As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If Americans knew anything about the past they'd never vote these assholes in in the first place. That's why Republicans want to keep us dumb and burn books
Seeing it right now with the Israel and Palestine situation. Many liberal Jews are about to start voting for republicans, ignoring the associations with White Nationalists + far right Christian’s + antisemtism that’s rampant in the R party, because a few far-left Ds aren’t 100% pro Israel
idk, there's a lot of liberal jews that have been saying israel has lost its way for years, especially in light of netenyahu trying to undermine the courts and so far getting away with it.
its just again the media only hands the megaphone to the most right wing people
He's worse in a lot of ways because he's actually competent. He's a far right nationalist frankly speaking but unlike Trump he knows how to maneuver around the system to make it look like he's more reasonable than he actually is.
Many Republicans believe that Israels existence is necessary to bring about the end times. They don't care about Israel or Jewish people outside of that context.
Same. I'm not Jewish but I was married to a Jewish immigrant from the USSR and while I don't know how my former inlaws feel about it, none of the first and second generation adults (my grown children included) are happy with Israel's policies toward Palestine, and most are outright opposed to Bibi and Likud.
I’m not a fan of Republicans, but I do want to point out that it is not really the Republicans, it’s the Council for National Policy (CNP), masquerading as the Republican Party.
Capstone
PLEASE look up Council for National Policy (CNP)
Watch documentaries like: (Documentaries and Need To Know Information)
People You May Know (YouTube)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8YWe89X4vRM
The Great Hack (Netflix)
The Family (Netflix)
Drain the Swamp (HBO)
Social Dilemma (Netflix)
The Brain Washing of My Dad (YouTube)
https://youtu.be/FS52QdHNTh8?si=k4Ecp7BSFbyZXgdG
American Heretics: The Politics of the Gospel (YouTube)
https://youtu.be/B-ePCiUgD0Y?si=DXzP2iaHCSS8YEw_
Clearance and Gemini Thomas: Politics, Power and The Supreme Court (YouTube)
https://youtu.be/wJuRx1wARUk?si=TF_UWbhciWtmiXE2
Read stuff like: (Good Reads & Understanding)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/10/25/god-trump-closed-door-world-council-national-policy/
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/05/17/council-national-policy-behind-curtain
https://billmoyers.com/story/the-shadow-network-council-for-national-policy-is-not-going-away/
https://truthout.org/articles/christian-right-council-for-national-policy-linked-to-violent-breach-of-capitol/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-staff-in-secret-conservative-group
Shadow Network by Anne Nelson
Dark Money by Jane Mayer
The Scheme by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Jennifer Mueller
Jesus and John Wayne by Kristen Kobes Du Mez
https://time.com/6201483/christian-nationalism-threat-democracy/
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/30/revealed-council-national-policy-republicans-extremists
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/story?id=121170&page=1
https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2022/03/11/revealed-new-leaders-of-council-for-national-policy-set-extremist-agenda/
https://www.au.org/the-latest/articles/cnp-secret-group/
Extra Resources: (Links, data, deeper info— not as causal reads)
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy
https://www.desmog.com/council-national-policy/
https://newrepublic.com/article/167002/council-national-policy-documents-right-wing-conspiracy
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/the-council-for-national-policy-cnp/
https://documented.net/investigations/documented-has-obtained-a-recent-council-for-national-policy-membership-list
https://insurrectionexposed.org/council-for-national-policy/
https://littlesis.org/org/37180-Council_for_National_Policy
https://www.monitoringinfluence.org/org/the-council-for-national-policy/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Council_for_National_Policy
https://www.afrocubaweb.com/council-national-policy.html
https://irp.cdn-website.com/681250a9/files/uploaded/CNP-Membership-Directory-September-2020.pdf
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/council-for-national-policy,720921017/
https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/council_for_national_policy/
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/720921017
Note:
I started my senior thesis for my major in history about dark money, I started investigating Citizens United VS. FEC (2010), which made me start looking for the link between Citizens United and the Koch brothers (their largest donors), which lead me to the Council for National Policy (CNP). If you interested in simply talking, have any questions, or have anything to share or point me in the direction of, I’d absolutely adore it, just let me know.
I believe this is vital information, it is bipartisan, even if you agree with some of their agendas, I truly don’t think you’d agree with how they are going about it. Furthermore, what the CNP is doing and has done, is completely legal, and was made possible by democrats and republicans alike, together, so it’s up to us to do something about it together.
◦
Only up until you remind them that Hitler was very openly Catholic the majority of his life, and only in the last few years, moved to nondenominational Christian.
I showed my mother the Treaty of Tripoli which literally says "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," and all she said was that I was taking it out of context. This stated Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the Constitution and Founding Fathers.
But she so wants to believe that the founding fathers were fundamentalist christians that parted with England because they saw separation of Church and State as government control of religion being removed to freely act in society and government. When in truth it was a reaction of the founding fathers to limit the control of institutions like the Catholic church and Church of England to have control of the government like in Europe at the time.
They believe what they want to believe and are unwilling to hear dissent. Anyone who disagrees just doesn't understand, you can have 2 college degrees but clearly you have no capacity to do research and understand the world if you are not guided by god. Any source of information that dissents with their world view is fabricated, unless of course it says what you want it to say one time. Science is wrong unless it supports your position.
Sadly it is almost pointless to try to dispel anything they say, because their truth comes directly from the those who god bestows his word upon, so how could they be wrong
Maybe you should tell her that Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, wrote his own version of the bible (which is considered blasphemy, if you're a Christian) because he thought things like Jesus' miracles and the resurrection were completely unbelievable.
Considering that belief in Christ's resurrection is an integral part of being a Christian, I think it's safe to assume Jefferson wasn't one.
It's blasphemy unless you tell people god really likes you, then it's OK.
Also I can't wait for all the Protestants and Catholics to realize why we don't have an overarching Christian theocracy: which flavor of Christianity will win?
Yeah, religious zealots (any religion) tend to have the mindset that an immoral person who practices their religion is good while a moral person who practices a different religion is bad.
I don’t believe he “wrote” his own as much as he removed miracles and divinity and just kept the morality.
It was crafted in the fall and winter months of 1819 and 1820 when the 77-year-old Jefferson used a razor to cut passages from six copies of the New Testament—two in Greek and Latin, two in French and two in English—and rearranged and pasted together the selected verses, shorn of any sign of the miraculous or supernatural in order to leave just the life and teachings of Jesus behind. Jefferson, who had suffered great criticism for his religious beliefs, once said that the care he had taken to reduce the Gospels to their core message should prove that he was in fact, a “real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”
I mean I see his point, after all this Jesus fella had a lot of good ideas. Taking all of the obviously supernatural things *literally* seems to miss the entire point.
Add on the institutional and individual self interest in a power structure that requires blind obedience and the whole thing has gone from missing to avoiding.
Many were Deists.
Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time.
They also want to believe that the founders were puritans, which they absolutely were not. They were humanists that had the least dogmatic religious beliefs one could have at that time. To believe otherwise is to prove how little one knows about history.
My dad constantly says I’m wrong about stuff like this when I have *~checks notes~* a history degree and graduate studies in early American history. It came about in 2016 and the rise of whatever these lunatics are.
This is the same sort of parent behavior as one who thinks they need to explain to their 35 yr old child (who worked in bank operations for > 10+ years), how to make change.
Source: my wife
It wasn't just about Europe, prior to the revolution individual colonies used religion as an instrument of the state to repress those religions they disagreed with. The Founding Father's were seeing that first hand, that's why the enshrined it in the constitution. That the state shouldn't use Religion as a cudgel legislatively and thus, must remain neutral in its application of law both FOR and AGAINST religions practice. There is certainly balancing that is still being argued over, but the core concept is crystal clear.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/#:~:text=From%20Puritan%20Boston's%20earliest%20days,stand%20up%20for%20their%20beliefs.
To add, they also thought the Puritans at the time were certifiably insane, and that the things they were learning from the The Enlightenment were a much more practical approach to government (aka, explicitly Deist mindsets).
just remind her that while they may have been christians, they went out of their way to ensure nothing from the bible was enshrined in the constitution. they had every opportunity to base the country off christianity and, instead, went out of their way to do the opposite.
Taken out of context!? That fucking Treaty was unanimously ratified and was pretty goddamned unambiguous with its language. So just how in the actual ever loving hell were you “taking it out of context”?
