of course, this nonsense is always premised on it being the correct kind of “christianity” where folks like the couch fornicator are placed on pedestals as arbiters of the words and will of christ
Last edited:
Politics and Religion
- Thread starter Huckleberry
- Start date
“A Christian nation would be a more tolerant one.”
Tolerant of what?
It’s the right-wing Christians who are trying to suppress everyone but Christians. That’s intolerance.
Show me any government that ruled through religion in the history of this planet and I’ll show you one that ruled by fear, intolerance and death to those who refused to abide by the “states” religious rules.
Tolerant of what?
It’s the right-wing Christians who are trying to suppress everyone but Christians. That’s intolerance.
Show me any government that ruled through religion in the history of this planet and I’ll show you one that ruled by fear, intolerance and death to those who refused to abide by the “states” religious rules.
Here are a few quotes from some other guys that may have agreed with at least some of Vance's thoughts.
John Adams
Letter written on October 11, 1798, to the officers of a Massachusetts militia brigade:
“While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence.But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance... this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
George Washington
Farewell Address (1796) — his most famous statement on the topic:We all know what religion he was talking about.
Benjamin Franklin
Speech at the Constitutional Convention (June 28, 1787) — proposing daily prayer:He moved that prayers be held every morning before business.
John Jay (First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)
John Quincy Adams
Alexander Hamilton
They all had some differences in what they believed about God and Christianity they saw the necessity of its underlying moral foundations that was necessary for the nation they founded.
Tough to respond when you say “may have agreed with at least some of Vance’s thoughts.” Which thoughts in particular do you mean?
The basic idea that the decline in Christianity within the country has been to its detriment. The colonies and then states had many different denominations, but shared some basic tenets. The moral foundation found within Christianity is good restraining force within the country. Adams made this clear in his letter quoted above. Washington spoke of it as well. John Quincy Adams made clear the connection between the civil government and the broad principles of Christianity.
When you tear out the moral foundation of a nation, which we have been doing for several generations you are left with a big problem. There is no restraining force on the populace. Man will find a god. It is in our nature. When we replace God with little g god or gods those things that take preeminence can do much damage. There is an element of the secular progressives that have replaced God with the government or some leader contained within the government that they think can fix the problems and right the wrongs. The government itself or the leaders within contain the answers to life.
Let's be honest that there is a good number of Trump loyalists that view him in this light and it's just as destructive as when the secular progressive left does it with the government itself or the next leader that will be the savior. When you begin to throw out a shared moral framework that is embraced by the large majority of a nation that appeals to higher ideals above humanity and our own desires that nation will decline and may tear itself apart because there is no common bonds or belief system. They just share some borders and maybe a common language. One of the views have to beat the others in the end or they have to go their separate ways.
If the point is that a country needs some kind of shared moral framework, I agree. I also agree that Christianity has shaped a lot of America’s moral language. Where I disagree is the jump from that to saying secular liberalism is the problem, or that America needs to return to a more Christian foundation.
The founders you quoted were mostly saying religion and morality help self-government. Fair enough. But that does not mean they would agree with Vance’s broader argument. When they actually created the federal government, they did not make it Christian. They banned religious tests and set up a system where government does not establish one religion as the national standard.
There’s also the problem of who gets to define “Christian morals.” That sounds nice in the abstract, but it gets messy fast when it becomes law. Are we talking about banning same-sex marriage? Criminalizing abortion in every case? Restricting divorce, contraception, gambling, alcohol, women in leadership, or transgender rights? Plenty of Christians would say yes to some of that. Plenty of other Christians would say Christianity calls us to focus more on poverty, mercy, equality, immigration, and protecting the vulnerable. So “Christian morality” is not some single agreed-upon standard. It just raises the question of which Christians get to impose their version on everyone else.
I agree with you that worshiping government, ideology, or political leaders is dangerous. Trump loyalty is a good example of that. But I don’t think the answer is to make the country more officially Christian. I think the answer is to rebuild basic civic values that people of different faiths, and no faith, can share: honesty, restraint, equal rights, rule of law, personal responsibility, and concern for others.
