewed in our own country or community is very important. Something that is very offensive in our land or culture may be viewed as completely innocent in another land or culture. --------------------------- Let's use these for birthdays as an example: 1. Do we think Jehovah would be offended if we participated in a celebration that elevated one person over another, used astrological symbols as part of the celebration (i.e. cake in the shape of a moon/ round with twinkling stars/, making a wish while blowing on those stars/ candles), etc.. 2. How would this affect our brothers and sisters - especially ones and the truth for a long time? How will this affect our children and then doing their best to remain no part of this world? If it's a slippery slope to stop a prohibition on toasting, how slippery of a slope would it be to stop a Prohibition on birthdays? Is that really the slippery slope we want to ride down? 3. It's not judging to remember that our brothers and sisters who've been in the truth for a very long time would clearly be offended by birthdays. You can count me in as one of those who thinks a celebration set based an astrological time and based on astrology while using astrological symbols and that the day of one's birth has some significance that needs celebrating! 2 Corinthians 6:17 says "quit touching the unclean thing". We must avoid unclean/spiritistic practices. Jehovah says we have to be holy as he is holy. We wouldn't even want to touch this unholy thing IMO. Edit: seeing these principles tells you this is not just the thing between you and Jehovah. This is a thing that affects the entire congregation and that has to be taken into consideration as well.

Think of it as you being loyal right up until the end (at least the end of the prohibition). That said, it still might not have been appropriate. Just because the GB is giving us principles instead of a rule doesn't mean we don't have to consider the principles. There still might be times we'd avoid participating in a toast. So, well done good and faithful servant.

That is basically what the US addendum says - no objection to using online storage services for nonconfidential documents. The only confidential item sited is judicial matters. Different countries have different legal requirements for personal information, but most must allow online storage - as Google and Amazon are surely doing that.

The previous verse that cause this verse to start out with "therefore" "Let no man deceive you with empty words, for because of such things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience." Does that remind you of 1st Corinthians 15:33 - Do not be misled? Or let no mam deceive you.

I don't think that's how that works or is even close to what the supreme court decision was about.