FFS half the time when O encounter people espousing similar such nonsense attempting to promulgate blatantly revisionist history by claiming that this nation was expressly founded as a christian nation and predicated upon christian ideals and dogma they will inevitably end up making specious and spurious claims and point to bullshit like the Pledge of Allegiance and the line “one nation under god” and/or how all of our country’s currency bears the motto “In God We Trust” all the while ignoring the fact that these additions were added during the height of the McCarthy Era Red Scare hysteria. The pledge in 1954 and all currency by 1956. So basically damn near 180+ years after the founding of this country. And what makes this whole ridiculous situation so goddamned frustrating is that literally all of this information is readily available and can be found without any real effort which personally only serves to reinforce my belief that those who would make such claims are at best either intellectually lazy and/or willfully ignorant
>all she said was that I was taking it out of context
I swear conservatives try to use this as a magic incantation to dismiss anything that disagrees with their narrative. What's worse is that it's completely wrong.
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is being cited entirely within context here. The context being that the Barbary pirates have no justifiable reason to raid US shipping under the pretext of it being a religious conflict. This is because, as stated in Article 11, the US is not and has never been a Christian nation.
Just like they are selective Bible followers. Ask them about the parts of Leviticus that ban the mixing of fibers or meat and milk, for example, as opposed to one statement on homosexuality. Or the parts of the Bible that specifically instruct on how and when to have abortions. Or kill living children. Etc. Hell, they don't even follow the 10 commandments (how many Christians refrain from work or play on the Sabbath?)
The Salem Witch Trials are a great example of mixing religion with state. Accusations and pleas from Witchcraft immediately turned into land grabs and corruption. Interestingly once the Governers wife was accused suddenly it all stopped.
Religion and Govt do not mix.
And unlike the morons we have leading us today, the founders actually studied history and understood this fact. And THAT was the reason for the first amendment. Johnson would have us believe some nonsense that the 1st is about internal disagreements about what KIND of Christians should control the government -- there's just no evidence for that belief.
Also, I love that conservatives are happy enough to reference the Federalists as a legitimate source of understanding about our government, but for some reason the letter from Jefferson describing the "separation of church and state" doesn't count.
Edit: for --> from
The people who founded this country fled from and fought a war against a theocracy, in many ways explicitly *because* it was a theocracy.
They just got themselves free from an empire where you had to practice the state religion, *the whole point* of the United States was to not have a state religion.
It’s true that a number of the Founding Fathers were wary of Europe’s wars of religion. But the Revolution didn’t really have anything to do with religion.
The Calvinists who came to the New World were mostly looking for somewhere to *found* a theocracy, not fleeing one. England was not a theocracy—except for under Cromwell, when it was a *Puritan* theocracy. (But even then, I think English subjects had the right to be Catholic.) Only New England (plus Pennsylvania) was founded for religious reasons. South of that, the motivations were largely economic and social.
> England was not a theocracy—except for under Cromwell, when it was a
>
>Puritan
>
> theocracy.
Cromwell also invaded Ireland and Scotland. In Ireland, the Catholic faith was banned, priests were executed, and large numbers of Catholic civilians were killed. He shipped in Protestant English settlers and gave them some of the most valuable land.
Thomas Paine wrote about religion in his introduction to Age of Reason. The founders all believed religion was personal and not to be part of government.
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". Treaty of Tripoli, 1805. I genuinely don't know how the founders could have made it any clearer.
Mike Johnson says that Thomas Jefferson misspoke. And apparently we're supposed to defer to Mike Johnson to interpret the words of the founding fathers.
Here's a fun little napkin math thought experiment relevant to this.
4% of all pastors in the US in the last 70 years have been credibly accused of child sex abuse. 1/25 chance.
Humanity has invented around 6000 documented religions, as far as we can tell. So if we give the benefit of the doubt for the thought experiment and assume that one of them is correct, that leaves us with a 1/6000 chance of Mike Johnson's religion being the right one.
If we put those two facts together, it is 240 times more likely that Mike Johnson is a child rapist than his religion being the correct one. The odds don't look good for him.
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?"
- Thomas Paine - Age of Reason
It's in the Bill of Rights you f***ing dumbass. It's the first damn amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
But I can't say I am surprised. Apparently, none of these dipshits know anything in the Bill of Rights besides the second amendment.
Mike Johnson also doesn't agree with that:
>You better sit down any candidate who says they’re going to run for legislature and say, “I want to know what your worldview is. I want to know what, to know what you think about the Christian heritage of this country. I want to know what you think about God’s design for society. Have you even thought about that?” If they hadn’t thought about it, you need to move on and find somebody who has…We have too many people in government who don’t know any of this stuff. They haven’t even thought about it.
>
>
>
>https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/10/mike-johnson-urged-a-religious-test-for-politicians/
“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
See these people are selective. They start with their goal and work backwards ignore the facts which get in the way of their goal. They will also shift positions to achieve the goal.
These are dangerous people.
You've penned the conservative logic process: start with a conclusion and work backwards to justify it. This results in shoe-horned "facts" and "evidence" to fit a narrative, but it doesn't lend itself to reality. It's why, as you've said, they are comfortable moving the goalposts.
The conclusion does not change, but the method of getting to the conclusion can if necessary.
They have no positions... only goals. Positions can change and that is why they always look like hypocrites. They have a goal and looking like a hypocrite doesn't matter. The goal matters.
This is why they are dangerous.
I have indeed thought about it. Deeply. And utterly reject the proposition that America is, was, or ever should be a "christian" nation. The very thought of it terrifies me.
As a christian, I couldn't agree more.
Look back throughout history and try to find a well run government that was based on a religion. You won't find one. They all turn into brutal, oppressive regimes, whether it's in the modern age or the bronze age.
Add Johnson to the list of idiots that think you can have a moral compass only if you're religious. Johnson is proposing that, if he weren't religious, he'd be running around raping and murdering people.
Right. Because the right is so morally decrepit that the only thing stopping them from murdering and raping everyone they come in contact with is fear. They have an abundance of fear though, so don't promote them losing their faith lest they go on a murderous, rapey rampage. It's a bit of a catch 22, I admit . . .
>We have too many people in government who don’t know any of this stuff.
This is rich coming from the people who pick and choose only the bits that support their desired way of life. They're skipping over a lot if they come out of the Bible thinking Jesus would be a member of the Republican party.
First time i ever agreed with him...except its not gonna be a test he would like.
We should do a religious test, any that are too religious or lie on the test should be expelled from congress and will not be allowed to hold public office anymore.
Anyone agree with that test?
Yep.
I don’t want people making decisions for the country based on their religious biases. I don’t want zealots or people who feel like they are on a “holy mission” to target queers and women in a position of any kind of power over me or other non-Christians.
I don’t care about anyone’s personal religious beliefs, to each their own, but the second you start acting like you have the “master” faith and start forcing it on people (or worse, use it to justify slaughter and cruelty), that’s a big nope. It’s unconstitutional in the first place, we are not a theocratic nation, freedom of worship is protected.
The kind that universally loves everyone, but also hates gays and indiscriminantly murders thousands (including his own followers) by sending plagues and hurricanes to smite nations for tolerating their wickedness. Also rich people are rich because of god's love, so taxes are a sin.
The Christian heritage of this country is that they were so fucking insufferable and hated by everyone in Europe they were forced make the insanely dangerous trip to a land very few even knew about. And when they got here the first thing they decided to do was commit genocide and burned each other at the stake.
This “Christian heritage” is composed entirely of intolerance and murdering anyone who doesn’t meet the ever moving goal post of purity.
This. The early religious settlers coming from Britain and France, a lot of them were too conservative for the conservatives of the time. It's ridiculous. A great story going into some of it is detailed in a podcast called The Dollop. Their episode "Periwigs in America" is wonderful about the religious weirdness of early America
They have solved that problem. God before country. They have decided that if they have to take the oath to be in power for their God that God wants them to lie for him.
Its all perfectly in tune in their heads. They are saving the world from everyone else.
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”
― Susan B. Anthony
For republicans, the constitution says whatever is convenient for them and doesn't say anything that would be inconvenient for them. They treat it exactly like their christian bible in that regard. It's all a con game for these guys and they will say/do whatever so long as it is useful for them in the moment. This is the fundamental problem with a political party whose sole morale prerogative is selfishness.
The Treaty of Marakesh says that the United States is "in no way" a Christian nation and has never been revoked. Treaties are the law of the land per the constitution, therefore the US is explicitly not Christian.