So I agree that moral decline is a problem. I just don’t agree that secular government caused it, or that Christianizing government fixes it.
Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were non-Christian Diest. They reject the core teachings of the Bible, God and Jesus but believed there was some kind of higher power.
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were Christian Diest. They rejected miracles, the Trinity, and the divinity of Jesus, but still believed in Christian morals and in a divine, intervening Creator.
I read Alexander Hamilton’s biography by Ron Chernow. He rarely went to church. After his son was killed he started going a little more often with his wife but was never a regular attendee. When on his death bed, two priest refused to give him communion The first beacuse he was not a member of an episcopal church, and dueling was a grave sin. The second because the Sctoch Presbyterian Church did not do private communions and he wasn’t a member. Family and friends eventually convinced the first one to do it, after Hamilton also repented and forgave Burr. This points to a man that waited until his death to “get right” with God, not a man that lived a life of faith and devotion to Christ.
The people that find quotes from these founding fathers that reference God and prayer do so without an understanding of what they really believed. Most modern day American Christians would not agree with these men’s views on God.
This nation was not founded as a Christian nation as so many modern church goers love to proclaim. The principals used as a foundation for many of the documents written at the birth of this country used many Christian morals as their guide. But the founding fathers never intended for the government to be a Christian government nor rule through a Christian faith.
csac.history.wisc.edu
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were Christian Diest. They rejected miracles, the Trinity, and the divinity of Jesus, but still believed in Christian morals and in a divine, intervening Creator.
I read Alexander Hamilton’s biography by Ron Chernow. He rarely went to church. After his son was killed he started going a little more often with his wife but was never a regular attendee. When on his death bed, two priest refused to give him communion The first beacuse he was not a member of an episcopal church, and dueling was a grave sin. The second because the Sctoch Presbyterian Church did not do private communions and he wasn’t a member. Family and friends eventually convinced the first one to do it, after Hamilton also repented and forgave Burr. This points to a man that waited until his death to “get right” with God, not a man that lived a life of faith and devotion to Christ.
The people that find quotes from these founding fathers that reference God and prayer do so without an understanding of what they really believed. Most modern day American Christians would not agree with these men’s views on God.
This nation was not founded as a Christian nation as so many modern church goers love to proclaim. The principals used as a foundation for many of the documents written at the birth of this country used many Christian morals as their guide. But the founding fathers never intended for the government to be a Christian government nor rule through a Christian faith.
Deism and The Founders
During the Revolutionary and Founding eras many Americans increasingly abandoned traditional Christianity, embracing beliefs that could be described as either Unitarian or Deist. Many of these converts publicly maintained their original religious affiliations, attempting to …
csac.history.wisc.edu
That’s because morality (meaning universal morality, what’s fundamentally right and wrong) cannot exist in a vacuum. Without a Creator, Hitler is no different than Jimmy Carter, as eventually the universe will cool as all the stars die and nothing will be left, just cold, dead space. At that point it won’t matter if what one did was ‘good’ or ‘bad’ - the end result is identical.
Without a moral framework that exists outside of humanity there is no absolute moral truth on which to build civic values. That's what so many of the founders understood. The restraining principle being spoken of is built on the fact that there is a moral framework and judge above and outside of us that determines what is truly good and virtuous. If that doesn't exist for a large segment or even majority of a nation or people group then all bets are off. The values you suggest being rebuilt are built on a foundation of sand.
Why are your civic values good? I actually agree with the list you wrote, but tell me why they are good and why anyone should follow them? Outside of you, I, or some group think we should and that they are good. What moral framework are you basing those values on and why should it be binding to me? You could say we have the majority and will enforce them at the point of gun, but that doesn't tell me why your list is the list we should base our civic values on. Why is your list better than an ancient tribe that based values on power and being able to conquer and impose their will on their neighbors?
Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were non-Christian Diest. They reject the core teachings of the Bible, God and Jesus but believed there was some kind of higher power.
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were Christian Diest. They rejected miracles, the Trinity, and the divinity of Jesus, but still believed in Christian morals and in a divine, intervening Creator.
