307
submitted 8 months ago by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 69 points 8 months ago

the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

That’s language from the Treaty of Tripoli that was signed by John Adams, our second president. The Founding Fathers were grounded in Enlightenment philosophy. Whatever their personal faith was, they recognized that faith should not dominate politics. That is a threat to democracy and honest compromise in policy.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago

they understood the only way to religious freedom would be agnostic democracy

[-] mnoram@lemmy.world 61 points 8 months ago

How did it not go well? The article just details how people are defending his record and beliefs but shows no repercussions nor is it "not going well" for his defenders. He is second in line for the presidency with insane beliefs and theocratic tendencies. Sure seems to be going just fine for him, unfortunately for us.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 19 points 8 months ago

Maybe it's "not going well," because the majority of the public aren't buying their shit? Seems to kind of ring hollow when they have the power to both bring bills to the floor and vote on them.

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

If you have to guess what the title means after reading the article, it’s a pretty bad title.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago

I would love for that to be true, but where’s the evidence? I skimmed the article but didn’t see any mention of public disapproval.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago

Oh, I wasn't talking about the article. It's an opinion piece, so I feel justified sharing mine.

[-] Motavader@lemmy.world 51 points 8 months ago

“It’s a central premise of the Bible that God invented civil government,” Johnson told Olohan, who added that, “like many Americans of faith, Johnson sees government as a ‘design of God’ and ‘a gift to mankind in a fallen society.’

These people are literally insane.

[-] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago

God's explicit stance on government is "obey your government, pay your taxes". At no point does the Bible establish a government.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

Your first mistake was thinking they've ever read the thing.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

And the Republican Party can’t even follow those two rules!

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 3 points 8 months ago

More like King James's stance

[-] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Tru but they ain't ready to talk about that

[-] hogunner@lemmy.world 50 points 8 months ago

It would still be concerning if these nut jobs actually followed all the Bible’s “teachings” like they espouse to but instead they believe that they get to decide what parts of the Bible should be taken literally, what parts need “modern” interpretation and what parts are ignored or hidden.

This makes them even more dangerous because it gives them the power to decide who is abiding by their god’s law and who is in violation of it.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 20 points 8 months ago

which literally describes every organized religion

[-] hogunner@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago

Agreed but I think we can all agree that while cults are troubling and shouldn’t exist, death cults are even more so. The type of “Christianity” he subscribes to is very much a death cult.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 9 points 8 months ago

In fairness, they have to. There's a fun challenge out there that says open the Bible to a random page and do whatever it says. The last person to go to jail wins.

The Bible doesn't teach morality. It reveals the morality the believer has chosen.

[-] inspired@kbin.social 31 points 8 months ago

This man looks like he's always about to kiss you full on the mouth but you know what he really wants to do is make a jacket out of your skin. 0 stars.

[-] inspired@kbin.social 8 points 8 months ago

He won't seek consent for either and he's already drafting a bill that that look you're making... yeah, that look... is implied consent.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Did you just reply to yourself?

[-] inspired@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

Yes. (See what I did there?)

[-] Zippit@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

Off topic, but there's something really really wrong with this guy. I don't like the continuous half smirk on his face. I don't like absolutely anything about him and find him creepy.

[-] Minarble@aussie.zone 11 points 8 months ago

That’s the uncanny valley reflex.

At some period in Homo Sapiens evolution we developed an instinct for … things that weren’t quite right. They looked like people they talked like people. They were not people. They were dangerous, they were non human. We faced evolutionary pressure to recognise them. That means if you could not recognise these … things you would be removed from the gene pool.

That is why you find him creepy.

[-] remotelove@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I am trying to think of an example of something dangerous that talks like a human, almost looks like a human, but isn't human... A politician?

[-] Lophostemon@aussie.zone 17 points 8 months ago

He’s such a smarmy, sinister looking creep.

this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
307 points (96.9% liked)

politics

18073 readers
3117 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS