this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
197 points (96.2% liked)

politics

18850 readers
4976 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! 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.
  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

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
 

Highlights: There are two moments from Mike Johnson’s early days as speaker of the House that almost perfectly encapsulate the broken way that so many Republican evangelicals approach politics. The first occurred just after the House elected Johnson. ABC’s Rachel Scott started to ask Johnson about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. But before she could finish, Johnson’s Republican colleagues started to shout her down. Johnson simply shook his head. “Next question,” he said, as if the query wasn’t worth his time. It was the kind of conduct that led the Florida Republican Matt Gaetz to dub the new speaker “MAGA Mike Johnson.”

The second moment came in his first extended interview as speaker, when Johnson shared the basis of his political philosophy with Sean Hannity of Fox News: “Someone asked me today in the media, they said, ‘It’s curious, people are curious. What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, ‘Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it.’ That’s my worldview.”

That quote is less illuminating than many people think. The Bible says a great deal about a great number of subjects, but it is open to interpretation on many and silent on many more. (It says nothing, for example, about the proper level of funding for the I.R.S., Johnson’s first substantive foray into policy as speaker.)

Johnson and I have such similar religious convictions that we once worked together at the same Christian law firm.

It turns out that the Bible isn’t actually a clear guide to “any issue under the sun.” You can read it from cover to cover, believe every word you read and still not know the “Christian” policy on a vast majority of contested issues. Even when evangelical Christians broadly agree on certain moral principles, such as the idea that marriage is a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman, there is widespread disagreement on the extent to which civil law should reflect those evangelical moral beliefs.

Though the Bible isn’t a clear guide for American foreign policy, American economic policy or American constitutional law, it is a much clearer guide for Christian virtue. Here’s one such virtue, for example: honesty.

Which brings us back to Johnson’s refusal to answer a question about the effort to overturn the 2020 election.... According to a comprehensive Politico report on Johnson’s efforts to steal the election, he was a “ubiquitous contact for Trump at key moments” during the plot. He said there was “a lot of merit” to completely false claims about voting machines being “rigged with this software by Dominion.” Like most House Republicans, he voted against certifying the election.

Mods, I know that's a lot of words from the post. It's about 440/1100 words from the article.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] downpunxx@kbin.social 20 points 10 months ago (2 children)

what's this "our" shit christman? there's no "our christian politics", as we're Americans, with a Constitutional mandate and separation clause inferring as Thomas Jefferson put it "a wall of separation between church and state"

fuck christ. fuck christians. since the romans strung that dude up he's been nothing but death and pain to my people. fuck em there, fuck em here. fuck christianity everywhere.

this is the united states of goddamned america, and i'll be good and goddamned if i ceede an "our" to christianity

[–] 520@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Even if you aren't Christian, you are being affected by policies with a basis in Christianity so long as you live there. That's why it's "our christian politics".

[–] flipht@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

Which goes a long way toward explaining why someone in that situation would be pissed off enough to write exactly what they wrote.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not the biggest fan of Louis Rosman, but he sometimes has a point.

People who start from a position being assured of their own self-righteousness, can very easily convince themselves that they can do no wrong. In many ways, they justify eveything for some mythical greater good that demands accomplishing a thing without regard for how they get there.

hyper-evangelic christian politicians are easily the low hanging fruit to pick on for examples.

[–] perdvert@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 10 months ago

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. -CS Lewis

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

This is what they meant by Separation of Church and State. These people had just fled a nation that routinely slaughtered any amount of the population that wouldn't convert to the King's religion. Those are the days we are screaming back to. Except, its a state religion, which just moves the historical reference to the 1940s.

These idiots want a theocracy, they want the state to sponsor their religion and "make it official". We should be clawing these motherfuckers out of their seats. But we fucken can't cause our own people are so handicapped with education they have to breath through their mouths and assholes exclusively.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


There are two moments from Mike Johnson’s early days as speaker of the House that almost perfectly encapsulate the broken way that so many Republican evangelicals approach politics.

He helped mobilize Republican support for Texas’ utterly frivolous lawsuit to overturn the Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin elections.

According to a comprehensive Politico report on Johnson’s efforts to steal the election, he was a “ubiquitous contact for Trump at key moments” during the plot.

In the same interview in which Johnson called out Dominion, he said that the Georgia election was “set up for the Biden team to win” through “massive fraud and error and irregularity.” By whom?

Another Christian man helps lead one of the most comprehensively dishonest and dangerous political and legal efforts in American history, and he gets the speaker’s gavel.

Evangelicals’ loyalty to Trump — in spite of several other options — is placing one of the most malignant figures in American politics within striking distance of the presidency, again.


The original article contains 1,172 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 86%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!