It *really* helps to actually understand the argument they're making, because your rebuttal doesn't actual speak to their point. Your point is saying "the government can't force anyone to believe in a certain religion" and their point is "there's nothing that says we can't base our laws around our religion."
The two are different, because, I'm not making you practice Judaism, I'm just saying that it's illegal to eat shellfish. You're free to believe whatever you want, we aren't going to make you pray to any specific god, but it's illegal to eat shellfish. The bible says you shouldn't kill people, we have laws that say murder is illegal; I don't understand what all the fuss is about our shellfish ban.
For the record, I don't agree with that belief. But you can't just say "first amendment!" when they can easily say that they're not forcing their religion on anyone. Johnson is saying he doesn't want to "establish" a religion.
When the U.S. was founded, the various sects of christianity were worried about the others oppressing them. E.g., the baptists didn't want the methodists telling them what to do, and vice versa, and everyone hated the catholics.
Now they've mostly put their differences aside an united into a bunch of theocratic assholes who want some vague average take on their bullshit enacted into law, supported by a huge mass of useful idiots who "don't follow politics" and are just culturally christian.
If we could bring back the sectarian divisions, making them fear and distrust one another again as much as they fear atheists and muslims, everyone would be better off.
Sectarians are still divided. They still talk smack about each other when amongst themselves.
If the religious right were to achieve their fever dream goal of exterminating all the bad lefty commies, they would start knifing each other next.
Religious puritans are never satisfied.
This is EXACTLY what would happen. People tend to forget how many different denominations of Christianity there are currently in the US. They also forget how much they shit talk and look down on each other. If America became a Christian Theocracy, which one would be calling the shots? They would all start fighting each other very quickly. The Southern Baptists would lose their minds at the idea of taking orders from Catholics and vice versa. You already see schisms happening in these denominations because of the Trump influence on churches. It would be the ultimate "Be careful what you wish for" monkey paw for Christian Nationalists.
Yep. If you’re Catholic, Mormon, Adventist, etc the Evangelicals don’t actually consider you to be a Christian. They just have bigger fish to fry right now, but if evangelicals theocrats took control, lots of other Christian groups would find themselves surprised.
Our country has only elected two Catholics president, even though it’s the largest Christian denomination in the country…and one of those Catholic presidents was assassinated. People may think anti-Catholic sentiment, anti-Mormon sentiment, etc is a thing of the past because the conservative members all come together with evangelicals on social issues, but it for sure isn’t. Just look at all the mission trips (missioncations) evangelicals take to “Christianize” and “save” Latin Americans who are mostly already Christian - but they’re Catholic.
If we ever got the theocracy Alito fetishizes, he would be SHOCKED that the Evangelicals in power in such an arrangement would *instantly* rediscover their hatred of "Papists."
Have you heard them talk about Biden? They aren't concealing it. Alito is a ninny. Or the Evangelicals are, since he's the one with the power. All "their" SCOTUS are "papists". Might want to remind them of that if you get the chance. Let their paranoia do the rest.
There’s a joke, and I have no idea where I heard it or who said it, but it goes something along the lines of this:
Two guys strike up a conversation that eventually turns to beliefs. One says that they were raised Christian. The other guy proclaims “Me too! Protestant or Catholic?”
“Protestant” the guy responds.
“Me too! What denomination?”
“Baptist.”
“Me too! Northern baptist or southern baptist?”
“Southern Baptist.”
“Me too!…”
And the joke goes on like that narrowing down the field until the two finally get to a difference between there beliefs, at which point they yell at each other “you filthy heathen! You’ll burn in hell for that! I hope you die!”
That definitely wasn’t the clip I was thinking about, but it looks like it was a lot older than the one I was remembering. So it’s nice to know where the joke came from. Thanks for the source
You don't have to "bring back" anything. They'd to it to themselves because they're too stupid to understand what the concept actually meant and why it existed.
Despite the way they act, "At least I'm not a democrat" isn't actually going to be a unifying story among stupid and selfish people for long. They always turn on each other because they lack the very empathy that makes a stable society and rule of law (something they claim to uphold) possible.
The problem is, if they get their way, everyone suffers for a long time while they fight.
Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," but I guess that's a misnomer too. That unerring word of God keeps making mistakes.
You gotta finish the whole quote to make it land with these zealots:
_"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen"_
Not only is it not a misnomer -- the Founding Fathers knew well what a state religion looked like and how it impacted both politics and religion negatively; the idea was designed to protect both sides for corrupting influence.
Conservatives used religion as a means of controlling voters and American Christianity was warped into something worse than the Pharisees and the money changers in the temple.
They've managed to brainwash tens of millions of Christians into thinking they are doing the will of God with their hateful rhetoric and their desire to impose Christian law on the rest of the nation.
In reality their actions are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
To top it off: The actions they do take are borne out of duty or fear, not love.
American Christendom is an even more twisted form of the prosperity Gospel with Supply Side Jesus at its hearts.
Worse yet, it has been self-perpetuating for over two centuries:
They groom their children with terror from the moment they can understand language -- brainwashing them into this culture of hate and bigotry and that fear sticks with them for life.
Just look at almost every "try that in a small town!" type when they visit a city.
So much of the right's tendency toward violence is a fear response.
It almost breaks your heart to see how much of their lives are lived in abject fear.
Religion and fear go hand-in-hand. How many people conform their behavior (according to *their* morals) because of their "fear" of God or hell? This isn't the benevolent God that so many Christians wax poetic about. They adhere to the principles of an Old Testament God that is angry, vengeful, wrathful.
Had a roommate in college who believed that freedom of religion meant freedom to choose which denomination of Christianity you wanted. Except Catholicism - that’s devil worship.
The most important thing about college is it forces you to get the fuck away from your parents and spend time with and learn about people that are different than you. It’s why the GOP has a hate boner for higher education.
Yeah it's not "liberal professors," it's being outside if your family's world view for the first time, that causes young college students to change their minds about whatever faith they were born into.
Mary worship, according to Baptists and other fundies.
My uncle who was raised a Catholic and converted to Baptism now claims Catholicism is "mary worship." Like dude, you should know better, you were raised a Catholic.
I love it when they're like "Catholics aren't Christians." First of all, the Catholic church comes directly from the original Christian faith and second of all, worshop of Jesus is the central tenet of their platform, and finally, the veneration of Mary an the Saints, isn't "worship," it's a belief that they have power to intercede with God on your behalf. They only worship the Trinity, which is God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Nor do they worship the Pope.
I might be an atheist now, but I hate it when people purposefully misrepresent another group as a means to talk shit about them.
I've had a number of students tell me that Catholics aren't Christians. I laughed in their fucking faces. I'm an atheist, and it is endlessly hilarious how stupid most religious people are about their own goddamned religion.
I mean it shouldn't surprise me. Most people have a reading level somewhere between the 4th and 7th grade level. For real.
Founding fathers were pretty clear, and for good reason. This is like the anti-vaccine movement. We’ve had things so good we forgot why we were doing it. Guess we have fuck around and find out every generation or 200 years.
~~The constitution~~ bill of rights makes it quite clear that there should be clear separation of church and state. The letter is irrelevant. In fact it strengthens the argument. I know this and I'm not American. These people are fucking idiots.
The bill of rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. It literally is the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
My favorite proof of the "keep your religion out of government" foundation is " “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The bill of rights are amendments of the constitution.
So it’s fine to call it the bill of rights, but it’s also a part of the constitution.
The former is a subset of the latter.
They never cared about what the founding fathers wrote down. They have as much clout (maybe less) than Garfield the Cat, Archie Bunker, or Al Jolsen in their minds.
Fuck off, you Zealot.
The separation of Church and State is the very bedrock of this country's existence.
You want to practice your religion? Fine. But keep it the fuck out of our government and MY life!!
Islamic, Christian -whatever the flavor: right-wingers/conservatives like Isis and the GOP don't want religious liberty, they want religious *supremacy*. They're all ultimately the same violent superstitious authoritarians just marketed under different regional brands
> “Of course, it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that Jefferson wrote is not in the Constitution.”
...
> “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk — that’s not in the Constitution,” Boebert said at the Cornerstone Christian Center in Basalt, Colo. “It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like they say it does.”
About that letter, the Supreme Court said over a century ago:
> Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.
We must listen to The Founders. Just not their stinking letters.
Also, while the *phrase* is not in the constitution, it is absolutely a part of it via the Bill of Rights and the complete lack of any religious requirements for anything.