I read Alexander Hamilton’s biography by Ron Chernow. He rarely went to church. After his son was killed he started going a little more often with his wife but was never a regular attendee. When on his death bed, two priest refused to give him communion The first beacuse he was not a member of an episcopal church, and dueling was a grave sin. The second because the Sctoch Presbyterian Church did not do private communions and he wasn’t a member. Family and friends eventually convinced the first one to do it, after Hamilton also repented and forgave Burr. This points to a man that waited until his death to “get right” with God, not a man that lived a life of faith and devotion to Christ.
The people that find quotes from these founding fathers that reference God and prayer do so without an understanding of what they really believed. Most modern day American Christians would not agree with these men’s views on God.
This nation was not founded as a Christian nation as so many modern church goers love to proclaim. The principals used as a foundation for many of the documents written at the birth of this country used many Christian morals as their guide. But the founding fathers never intended for the government to be a Christian government nor rule through a Christian faith.
Deism and The Founders
During the Revolutionary and Founding eras many Americans increasingly abandoned traditional Christianity, embracing beliefs that could be described as either Unitarian or Deist. Many of these converts publicly maintained their original religious affiliations, attempting to …
Washington’s Actual Beliefs and Practices
Washington’s record points more toward a Christian (specifically Anglican/Episcopalian) with some Enlightenment influences:- Church affiliation: He was baptized and raised in the Church of England (which became the Episcopal Church after the Revolution). He served as a vestryman (a lay leader) in his local Virginia parishes (Pohick Church and Christ Church in Alexandria).
- Church attendance: He attended services regularly, though not every Sunday (roughly once a month when not traveling or at war). As president, he attended more frequently.
- Language about God: He frequently referred to “Providence,” “the Almighty,” “the Supreme Being,” and “the Grand Architect.” These terms sound Deistic, but Washington clearly believed Providence actively intervened in human events (he prayed for divine help during the Revolutionary War and saw God’s hand in American victories).
- Jesus Christ: He almost never mentioned Jesus by name in his surviving public or private writings. This is the strongest piece of evidence cited by those who call him a Deist.
- Private faith: He had a personal prayer book and wrote prayers that reflect Christian belief in a personal, intervening God. He supported chaplains in the Continental Army and issued proclamations calling for days of fasting, prayer, and thanksgiving that sometimes used Christian language.
Scholarly Consensus
Most serious historians today conclude:- Washington was not a strict Deist.
- He is best described as an 18th-century Anglican Christian who was influenced by Enlightenment rationalism (common among educated Virginians of his era).
- Some scholars (like David Holmes) call him a “Christian Deist” — someone who blended Christian practice with Deistic-style language.
- Others (like Michael Novak and Gary Scott Smith) argue he was simply a Christian who was private and non-sectarian in his public statements, as was typical for gentlemen of his time and social class.
Key Point
The biggest problem with labeling Washington a Deist is that he believed God intervenes in human history (what he called “Providence”). That belief is fundamentally incompatible with classical Deism.
Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were non-Christian Diest. They reject the core teachings of the Bible, God and Jesus but believed there was some kind of higher power.
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were Christian Diest. They rejected miracles, the Trinity, and the divinity of Jesus, but still believed in Christian morals and in a divine, intervening Creator.
I read Alexander Hamilton’s biography by Ron Chernow. He rarely went to church. After his son was killed he started going a little more often with his wife but was never a regular attendee. When on his death bed, two priest refused to give him communion The first beacuse he was not a member of an episcopal church, and dueling was a grave sin. The second because the Sctoch Presbyterian Church did not do private communions and he wasn’t a member. Family and friends eventually convinced the first one to do it, after Hamilton also repented and forgave Burr. This points to a man that waited until his death to “get right” with God, not a man that lived a life of faith and devotion to Christ.
The people that find quotes from these founding fathers that reference God and prayer do so without an understanding of what they really believed. Most modern day American Christians would not agree with these men’s views on God.
This nation was not founded as a Christian nation as so many modern church goers love to proclaim. The principals used as a foundation for many of the documents written at the birth of this country used many Christian morals as their guide. But the founding fathers never intended for the government to be a Christian government nor rule through a Christian faith.
