this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
427 points (98.9% liked)

politics

18672 readers
3416 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 96 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Boy do I love living surrounded by these loving christians.

Born too late to explore the earth, borth too early to explore the stars, born just in time to have my rights taken away by belivers in a bronze age supernatural death cult.

Fucking amazing.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I was corrected on this recently. The Hebrew Bible was written by Iron Age folks. As was the Gospels.

FYI

[–] lingh0e 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The old testament is just a riff on old Sumarian myths, so... still pretty much bronze age.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

Half of Noah’s ark is in Gilgamesh. He meets a man that the gods are punishing for doing the whole Noah thing with immortality after he crosses that underworld ocean with that giant stack of paddle sticks. Flood , dove with olive branch and all. I think he was trying to help his buddy Enkidu if I remember correctly. Poor Enkidu :( he should have stayed a beast and lived his life with the deer.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

That's a very positive outlook that humanity will survive to explore the stars without being killed by religious fascists.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

You live in amazing times where we are inventing and learning new shit all the time. If you're not exploring now when that exploring is relatively very safe, you wouldn't be the one sailing off to the new world hundreds of years ago. People can be miserable or content in their own time, no matter what that time is.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 64 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

—Thomas Jefferson

When a religion is good, conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, apprehend, of its being a bad one.

—Benjamin Franklin

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/thomas-jefferson-religious-institutions/

I agree with your sentiment, but please don't spread misinformation regardless of intent.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

Proper quote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

(From your snopes link)

[–] [email protected] 58 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Didn't this religious asshole take an oath to uphold the constitution that literally decrees separation of church and state‽ Grounds for a firing.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago

Constitution only says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Jefferson coined the term in a letter regarding the 1A.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but in any case "separation of church and state" is how we have always interpreted it.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 9 months ago (1 children)

religious whackjobs in the government attempt to rebrand 'religion' to 'faith' in an attempt to claim all americans should suffer from it.

it will only cause me to hate 2 words instead of the one.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

You should already hate faith. Faith is what the religious use to justify doing nothing themselves.

Hell, faith is the reason half of them are sitting around hoping for Armageddon...

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

faith is what i have in my wifes love for me. i dont want to hate faith, just its abuse.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

I view it as confidence.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

@originalucifer faith is conviction in the absence of knowledge and that is down right scary.

@jeffw @MotoAsh

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

Capital-F Faith is directly contrary to science and reason. It's believing things to be true without question or proof.

You can be spiritual and also be a logical person who listens to reason and science. But when you devote your entire worldview to Faith, then you should absolutely NOT be in a position to make decisions that affect other people's lives.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 9 months ago

We really need to get these republicans out of office.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago

Kind of like “well regulated militia”, right Mr. Speaker? 🙄

[–] [email protected] 28 points 9 months ago (3 children)

That’s a Taliban thing to say.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

American churches and religious organizations have secured themselves so much public funding and political campaign power this past couple decades he kind of isn't wrong: the separation detailed as important by many of the founders has been dumped.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Tax the FUCK Out of them if they think they have a say on govt

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago

Of course a guy who can't separate fapping from family also can't separate politics from religion.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (14 children)

Set aside for the moment that the Founding Fathers absolutely wanted there to be a separation between church and state because they had just come from a land (England) where the ruler (the King) was the leader of the church (Church of England) and where they saw the abuses this caused.

Would Johnson and all the other "no separation" folks really be fine with the government meddling with their faith? After all, if there's no separation between church and state then not only can the church influence the state, but the state can influence the church. Get rid of the separation and the federal government could decide which holidays you observe and in which ways. It could proclaim what the contents of the prayer books are and when/how you pray.

Would they be fine with all this?

Of course, they assume that they will be writing the rules, but would they accept it if someone else was? Perhaps I, a Jew, would declare that they can't eat pig products. (In reality, I'd never impose my religious beliefs on others, but let's say I did hypothetically speaking.) Perhaps a Muslim Government Religious Committee Member would add a few rules. As would a Buddhist. Heck, let's get atheists and satanists involved as well. I'm sure they would love to write some "religious rules" that the Christians nationalists would need to follow. Would Johnson and company happily go along with this because "no separation between church and state?"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Would they be fine with all this?

And in today's lesson, we will learn the term "double standards": yes they would be fine with this because they think they are the state, also they think they are basically god's will and anything contradicting that will be fought tooth and nail. IF they should ever see another religion even approach their level of power, then they will attempt everything in their power to restrict that religion's advances because they were always proponents of a separation of ( at least that other) religion and the state. Any inconsistencies in that worldview are not, as it may seem at first glance (or second [or third and all thereafter]) pure hypocrisy because it's obviously an ENTIRELY different situation when they are affected. As soon as their power is then consolidated again, separation of church and state shouldn't be taken THAT seriously anymore - it's not that important as long as the RIGHT religion is the state...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago

Y'know, since the other theocracies around the world are so chill.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago

"Thomas Jefferson was wrong."

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

The separation of church and state doesn't require a separation of faith and state. Separation of faith and state wasn't Jeffersons point...

The house comes to consensus on all sorts of shit, often based on faith, while being composed of members of a variety of churches. Been that way for centuries, and can continue to be that way. The first amendment doesn't prohibit government from making laws based on faith or faith based values. It prohibits government from making laws respective to a church.

Which is all to say that Johnson bringing a bible to the dais is questionable, and boeberts assertion that the church should direct the state is flat out wrong.

Government can have faith and religion. It's always had faith and religion. Jefferson didn't advocate that congress be staffed by atheists, he advocated that it be staffed by people of any faith or religion, because the first amendment says exactly that. That was his point...

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago

Let's do separation of Johnson and State instead, please

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

Mike Johnson is a filthy traitor

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

Even if you agree with his sentiments, calling it a misnomer is itself a misnomer.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (3 children)

The expression "separation of church and state" in American politics is from Jefferson's response to the Danbury Baptist Association (of Connecticut), in which he reassured them that the First Amendment meant that other larger religious groups would not be permitted to use the power of the federal government to oppress Baptists.

Religious persecution had been a live issue in New England, where the Congregationalist Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony had earlier expelled Baptists, Quakers, and other religious nonconformists from the colony.

You can read the full text of the Danbury Baptists' letter to Jefferson, and Jefferson's response, here on Wikipedia.

To summarize greatly, the Baptists say "We believe in religious liberty, but we've seen persecution before; and we worry that the federal government will be used to impose someone else's religious views on us. We want a government that only punishes people for harming others, and can't be pressured into imposing religious laws."

And Jefferson says "Yes, that's why we put this First Amendment thing in; to build a wall of separation between church and state."

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

This goes along with someone else's question above in response to Boebert - "which church?" It's ironic that the biggest benefactors of separation are religions, and they're the first to try and dismantle it.

The founders of the Constitution and others back then disagreed on a lot of issues and had a few false starts, as well as expected us to continue to modify laws as society changed. But they certainly agreed on no religion within politics, they lived in a world where that had been shown to be problematic over and over. We can see it now as religion creeps back in to our current politics as well as worldwide in other nations.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Fucking jebus moron. Wrong, ignorant, arrogant, idiotic. republiQan.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Misnomer? I'm not even sure he's using English properly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Calling modern American Republicans like Mike Johnson a Christian is a misnomer.

Jesus would be whipping this motherfucker for what he thinks of and does to the less fortunate.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›