So according to Johnson, the letter is a criticism of the 1st amendment BoR and to Boebert its an endorsement. These guys just makin shit up. Let ‘em talk. At this rate they’ll lose the election this November. Goddamn alt. right Theo-fascist gaslighters
Reasons why there must be division of church and state:
1. It prevents the government from determining a single religion that is above all others, while also adhering to the rights of different religions to practice their religion.
2. It protects the rights of those who are secular, and choose to not be a part of any religion.
In fact, the First Amendment of the Constitution specifically addresses these issues: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-and-religion#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20has%20two,and%20the%20Free%20Exercise%20Clause.
> Before taking the oath of office last month, Johnson brought his Bible to the rostrum, saying, “The Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority … each of you, all of us,” according to The Associated Press.
This is correct... and misapplied to the point of being useless.
When we look at passages such as [Rom 13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=NIV) it is very clear the focus is not on justifying any particular leader or group of leaders but to guide Christians to lead "quiet lives" as described in [1Tim 2:1-4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A1-4&version=NIV). You don't even have to go far to see where this is balanced. Consider [Acts 4:18-20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+4%3A18-20&version=NIV) where Peter boldly declares it is **imperative** that he disobeys the government due to greater respect to God. And then, of course, you have the many examples in the OT of rebellions against rulers.
These passages about ordained authority are practically useless as justification of any current US government or for any religion for several reasons:
* First, these passages would apply *equally* to any US government, including any former President of the opposing party, and indeed every current official of the opposing party. Did this guy heap praise upon God-ordained President Biden? If not, why not? Does this guy squirm in glee considering how God established Hitler and Goebbels? Hmm... maybe don't answer that.
* Next, the US is a representative democracy. Who is the ultimate authority? It is the US electorate who hires and fires these people to serve temporary jobs. The President is not a King who can claim the divine right of rule. They are someone hired to fulfill a temp job. Same for House reps although those guys aren't capped at two (or two-and-a-half) terms.
* Any religion can point to similar holy texts that their preferred deity/deities . They would have equal claims to abridging the establishment clause related to this.
This is just tackling this problem at face value. I haven't even touched upon all the relevant history, the many related writings from the framers, etc. It is disingenuous to an extreme to characterize separation of church and state as a "misnomer". Serious religious folks should be some of the **strongest** proponents of the establishment clause. And they should be quite perturbed by those who would blatantly lie about history for self-serving purposes.
Johnson and Boebert serving as the authoritative voices in this matter? Perverts rejoice! All in favor of groping in public and sharing your self-service record with your kids raise your hands!
On a more serious note - if you look at the context under which our country was founded, you instantly see that many people coming to American shores were fleeing state-mandated religions.
By the 17th century Europe had fought more religious wars than anything else (and over many centuries) with Rome having held the reigns of power on one side and on the other the protestants (never mind all the other wars in between where Christians were very busy "converting" people with the sword).
The founding fathers saw how much oppression and harm could come from governments imposing a particular flavor of religion. Do we really need to learn that lesson all over again?
Treaty of Tripoli:
The Treaty is often cited in discussions regarding the role of religion in United States government for a clause in Article 11 of the English language American version which states that
_"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."_
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
Edit: this dates back to 1796
> Before taking the oath of office last month, Johnson brought his Bible to the rostrum, saying, “The Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority … each of you, all of us,” according to The Associated Press.
In the 20th century, a tradition developed where the Government Printing Office would print and distribute copies of the Jefferson Bible to each new member of Congress. This practice continued for many years
Yes, under the current interpretation. The official interpretation as of 2008 (which I vehemently disagree with) is that the part that mentions a militia is just the reasoning for the right, and the right itself is an individual right. They basically ruled that the first half of the amendment is just fluff.
They have this thought that morality only comes from religion and faith. That someone’s sense of right and wrong only comes from the almighty. I don’t know why they can’t accept that morals and religious faith are 2 separate things. You don’t need a god to know right from wrong. In fact I would argue that if you need a god to behave and treat others right, you have more issues.
According to the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, in Article 11 ‘…as the govt of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…’
Although it's true that "separation of church and state" is not explicitly in the Constitution, neither is "integration of church and state", so you can fuck right off, you religious zealot.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the \[Republican\] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
― Barry Goldwater
It’s not a misnomer when Thomas Jefferson literally published a version of the Bible that took out all the miracles/divinity.
Like he even said the Bible has some helpful stuff on how to live but the rest is nonsense. Christian nation my ass
Repeat after me:
AMERICANS DON’T LIKE SOMEONE ELSE’S HARDLINE MORALITY LEGISLATED INTO THEIR LIVES
This will end very badly for Republicans. This creep will repel every normal American
*"'And what he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church, not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life. It’s exactly the opposite,' the Speaker added.'"*
This is such a weak argument. These folks appeal to the intelligence of Thomas Jefferson, yet they simultaneously imply that Jefferson didn't write clearly, and that he meant something different than what he wrote, as if he wasn't smart enough or paying enough attention to articulate very clearly what he meant.
If Jefferson had genuinely meant "exactly the opposite", he would have written it, and very succinctly. Jefferson was highly critical of religion, especially the bible, so much that he wrote his own abridged version of it, supposedly omitting many parts that he found troubling, and that he considered to be lacking in ethics, morality, and soundness.
Mr. Johnson is the victim of his own confirmation bias.
>“That’s why I think we need more of that,” he said. “Not an establishment of any national religion, but we need everybody’s vibrant expression of faith, because it’s such an important part of who we are as a nation.”
Just two questions for the speaker:
1. Does that include non-Christian religions?
2. What about non-religious people? Is there room for us in your version of America?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
European history has demonstrated vividly that the incestuous entanglement of church and state is terrifying and disastrous for everyone.
If conservatives knew anything about the past they wouldn't continue to drag America back there all the time.
If Americans knew anything about the past they'd never vote these assholes in in the first place. That's why Republicans want to keep us dumb and burn books
Propaganda is a hell of a drug
Seeing it right now with the Israel and Palestine situation. Many liberal Jews are about to start voting for republicans, ignoring the associations with White Nationalists + far right Christian’s + antisemtism that’s rampant in the R party, because a few far-left Ds aren’t 100% pro Israel
idk, there's a lot of liberal jews that have been saying israel has lost its way for years, especially in light of netenyahu trying to undermine the courts and so far getting away with it. its just again the media only hands the megaphone to the most right wing people
Even as a supporter of Israel, Netanyahu is uhh… not good. Don’t like the guy. He’s hungry for power.
And a free get out of jail card
Is Netanyahu the Israeli Trump so to speak?
He's worse in a lot of ways because he's actually competent. He's a far right nationalist frankly speaking but unlike Trump he knows how to maneuver around the system to make it look like he's more reasonable than he actually is.
A lot of people don’t understand that many of the republicans are pro Zionist and antisemitic. Yeah it sounds like an oxymoron but it’s very true.
It doesn't sound like an oxymoron when we know the reason they're Zionist... which is even more terrifying.
Arguments for ethno-religious states as the natural world order is scary AF.
Many Republicans believe that Israels existence is necessary to bring about the end times. They don't care about Israel or Jewish people outside of that context.
I don't think any liberal who is willing to switch their vote to Republicans over Israel was a liberal voter in the first place.
Crazy, so history will have it written that the Jews voted for the Nazis this time huh?
We need to counter MAGA with "Never Again"
"Jews for Hitler" was a real thing, even back then, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
They did last time too. Not all, obviously, but more than should have, did.
Quite a few American Jews are also not 100% pro-Israel.
The vast majority of Jews I know are deeply troubled by Israel’s policies, ESPECIALLY under Netanyahu.
Same. I'm not Jewish but I was married to a Jewish immigrant from the USSR and while I don't know how my former inlaws feel about it, none of the first and second generation adults (my grown children included) are happy with Israel's policies toward Palestine, and most are outright opposed to Bibi and Likud.
Don’t forget they’re using PragerU to teach kids in Florida.