Deism and The Founders
During the Revolutionary and Founding eras many Americans increasingly abandoned traditional Christianity, embracing beliefs that could be described as either Unitarian or Deist. Many of these converts publicly maintained their original religious affiliations, attempting to …
Hamilton’s Religious Journey
Here’s the clearest picture based on his writings and actions:| Period | Religious Outlook | Key Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Teen years (West Indies) | Strong Christian faith | Wrote hymns, prayed daily on his knees, had a conversion experience during the Great Awakening |
| Revolutionary War & early political career (1770s–1790s) | More skeptical / Deistic leanings | Used generic "Providence" language, seemed less interested in organized religion |
| Later years (after 1801) | Returned to Christian faith | Proposed the Christian Constitutional Society, affirmed core Christian doctrines |
| Final days (1804) | Clear Christian belief | Received Holy Communion before his duel with Burr and spoke of "redeeming grace" |
Key Evidence
Early Christian faith:- As a teenager in the Caribbean, Hamilton had a genuine Christian conversion under Presbyterian/Reformed influence.
- His roommate at college later recalled that Hamilton “was a zealous believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity” and prayed on his knees every morning and night.
- During the Revolution and his time as Treasury Secretary, he used more Enlightenment-style language and was less vocal about Christianity.
- Like many educated men of the era, he absorbed some Deistic ideas (skepticism toward miracles, preference for reason over revelation).
- After the tragic death of his son Philip in a duel in 1801, Hamilton experienced a clear spiritual turning point.
- In 1802, he wrote a letter proposing the formation of a “Christian Constitutional Society” whose two main goals were:
- The support of the Christian religion
- The support of the Constitution of the United States
- Before his fatal duel with Aaron Burr in 1804, he expressed Christian beliefs and received communion from an Episcopal bishop on his deathbed.
Scholarly Consensus
Most serious historians and biographers (including Ron Chernow, author of the major Hamilton biography) conclude:- Hamilton was never a consistent or convinced Deist like Thomas Paine.
- He had Deistic tendencies during his most politically active years.
- He ultimately died as a Christian, having returned to the faith of his youth in his final years.
Another investing point is that the federal government wasn't made Christian, but you should go look at the state constitutions of the time.
Early state constitutions (1776–1780s) handled religion very differently from the modern U.S. Constitution. Most states maintained some form of Christian preference or establishment, and many required religious tests for holding public office.
Here’s a clear breakdown of how the original 13 states approached religion in their first constitutions:
1. States with Official Religious Establishments
Several states had an established church (a state-supported and preferred denomination), usually Protestant:| State | Established Church | Key Details |
|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | Congregational (until 1833) | Required towns to support Protestant ministers with taxes. Written by John Adams. |
| Connecticut | Congregational (until 1818) | Strong establishment; required support for the "established" church. |
| New Hampshire | Protestant | Official Protestant establishment; officeholders had to be Protestant. |
| South Carolina | "Christian Protestant religion" | 1778 constitution declared the "Christian Protestant religion" as the established faith. Required belief in God, future rewards/punishments, and divine inspiration of the Bible. |
| Virginia | Anglican (Episcopal) | Establishment lasted until 1786, when Jefferson and Madison pushed through the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. |
These states used tax money to support churches and clergy of the preferred denomination.
2. States with Religious Tests for Office (Very Common)
Almost every early state constitution required some form of religious belief to hold public office. Common requirements included:- Belief in God
- Belief in a future state of rewards and punishments
- Belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible (Old and New Testaments)
- Sometimes a requirement to be Protestant or Christian
- Delaware (1776): Required officeholders to profess belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and that the Old and New Testaments were given by divine inspiration.
- Pennsylvania (1776): Required officeholders to believe in God and a future state of rewards and punishments.
- New Jersey (1776): Limited officeholding to Protestants.
- North Carolina (1776): Required officeholders to believe in God and the divine authority of the Old and New Testaments.
- Maryland (1776): Required belief in God and future rewards/punishments.
