Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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.
they understood the only way to religious freedom would be agnostic democracy
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.
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.
If you have to guess what the title means after reading the article, it’s a pretty bad title.
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.
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.
which literally describes every organized religion
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.
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.
“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.
God's explicit stance on government is "obey your government, pay your taxes". At no point does the Bible establish a government.
Your first mistake was thinking they've ever read the thing.
More like King James's stance
Tru but they ain't ready to talk about that
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.
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.
Did you just reply to yourself?
Yes. (See what I did there?)
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.
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.
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?
He’s such a smarmy, sinister looking creep.