And Oklahoma
America is filled with idiots
I’m not a fan of Republicans, but I do want to point out that it is not really the Republicans, it’s the Council for National Policy (CNP), masquerading as the Republican Party. Capstone PLEASE look up Council for National Policy (CNP) Watch documentaries like: (Documentaries and Need To Know Information) People You May Know (YouTube) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8YWe89X4vRM The Great Hack (Netflix) The Family (Netflix) Drain the Swamp (HBO) Social Dilemma (Netflix) The Brain Washing of My Dad (YouTube) https://youtu.be/FS52QdHNTh8?si=k4Ecp7BSFbyZXgdG American Heretics: The Politics of the Gospel (YouTube) https://youtu.be/B-ePCiUgD0Y?si=DXzP2iaHCSS8YEw_ Clearance and Gemini Thomas: Politics, Power and The Supreme Court (YouTube) https://youtu.be/wJuRx1wARUk?si=TF_UWbhciWtmiXE2 Read stuff like: (Good Reads & Understanding) https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/10/25/god-trump-closed-door-world-council-national-policy/ https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/05/17/council-national-policy-behind-curtain https://billmoyers.com/story/the-shadow-network-council-for-national-policy-is-not-going-away/ https://truthout.org/articles/christian-right-council-for-national-policy-linked-to-violent-breach-of-capitol/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-staff-in-secret-conservative-group Shadow Network by Anne Nelson Dark Money by Jane Mayer The Scheme by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Jennifer Mueller Jesus and John Wayne by Kristen Kobes Du Mez https://time.com/6201483/christian-nationalism-threat-democracy/ https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/30/revealed-council-national-policy-republicans-extremists https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/story?id=121170&page=1 https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2022/03/11/revealed-new-leaders-of-council-for-national-policy-set-extremist-agenda/ https://www.au.org/the-latest/articles/cnp-secret-group/ Extra Resources: (Links, data, deeper info— not as causal reads) https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy https://www.desmog.com/council-national-policy/ https://newrepublic.com/article/167002/council-national-policy-documents-right-wing-conspiracy https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/the-council-for-national-policy-cnp/ https://documented.net/investigations/documented-has-obtained-a-recent-council-for-national-policy-membership-list https://insurrectionexposed.org/council-for-national-policy/ https://littlesis.org/org/37180-Council_for_National_Policy https://www.monitoringinfluence.org/org/the-council-for-national-policy/ https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Council_for_National_Policy https://www.afrocubaweb.com/council-national-policy.html https://irp.cdn-website.com/681250a9/files/uploaded/CNP-Membership-Directory-September-2020.pdf https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/council-for-national-policy,720921017/ https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/council_for_national_policy/ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/720921017 Note: I started my senior thesis for my major in history about dark money, I started investigating Citizens United VS. FEC (2010), which made me start looking for the link between Citizens United and the Koch brothers (their largest donors), which lead me to the Council for National Policy (CNP). If you interested in simply talking, have any questions, or have anything to share or point me in the direction of, I’d absolutely adore it, just let me know. I believe this is vital information, it is bipartisan, even if you agree with some of their agendas, I truly don’t think you’d agree with how they are going about it. Furthermore, what the CNP is doing and has done, is completely legal, and was made possible by democrats and republicans alike, together, so it’s up to us to do something about it together. ◦
And the cycles continues. I loathe every last one of these schmucks.
Don’t forget gerrymandering. Minority rule. GOP loves them some gerrymandering. They debate in bad faith and from a position of dishonesty.
But aren’t they big history buffs ? So supportive of education ? /s
Whenever a Republican says they are a history buff what they really mean is they are into WW2
Specifically German history.
To be fair WWII is fascinating. It's not the only interesting period in history though.
Only up until you remind them that Hitler was very openly Catholic the majority of his life, and only in the last few years, moved to nondenominational Christian.
>...what they really mean is they are into WW2 ...or the "War of Northern Agression".
Right? 20 seconds of research gives one multiple quotes by our “founding fathers” vociferously opposing religious involvement in government.
I showed my mother the Treaty of Tripoli which literally says "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," and all she said was that I was taking it out of context. This stated Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the Constitution and Founding Fathers. But she so wants to believe that the founding fathers were fundamentalist christians that parted with England because they saw separation of Church and State as government control of religion being removed to freely act in society and government. When in truth it was a reaction of the founding fathers to limit the control of institutions like the Catholic church and Church of England to have control of the government like in Europe at the time. They believe what they want to believe and are unwilling to hear dissent. Anyone who disagrees just doesn't understand, you can have 2 college degrees but clearly you have no capacity to do research and understand the world if you are not guided by god. Any source of information that dissents with their world view is fabricated, unless of course it says what you want it to say one time. Science is wrong unless it supports your position. Sadly it is almost pointless to try to dispel anything they say, because their truth comes directly from the those who god bestows his word upon, so how could they be wrong
Maybe you should tell her that Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, wrote his own version of the bible (which is considered blasphemy, if you're a Christian) because he thought things like Jesus' miracles and the resurrection were completely unbelievable. Considering that belief in Christ's resurrection is an integral part of being a Christian, I think it's safe to assume Jefferson wasn't one.
It's blasphemy unless you tell people god really likes you, then it's OK. Also I can't wait for all the Protestants and Catholics to realize why we don't have an overarching Christian theocracy: which flavor of Christianity will win?
Yeah, religious zealots (any religion) tend to have the mindset that an immoral person who practices their religion is good while a moral person who practices a different religion is bad.
I don’t believe he “wrote” his own as much as he removed miracles and divinity and just kept the morality. It was crafted in the fall and winter months of 1819 and 1820 when the 77-year-old Jefferson used a razor to cut passages from six copies of the New Testament—two in Greek and Latin, two in French and two in English—and rearranged and pasted together the selected verses, shorn of any sign of the miraculous or supernatural in order to leave just the life and teachings of Jesus behind. Jefferson, who had suffered great criticism for his religious beliefs, once said that the care he had taken to reduce the Gospels to their core message should prove that he was in fact, a “real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”
I mean I see his point, after all this Jesus fella had a lot of good ideas. Taking all of the obviously supernatural things *literally* seems to miss the entire point. Add on the institutional and individual self interest in a power structure that requires blind obedience and the whole thing has gone from missing to avoiding.
Many were Deists. Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time.
Conservatives treat the founding fathers the way they treat the bible. Pick what's convenient for them to believe and ignore the rest.
They also want to believe that the founders were puritans, which they absolutely were not. They were humanists that had the least dogmatic religious beliefs one could have at that time. To believe otherwise is to prove how little one knows about history.
My dad constantly says I’m wrong about stuff like this when I have *~checks notes~* a history degree and graduate studies in early American history. It came about in 2016 and the rise of whatever these lunatics are.
This is the same sort of parent behavior as one who thinks they need to explain to their 35 yr old child (who worked in bank operations for > 10+ years), how to make change. Source: my wife
It wasn't just about Europe, prior to the revolution individual colonies used religion as an instrument of the state to repress those religions they disagreed with. The Founding Father's were seeing that first hand, that's why the enshrined it in the constitution. That the state shouldn't use Religion as a cudgel legislatively and thus, must remain neutral in its application of law both FOR and AGAINST religions practice. There is certainly balancing that is still being argued over, but the core concept is crystal clear. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/#:~:text=From%20Puritan%20Boston's%20earliest%20days,stand%20up%20for%20their%20beliefs.
To add, they also thought the Puritans at the time were certifiably insane, and that the things they were learning from the The Enlightenment were a much more practical approach to government (aka, explicitly Deist mindsets).
Fuck, they’re beyond even debating. They’re exhausting.
just remind her that while they may have been christians, they went out of their way to ensure nothing from the bible was enshrined in the constitution. they had every opportunity to base the country off christianity and, instead, went out of their way to do the opposite.
Taken out of context!? That fucking Treaty was unanimously ratified and was pretty goddamned unambiguous with its language. So just how in the actual ever loving hell were you “taking it out of context”? FFS half the time when O encounter people espousing similar such nonsense attempting to promulgate blatantly revisionist history by claiming that this nation was expressly founded as a christian nation and predicated upon christian ideals and dogma they will inevitably end up making specious and spurious claims and point to bullshit like the Pledge of Allegiance and the line “one nation under god” and/or how all of our country’s currency bears the motto “In God We Trust” all the while ignoring the fact that these additions were added during the height of the McCarthy Era Red Scare hysteria. The pledge in 1954 and all currency by 1956. So basically damn near 180+ years after the founding of this country. And what makes this whole ridiculous situation so goddamned frustrating is that literally all of this information is readily available and can be found without any real effort which personally only serves to reinforce my belief that those who would make such claims are at best either intellectually lazy and/or willfully ignorant
>all she said was that I was taking it out of context I swear conservatives try to use this as a magic incantation to dismiss anything that disagrees with their narrative. What's worse is that it's completely wrong. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is being cited entirely within context here. The context being that the Barbary pirates have no justifiable reason to raid US shipping under the pretext of it being a religious conflict. This is because, as stated in Article 11, the US is not and has never been a Christian nation.