- Georgia (1777): Required Protestant Christianity for officeholders.
3. More Tolerant States (No Formal Establishment)
A few states avoided creating an official state church:- Rhode Island — Already had a long tradition of religious liberty (founded by Roger Williams). No establishment.
- Pennsylvania — No established church, though it still had religious tests for office.
- New York — No formal establishment after the Revolution (though it had previously favored the Dutch Reformed and Anglican churches).
- Virginia — Eventually became one of the most tolerant after disestablishment in 1786.
Summary of Early State Practices
| Feature | How Common? | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Official state church | Common (about 7–9 states) | MA, CT, NH, SC, VA (until 1786) |
| Religious test for office | Very common (nearly all states) | DE, PA, NJ, NC, MD, etc. |
| Tax support for churches | Common in establishment states | MA, CT, NH |
| Full religious liberty + no tests | Rare | RI, and later VA |
| Requirement to believe in God | Extremely common | Almost every state |
| Requirement to believe in Bible | Common | DE, NC, SC, etc. |
Important Context
- No state had complete separation of church and state like we have today under the modern interpretation of the First Amendment.
- Most states viewed Christianity (especially Protestantism) as essential to good government and morality.
- The U.S. Constitution (1787) was more secular than most state constitutions. It prohibited religious tests for federal office (Article VI) and said nothing about God.
- The First Amendment (1791) only applied to Congress ("Congress shall make no law..."). States were still free to maintain establishments and religious tests until the 14th Amendment (1868) and later Supreme Court rulings gradually applied the Bill of Rights to the states.
- Had an official established church, or
- Required some form of Christian belief (or at least belief in God and the Bible) to hold public office.
The Framers intentionally left religion largely under state control rather than trying to create a uniform national policy. They understood that attempting to impose one religious framework (or one set of rules) on the entire country would have made ratification nearly impossible.
Why They Left Religion to the States
Here are the main reasons this was built into the Constitution:- Diversity of State Practices The 13 states had very different religious situations:
- New England states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire) had strong Congregational establishments.
- Southern states like Virginia and South Carolina had Anglican (Episcopal) establishments or preferences.
- Middle states (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island) were more tolerant and had no official church.
- Trying to force all of them into one national system would have caused immediate conflict.
- Fear of a National Church Many people (especially Anti-Federalists) worried that a powerful central government might create a national established church or favor one denomination over others. The Constitution was written to limit federal power, and religion was one area where they deliberately kept that power out of federal hands.
- Federalism as the Solution The Constitution was built on the principle of federalism — dividing power between the national government and the states. Religion was treated as a state matter, just like many other issues at the time.
Key Constitutional Provisions
Two parts of the Constitution reflect this compromise:- Article VI, Clause 3 (1787):
This banned religious tests only for federal offices. It explicitly left state religious tests in place. This was a clear compromise. - First Amendment (1791):
Notice it says “Congress” — not the states. The First Amendment originally only restricted the federal government. States were still free to maintain their own churches, religious tests, and preferences.
Evidence from the Convention and Ratification
- During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia (1787), there was very little serious discussion about creating a national religious policy. The delegates focused on limiting what the federal government could do.
- In the Federalist Papers and state ratification debates, supporters of the Constitution repeatedly assured people that the federal government would have no power over religion.
- Many states only agreed to ratify the Constitution after being promised a Bill of Rights. The religion clauses were included partly to calm fears that the new federal government would interfere with state religious arrangements.
- James Madison and others argued that America’s religious diversity made a national establishment both impractical and dangerous.
Summary: It Was a Conscious Compromise
| Issue | What the Constitution Did | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Religious tests for office | Banned them only for federal offices (Article VI) | Compromise to get ratification |
| Establishment of religion | Only restricted Congress (First Amendment) | Left it to the states |
| State churches and religious tests | Allowed states to keep them | Avoided a fight that could sink the Constitution |
| National religious policy | None created | Too divisive; federalism was the solution |
The Founders knew that trying to create one national religious system would have been politically explosive and would likely have prevented the Constitution from being ratified. Federalism allowed the states to continue handling churches and religious requirements as they saw fit. So to say that after the ratification of the Constitution that there was a separation of church and state outside of the federal government isn't remotely true.
