this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
305 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19090 readers
5300 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] smitty@lemmy.world 153 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There should be a religious test for politicians.

If you're too religious, you should not be a politician

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know what? Yes. And if you’re found to be swayed by your religion while making law? You should be barred from office.

[–] Skates@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago

Shot for treason

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'd like to test him about feeding the hungry. Sheltering the homeless. Comforting the widow. Coveting your neighbors goods. Doing to others as you would like have done to you. I'm not even fucking talking about religion, either.

[–] WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd like to test him about the desire for control and dictatorial tendencies. He would fail every time

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

There is a 'no religious test' bit in the constitution It turns out that the only religious test the constitution sanctions is DON'T PROPOSE RELIGIOUS TESTS

That's the one that tells us you can't be trusted with secular authority

[–] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This guy’s a fuckin freak.

[–] WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

And he doesn't know that you never go full religious pineapple

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like a major lesson from the Trump era is that no one has to take American evangelicals seriously when they talk about how their faith informs their politics. They can and will justify anything so it’s just a waste of everyone’s time to pretend they’re sincere in their beliefs.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

This is it exactly. Start with what someone is trying to justify doing first and foremost. It doesn't matter what they believe. A nihilist fascist should be exterminated all the same

[–] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Extremely ironic considering that Jews and atheists tend to be more knowledgeable than Christians about religion: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/07/23/what-americans-know-about-religion/

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Man, these guys just hate this country so very much. It's so obvious because they keep ignoring and/or gaslighting about one of the most important things about this country, and that is that it is a SECULAR country.

[–] mtchristo@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is turning into a South Park episode.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

🌎👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I fully support this. Anyone who claims to be religious - of any kind - will not get my vote.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I would love to see how closely they follow "love thy neighbor"

[–] PwnTra1n@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

thats why they try so hard to change who is allowed to move in next door

I'm sure he's really concerned about usery.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems like he was urging people to vote based on candidates' religious beliefs. This is not a "religious test" in the Constitutional sense.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do you think the Constitution means when it says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That you don't have to profess any particular religious beliefs in order to qualify as a candidate for office.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is precisely what Johnson is advocating. If you're not a Christian, if you're not his kind of Christian, he thinks you shouldn't be eligible for office. He's explicitly telling people not to vote for people who don't share their religious identity.

That's a religious test.

[–] Actaeon@artemis.camp 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think you misunderstand what the constitution does and doesn’t do. It defines the structure, powers and limits of the Government.

The clause means that the Government cannot instate a religious test on candidates for office. It does not dictate how individuals are allowed to decide which of those candidates they vote for.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It should be in there. Article 2 section 9 paragraph 4 "don't vote for a dumbass"

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

He's telling voters what he'd like them to do. He's allowed to do that, and voters are allowed to take religious beliefs into account when casting their ballots.

How would you even enforce a rule that prohibited voters from doing that? Particularly on a secret ballot?

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

When preaching from the pulpit, people assume the authority of their god. He's not suggesting, he's telling them how they have to behave in order to be good Christians.

Don't make excuses for villains like this.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not making excuses, I don't even support this guy. And if I were in his district, I would take his religious beliefs into account and vote against him. As would be my right.

I'm simply pointing out what is and is not covered by the US Constitution. The Constitution pertains to the government, not the people. It limits what the government can do, to include making religious tests a qualification for office, but does not say a damned thing about what the voters are allowed to consider.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

If he’s preaching politics from the pulpit…

There’s a good chance a 501c corp needs to loose it’s 501c status

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As soon as he provides proof that he's not made out of wood.

[–] bingbong@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

My boy crawled right out of Madame Tussauds for the speaker position