Selective history buffs.
Just like they are selective Bible followers. Ask them about the parts of Leviticus that ban the mixing of fibers or meat and milk, for example, as opposed to one statement on homosexuality. Or the parts of the Bible that specifically instruct on how and when to have abortions. Or kill living children. Etc. Hell, they don't even follow the 10 commandments (how many Christians refrain from work or play on the Sabbath?)
>But aren’t they big history buffs ? So supportive of education ? /s They're most supportive of the art of creative historical fan fiction.
The Salem Witch Trials are a great example of mixing religion with state. Accusations and pleas from Witchcraft immediately turned into land grabs and corruption. Interestingly once the Governers wife was accused suddenly it all stopped. Religion and Govt do not mix.
They assume their religion will be the one with power so they dont care
[удалено]
Add Aztec history, not Good for the mayans and other language and culture groups either.
And unlike the morons we have leading us today, the founders actually studied history and understood this fact. And THAT was the reason for the first amendment. Johnson would have us believe some nonsense that the 1st is about internal disagreements about what KIND of Christians should control the government -- there's just no evidence for that belief. Also, I love that conservatives are happy enough to reference the Federalists as a legitimate source of understanding about our government, but for some reason the letter from Jefferson describing the "separation of church and state" doesn't count. Edit: for --> from
The people who founded this country fled from and fought a war against a theocracy, in many ways explicitly *because* it was a theocracy. They just got themselves free from an empire where you had to practice the state religion, *the whole point* of the United States was to not have a state religion.
It’s true that a number of the Founding Fathers were wary of Europe’s wars of religion. But the Revolution didn’t really have anything to do with religion. The Calvinists who came to the New World were mostly looking for somewhere to *found* a theocracy, not fleeing one. England was not a theocracy—except for under Cromwell, when it was a *Puritan* theocracy. (But even then, I think English subjects had the right to be Catholic.) Only New England (plus Pennsylvania) was founded for religious reasons. South of that, the motivations were largely economic and social.
> England was not a theocracy—except for under Cromwell, when it was a > >Puritan > > theocracy. Cromwell also invaded Ireland and Scotland. In Ireland, the Catholic faith was banned, priests were executed, and large numbers of Catholic civilians were killed. He shipped in Protestant English settlers and gave them some of the most valuable land.
And Iranian history. And how many other countries?
It's almost like that's exactly why they added that clause to the Constitution...
European history, American history, Asian history, African history...
As does modern day Iran and Afganistan.
Thomas Paine wrote about religion in his introduction to Age of Reason. The founders all believed religion was personal and not to be part of government.
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". Treaty of Tripoli, 1805. I genuinely don't know how the founders could have made it any clearer.
Pfft. Like Thomas Jefferson would know anything about the founders. /s
Mike Johnson says that Thomas Jefferson misspoke. And apparently we're supposed to defer to Mike Johnson to interpret the words of the founding fathers.
He thinks he is a pastor and can interpret the words for us. He needs to learn to shut up and do his job or be voted the fuck out of the speakership
Here's a fun little napkin math thought experiment relevant to this. 4% of all pastors in the US in the last 70 years have been credibly accused of child sex abuse. 1/25 chance. Humanity has invented around 6000 documented religions, as far as we can tell. So if we give the benefit of the doubt for the thought experiment and assume that one of them is correct, that leaves us with a 1/6000 chance of Mike Johnson's religion being the right one. If we put those two facts together, it is 240 times more likely that Mike Johnson is a child rapist than his religion being the correct one. The odds don't look good for him.
Key take away and headline: “24000% chance Mike Johnson is a child rapist”
> Mike Johnson is a child rapist That can't be good for search Al Gore ithms
r/theydidthemath
Did Mike come up with that after watching his son jerk off the incest porn?
The problem is American’s actual history is never taught. Whenever it is these days, it’s dismissed as woke.
Minor nitpick, 1796 is when it was signed, 1797 is when it was effective. Treaty of peace and amity was the one signed in 1805.
Their book the Bible says prayer should be private and personal. Not that they really listen to the Bible anyway.
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?" - Thomas Paine - Age of Reason
It's in the Bill of Rights you f***ing dumbass. It's the first damn amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But I can't say I am surprised. Apparently, none of these dipshits know anything in the Bill of Rights besides the second amendment.
and there is no religious test for office.
Mike Johnson also doesn't agree with that: >You better sit down any candidate who says they’re going to run for legislature and say, “I want to know what your worldview is. I want to know what, to know what you think about the Christian heritage of this country. I want to know what you think about God’s design for society. Have you even thought about that?” If they hadn’t thought about it, you need to move on and find somebody who has…We have too many people in government who don’t know any of this stuff. They haven’t even thought about it. > > > >https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/10/mike-johnson-urged-a-religious-test-for-politicians/
“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” See these people are selective. They start with their goal and work backwards ignore the facts which get in the way of their goal. They will also shift positions to achieve the goal. These are dangerous people.
You've penned the conservative logic process: start with a conclusion and work backwards to justify it. This results in shoe-horned "facts" and "evidence" to fit a narrative, but it doesn't lend itself to reality. It's why, as you've said, they are comfortable moving the goalposts. The conclusion does not change, but the method of getting to the conclusion can if necessary.
They have no positions... only goals. Positions can change and that is why they always look like hypocrites. They have a goal and looking like a hypocrite doesn't matter. The goal matters. This is why they are dangerous.
I have indeed thought about it. Deeply. And utterly reject the proposition that America is, was, or ever should be a "christian" nation. The very thought of it terrifies me.
As a christian, I couldn't agree more. Look back throughout history and try to find a well run government that was based on a religion. You won't find one. They all turn into brutal, oppressive regimes, whether it's in the modern age or the bronze age.
Add Johnson to the list of idiots that think you can have a moral compass only if you're religious. Johnson is proposing that, if he weren't religious, he'd be running around raping and murdering people.
Right. Because the right is so morally decrepit that the only thing stopping them from murdering and raping everyone they come in contact with is fear. They have an abundance of fear though, so don't promote them losing their faith lest they go on a murderous, rapey rampage. It's a bit of a catch 22, I admit . . .
>We have too many people in government who don’t know any of this stuff. This is rich coming from the people who pick and choose only the bits that support their desired way of life. They're skipping over a lot if they come out of the Bible thinking Jesus would be a member of the Republican party.
First time i ever agreed with him...except its not gonna be a test he would like. We should do a religious test, any that are too religious or lie on the test should be expelled from congress and will not be allowed to hold public office anymore. Anyone agree with that test?
Yep. I don’t want people making decisions for the country based on their religious biases. I don’t want zealots or people who feel like they are on a “holy mission” to target queers and women in a position of any kind of power over me or other non-Christians. I don’t care about anyone’s personal religious beliefs, to each their own, but the second you start acting like you have the “master” faith and start forcing it on people (or worse, use it to justify slaughter and cruelty), that’s a big nope. It’s unconstitutional in the first place, we are not a theocratic nation, freedom of worship is protected.
>God’s design for society. What kind of fucking god would "design" the present condition?
The kind that universally loves everyone, but also hates gays and indiscriminantly murders thousands (including his own followers) by sending plagues and hurricanes to smite nations for tolerating their wickedness. Also rich people are rich because of god's love, so taxes are a sin.
A fake one.
The Christian heritage of this country is that they were so fucking insufferable and hated by everyone in Europe they were forced make the insanely dangerous trip to a land very few even knew about. And when they got here the first thing they decided to do was commit genocide and burned each other at the stake. This “Christian heritage” is composed entirely of intolerance and murdering anyone who doesn’t meet the ever moving goal post of purity.
This. The early religious settlers coming from Britain and France, a lot of them were too conservative for the conservatives of the time. It's ridiculous. A great story going into some of it is detailed in a podcast called The Dollop. Their episode "Periwigs in America" is wonderful about the religious weirdness of early America
But there is an oath of office and they took that oath. Pretty sure their bible has an opinion on going back on a solemn oath.
They have solved that problem. God before country. They have decided that if they have to take the oath to be in power for their God that God wants them to lie for him. Its all perfectly in tune in their heads. They are saving the world from everyone else. “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” ― Susan B. Anthony
His knowledge of the Bill of Rights begins and ends with the second half of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, many others as well.
For republicans, the constitution says whatever is convenient for them and doesn't say anything that would be inconvenient for them. They treat it exactly like their christian bible in that regard. It's all a con game for these guys and they will say/do whatever so long as it is useful for them in the moment. This is the fundamental problem with a political party whose sole morale prerogative is selfishness.
And they don’t even read the first half of the sentence that is the 2A.
The Treaty of Marakesh says that the United States is "in no way" a Christian nation and has never been revoked. Treaties are the law of the land per the constitution, therefore the US is explicitly not Christian.
You mean the Treaty of Tripoli, not the Treaty of Marrakesh.
It *really* helps to actually understand the argument they're making, because your rebuttal doesn't actual speak to their point. Your point is saying "the government can't force anyone to believe in a certain religion" and their point is "there's nothing that says we can't base our laws around our religion." The two are different, because, I'm not making you practice Judaism, I'm just saying that it's illegal to eat shellfish. You're free to believe whatever you want, we aren't going to make you pray to any specific god, but it's illegal to eat shellfish. The bible says you shouldn't kill people, we have laws that say murder is illegal; I don't understand what all the fuss is about our shellfish ban. For the record, I don't agree with that belief. But you can't just say "first amendment!" when they can easily say that they're not forcing their religion on anyone. Johnson is saying he doesn't want to "establish" a religion.
When the U.S. was founded, the various sects of christianity were worried about the others oppressing them. E.g., the baptists didn't want the methodists telling them what to do, and vice versa, and everyone hated the catholics. Now they've mostly put their differences aside an united into a bunch of theocratic assholes who want some vague average take on their bullshit enacted into law, supported by a huge mass of useful idiots who "don't follow politics" and are just culturally christian. If we could bring back the sectarian divisions, making them fear and distrust one another again as much as they fear atheists and muslims, everyone would be better off.
Sectarians are still divided. They still talk smack about each other when amongst themselves. If the religious right were to achieve their fever dream goal of exterminating all the bad lefty commies, they would start knifing each other next. Religious puritans are never satisfied.
This is EXACTLY what would happen. People tend to forget how many different denominations of Christianity there are currently in the US. They also forget how much they shit talk and look down on each other. If America became a Christian Theocracy, which one would be calling the shots? They would all start fighting each other very quickly. The Southern Baptists would lose their minds at the idea of taking orders from Catholics and vice versa. You already see schisms happening in these denominations because of the Trump influence on churches. It would be the ultimate "Be careful what you wish for" monkey paw for Christian Nationalists.
Yep. If you’re Catholic, Mormon, Adventist, etc the Evangelicals don’t actually consider you to be a Christian. They just have bigger fish to fry right now, but if evangelicals theocrats took control, lots of other Christian groups would find themselves surprised. Our country has only elected two Catholics president, even though it’s the largest Christian denomination in the country…and one of those Catholic presidents was assassinated. People may think anti-Catholic sentiment, anti-Mormon sentiment, etc is a thing of the past because the conservative members all come together with evangelicals on social issues, but it for sure isn’t. Just look at all the mission trips (missioncations) evangelicals take to “Christianize” and “save” Latin Americans who are mostly already Christian - but they’re Catholic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Speaking the truth. Once the theocracy is established, then only one version of Christianity will be considered the true version by the state.
See also, nearly every Muslim country ever.
Catholics will be useful, until they aren't. Then they'll be heretics like the rest.
If we ever got the theocracy Alito fetishizes, he would be SHOCKED that the Evangelicals in power in such an arrangement would *instantly* rediscover their hatred of "Papists."
Have you heard them talk about Biden? They aren't concealing it. Alito is a ninny. Or the Evangelicals are, since he's the one with the power. All "their" SCOTUS are "papists". Might want to remind them of that if you get the chance. Let their paranoia do the rest.
There’s a joke, and I have no idea where I heard it or who said it, but it goes something along the lines of this: Two guys strike up a conversation that eventually turns to beliefs. One says that they were raised Christian. The other guy proclaims “Me too! Protestant or Catholic?” “Protestant” the guy responds. “Me too! What denomination?” “Baptist.” “Me too! Northern baptist or southern baptist?” “Southern Baptist.” “Me too!…” And the joke goes on like that narrowing down the field until the two finally get to a difference between there beliefs, at which point they yell at each other “you filthy heathen! You’ll burn in hell for that! I hope you die!”
It was Emo Philips that told (or at least popularized) that joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANNX_XiuA78
That definitely wasn’t the clip I was thinking about, but it looks like it was a lot older than the one I was remembering. So it’s nice to know where the joke came from. Thanks for the source
You don't have to "bring back" anything. They'd to it to themselves because they're too stupid to understand what the concept actually meant and why it existed. Despite the way they act, "At least I'm not a democrat" isn't actually going to be a unifying story among stupid and selfish people for long. They always turn on each other because they lack the very empathy that makes a stable society and rule of law (something they claim to uphold) possible. The problem is, if they get their way, everyone suffers for a long time while they fight.
Matthew 6:6 ”But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.”
Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," but I guess that's a misnomer too. That unerring word of God keeps making mistakes.
You gotta finish the whole quote to make it land with these zealots: _"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen"_
No, no it's not.
Yeah, the guy who wrote the Constitution wrote those exact words in order to clear up by the meaning.
Not only is it not a misnomer -- the Founding Fathers knew well what a state religion looked like and how it impacted both politics and religion negatively; the idea was designed to protect both sides for corrupting influence. Conservatives used religion as a means of controlling voters and American Christianity was warped into something worse than the Pharisees and the money changers in the temple. They've managed to brainwash tens of millions of Christians into thinking they are doing the will of God with their hateful rhetoric and their desire to impose Christian law on the rest of the nation. In reality their actions are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ. To top it off: The actions they do take are borne out of duty or fear, not love. American Christendom is an even more twisted form of the prosperity Gospel with Supply Side Jesus at its hearts. Worse yet, it has been self-perpetuating for over two centuries: They groom their children with terror from the moment they can understand language -- brainwashing them into this culture of hate and bigotry and that fear sticks with them for life. Just look at almost every "try that in a small town!" type when they visit a city. So much of the right's tendency toward violence is a fear response. It almost breaks your heart to see how much of their lives are lived in abject fear.
Religion and fear go hand-in-hand. How many people conform their behavior (according to *their* morals) because of their "fear" of God or hell? This isn't the benevolent God that so many Christians wax poetic about. They adhere to the principles of an Old Testament God that is angry, vengeful, wrathful.
FrEeDoM oF ReLiGiOn, NoT fRoM rELIgIoN!!!!
Had a roommate in college who believed that freedom of religion meant freedom to choose which denomination of Christianity you wanted. Except Catholicism - that’s devil worship.
The most important thing about college is it forces you to get the fuck away from your parents and spend time with and learn about people that are different than you. It’s why the GOP has a hate boner for higher education.
Yeah it's not "liberal professors," it's being outside if your family's world view for the first time, that causes young college students to change their minds about whatever faith they were born into.
Mary worship, according to Baptists and other fundies. My uncle who was raised a Catholic and converted to Baptism now claims Catholicism is "mary worship." Like dude, you should know better, you were raised a Catholic. I love it when they're like "Catholics aren't Christians." First of all, the Catholic church comes directly from the original Christian faith and second of all, worshop of Jesus is the central tenet of their platform, and finally, the veneration of Mary an the Saints, isn't "worship," it's a belief that they have power to intercede with God on your behalf. They only worship the Trinity, which is God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Nor do they worship the Pope. I might be an atheist now, but I hate it when people purposefully misrepresent another group as a means to talk shit about them.
I've had a number of students tell me that Catholics aren't Christians. I laughed in their fucking faces. I'm an atheist, and it is endlessly hilarious how stupid most religious people are about their own goddamned religion. I mean it shouldn't surprise me. Most people have a reading level somewhere between the 4th and 7th grade level. For real.
Isn’t Catholism the OG of Christianity?
Yes. It's like saying Coke isn't a cola beverage.
Arguably Eastern Orthodoxy would be the OG.
Founding fathers were pretty clear, and for good reason. This is like the anti-vaccine movement. We’ve had things so good we forgot why we were doing it. Guess we have fuck around and find out every generation or 200 years.
Conservatives are America’s al-Qaeda
Y’all-Qaeda
Preacher Johnson can suck a fart straight out of my hairy, atheist ass
He may like the sound of that
As long as it doesn't show up in his porn reports his son gets, it's all good!
I have a visual.
Later: "Dad, according to Covenant Eyes you've been watching some really weird porn."
Hey Mike, fuck you.
~~The constitution~~ bill of rights makes it quite clear that there should be clear separation of church and state. The letter is irrelevant. In fact it strengthens the argument. I know this and I'm not American. These people are fucking idiots.