I don’t think morality is particularly valid when it depends on reward or punishment. If the only reason someone does the right thing is because they believe a god is watching or judging them, that is not a higher morality. That is obedience under threat.
I think basic morality comes from empathy, reason, human dignity, reciprocity, social instincts, and concern for suffering. People know cruelty is wrong because suffering is real. They know honesty matters because trust matters. They know restraint matters because unchecked power is dangerous.
Human beings have to live together, raise families, build trust, and cooperate. Those things require moral rules whether everyone shares the same religion or not. People don’t need fear of divine reward or punishment to recognize basic human values.
Is this is a vision into what is going to happen to this board when AI completely takes over?
Perhaps, but if there’s no higher power, laws and rules are optional. I don’t want to live in a world where morality is optional.
So cultures that kill people for being gay, mutilate women’s genitalia, etc are moral or immoral? Who gets to decide what’s moral and what isn’t?
Study history much?
“Basic human values” is easy to discuss from the comfort of modernity.
Who gets to define morality? Who gets to decide what’s moral is and isn’t moral?
The Epic of Gilgamesh predates any modern religious text by about 1000 years. The book of Genesis is the closest religious text to that work. So if religion defines morality then there is a lot of explaining to do about how the Sumerians where building the first civilizations and writing the the first books about morality 1000-2000 years before the first Hebrew text.
I've not said the bible is the foundation of morality, just that religion is. Religion has been around as long as humans have existed.
Without the appeal to a higher power morality is not only malleable but it's literally up to each person / culture. No rule amounts to anything without threat of penalty.
Besides, if we're all just accidents then everything we do is simply the result of chemical processes in the brain, so 'right' and 'wrong' are purely subjective.
Nobody gets to define morality all by himself. That’s true whether someone is religious or secular.
One problem with saying morality has to come from a “higher power” is that people still have to interpret what that higher power wants. Christians disagree with other Christians. Different religions disagree with each other. Even within the same religion, people have defended slavery, segregation, denying women rights, killing heretics, and persecuting gay people as morally justified.
Who gets to decide? The question doesn’t go away just because someone invokes some random God. We still have to ask whose version of God, whose interpretation, and whose moral rules.
Of course cultures that execute gay people or mutilate women are immoral. I believe that's so because they cause real suffering, deny human dignity, and treat people as less than fully human. How do you feel about them? Is it because of a religious belief or who you are as a person? Are those things inseparable?
Morality should be judged by how we treat each other without coercion, not simply by whether someone can attach a religious justification to it.
Ask yourself that question. Nobody gets to define morality alone. We argue it out through reason, empathy, experience, and concern for human suffering. And if the answer is “God,” we still have the same problem: whose God, whose interpretation, and whose rules? Yours?
That's where we disagree. I think religion is a human creation, not the source of morality. People created religions to explain the world, maintain power, and pass on traditions. Whether any of those religions are actually true is a separate question.
And people wonder why I reject religion. Most people don't refrain from lying, cheating, or hurting others simply because they're afraid of punishment. They do it because they care about other people, value trust, and want to live in a society where those things matter. Fear of punishment can enforce morality, but it isn't what creates it.
I don't see why being the product of evolution makes morality meaningless. Our brains may operate through chemistry, but love, suffering, compassion, and cruelty are still real experiences. That's enough for me to say some ways of treating people are better than others. Some may see it differently.
Will it matter a billion years from now? Certainly not. But how I treat others now matters to me (and to them). There doesn't have to be some grand design. If someone is moral only because of their religion, are they truly moral?
Last edited:
But why?
That’s the question I’m asking.
If we’re just an accident then all of your talk of how things make you feel are merely random chemical reactions that happen in your brain due to the randomness of nature.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
-
-
ESPN: Does the 2027 NFL draft class deserve all this hyp...- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Commitment season tiers: How CFB programs fared on...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Source: No vote on college sports bill this summer...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0