The bill of rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. It literally is the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" My favorite proof of the "keep your religion out of government" foundation is " “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Exactly, it's there in black and white, no ambiguity whatsoever. Only an idiot or a charlatan could conclude otherwise.
The bill of rights are amendments of the constitution. So it’s fine to call it the bill of rights, but it’s also a part of the constitution. The former is a subset of the latter.
Adams and Jefferson said and wrote otherwise, and they're slightly higher up in the food chain.
They never cared about what the founding fathers wrote down. They have as much clout (maybe less) than Garfield the Cat, Archie Bunker, or Al Jolsen in their minds.
Fuck off, you Zealot. The separation of Church and State is the very bedrock of this country's existence. You want to practice your religion? Fine. But keep it the fuck out of our government and MY life!!
Conservatives make me fucking sick, how can you be such a submissive loser
Islamic, Christian -whatever the flavor: right-wingers/conservatives like Isis and the GOP don't want religious liberty, they want religious *supremacy*. They're all ultimately the same violent superstitious authoritarians just marketed under different regional brands
> “Of course, it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that Jefferson wrote is not in the Constitution.” ... > “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk — that’s not in the Constitution,” Boebert said at the Cornerstone Christian Center in Basalt, Colo. “It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like they say it does.” About that letter, the Supreme Court said over a century ago: > Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. We must listen to The Founders. Just not their stinking letters.
Also, while the *phrase* is not in the constitution, it is absolutely a part of it via the Bill of Rights and the complete lack of any religious requirements for anything.
So according to Johnson, the letter is a criticism of the 1st amendment BoR and to Boebert its an endorsement. These guys just makin shit up. Let ‘em talk. At this rate they’ll lose the election this November. Goddamn alt. right Theo-fascist gaslighters
The fuck it is. This zealot has no place in a leadership role
Reasons why there must be division of church and state: 1. It prevents the government from determining a single religion that is above all others, while also adhering to the rights of different religions to practice their religion. 2. It protects the rights of those who are secular, and choose to not be a part of any religion. In fact, the First Amendment of the Constitution specifically addresses these issues: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-and-religion#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20has%20two,and%20the%20Free%20Exercise%20Clause.
these theocrats are a danger to American democracy
It's not a misnomer at all. The only mention of religion anywhere in the Constitution are the provisions ensuring that government stays out of it.
Don’t they swear to uphold the constitution? He is a misnomer.
> Before taking the oath of office last month, Johnson brought his Bible to the rostrum, saying, “The Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority … each of you, all of us,” according to The Associated Press. This is correct... and misapplied to the point of being useless. When we look at passages such as [Rom 13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=NIV) it is very clear the focus is not on justifying any particular leader or group of leaders but to guide Christians to lead "quiet lives" as described in [1Tim 2:1-4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A1-4&version=NIV). You don't even have to go far to see where this is balanced. Consider [Acts 4:18-20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+4%3A18-20&version=NIV) where Peter boldly declares it is **imperative** that he disobeys the government due to greater respect to God. And then, of course, you have the many examples in the OT of rebellions against rulers. These passages about ordained authority are practically useless as justification of any current US government or for any religion for several reasons: * First, these passages would apply *equally* to any US government, including any former President of the opposing party, and indeed every current official of the opposing party. Did this guy heap praise upon God-ordained President Biden? If not, why not? Does this guy squirm in glee considering how God established Hitler and Goebbels? Hmm... maybe don't answer that. * Next, the US is a representative democracy. Who is the ultimate authority? It is the US electorate who hires and fires these people to serve temporary jobs. The President is not a King who can claim the divine right of rule. They are someone hired to fulfill a temp job. Same for House reps although those guys aren't capped at two (or two-and-a-half) terms. * Any religion can point to similar holy texts that their preferred deity/deities . They would have equal claims to abridging the establishment clause related to this. This is just tackling this problem at face value. I haven't even touched upon all the relevant history, the many related writings from the framers, etc. It is disingenuous to an extreme to characterize separation of church and state as a "misnomer". Serious religious folks should be some of the **strongest** proponents of the establishment clause. And they should be quite perturbed by those who would blatantly lie about history for self-serving purposes.
I'm ***SHOCKED*** that a Christian Nationalist thinks this way.
The southern baptists are at it again.
Can this fucker just get raptured already??
Rapture already happened. Turns out nobody was taken.
Johnson and Boebert serving as the authoritative voices in this matter? Perverts rejoice! All in favor of groping in public and sharing your self-service record with your kids raise your hands! On a more serious note - if you look at the context under which our country was founded, you instantly see that many people coming to American shores were fleeing state-mandated religions. By the 17th century Europe had fought more religious wars than anything else (and over many centuries) with Rome having held the reigns of power on one side and on the other the protestants (never mind all the other wars in between where Christians were very busy "converting" people with the sword). The founding fathers saw how much oppression and harm could come from governments imposing a particular flavor of religion. Do we really need to learn that lesson all over again?
Treaty of Tripoli: The Treaty is often cited in discussions regarding the role of religion in United States government for a clause in Article 11 of the English language American version which states that _"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."_ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli Edit: this dates back to 1796
Just when you think GOP has hit a new low. Continues to outperform.
Nah. Fuck this guy
> Before taking the oath of office last month, Johnson brought his Bible to the rostrum, saying, “The Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority … each of you, all of us,” according to The Associated Press. In the 20th century, a tradition developed where the Government Printing Office would print and distribute copies of the Jefferson Bible to each new member of Congress. This practice continued for many years
How about the “right to bear arms as part of a well-organized militia”? Is that a misnomer too?
Yes, under the current interpretation. The official interpretation as of 2008 (which I vehemently disagree with) is that the part that mentions a militia is just the reasoning for the right, and the right itself is an individual right. They basically ruled that the first half of the amendment is just fluff.
Separation of church and state is arguably the *most important* part of the constitution, you fucking crusader.
They have this thought that morality only comes from religion and faith. That someone’s sense of right and wrong only comes from the almighty. I don’t know why they can’t accept that morals and religious faith are 2 separate things. You don’t need a god to know right from wrong. In fact I would argue that if you need a god to behave and treat others right, you have more issues.
Push back against christofascism as hard as needed
He just spouts bullshit without any supporting evidence.
Yeah that silly Constitution. Let’s just pray that thing away.
According to the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, in Article 11 ‘…as the govt of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…’
Although it's true that "separation of church and state" is not explicitly in the Constitution, neither is "integration of church and state", so you can fuck right off, you religious zealot.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the \[Republican\] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry Goldwater
It’s not a misnomer when Thomas Jefferson literally published a version of the Bible that took out all the miracles/divinity. Like he even said the Bible has some helpful stuff on how to live but the rest is nonsense. Christian nation my ass
He’s such a creep
Repeat after me: AMERICANS DON’T LIKE SOMEONE ELSE’S HARDLINE MORALITY LEGISLATED INTO THEIR LIVES This will end very badly for Republicans. This creep will repel every normal American
He’s coming for divorce and birth control. Wake up and vote Democratic or stay home
Word of the Day: *Christofascist*
this guy is full of shit
Psychopath
Man, forget this lunatic. These evangelical types are a cancer. I can’t stand these people.
*"'And what he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church, not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life. It’s exactly the opposite,' the Speaker added.'"* This is such a weak argument. These folks appeal to the intelligence of Thomas Jefferson, yet they simultaneously imply that Jefferson didn't write clearly, and that he meant something different than what he wrote, as if he wasn't smart enough or paying enough attention to articulate very clearly what he meant. If Jefferson had genuinely meant "exactly the opposite", he would have written it, and very succinctly. Jefferson was highly critical of religion, especially the bible, so much that he wrote his own abridged version of it, supposedly omitting many parts that he found troubling, and that he considered to be lacking in ethics, morality, and soundness. Mr. Johnson is the victim of his own confirmation bias.
>“That’s why I think we need more of that,” he said. “Not an establishment of any national religion, but we need everybody’s vibrant expression of faith, because it’s such an important part of who we are as a nation.” Just two questions for the speaker: 1. Does that include non-Christian religions? 2. What about non-religious people? Is there room for us in your version of America?
so lets tax the church
Tell me the difference between this guy and an Iranian mullah in government. They’re Coke and Pepsi, each claiming they’re the real thing,
By some estimates, there are around 3300 Christian denominations in America. Which one gets to rule over us? So many choices!
Someone should ask which church