359
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] smitty@lemmy.world 180 points 1 year ago

There should be a religious test for politicians.

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

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

That is the opposite of what this country was built on; freedom of religion.

Being religious should not disqualify anyone, but if you push past separation of church and state then and only then should you be disqualified

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 49 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure that was the point of the original comment.

[-] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Who decides what is too religious?

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

When you start talking like Mike Johnson about how people need to follow his religion and how our government needs to enforce his religious values, you're to religious too be allowed in government.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Fal@yiffit.net 35 points 1 year ago

Being too religious should absolutely disqualify you, just like believing the world is flat or any number of other complete nonsense should disqualify you.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

So… you’re saying ….

If they’re too religious… they should be disqualified…

The line for you being that they try to force their beliefs on others. Which, personally, I view as a given when their campaign platform includes “Christian Values” (or any other religion’s values,)

If you can’t make a secular argument…. It doesn’t belong in government.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Bring religious should be a disqualification. You have a higher master you serve. You can't be trusted to put the country and the citizens first.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago

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 10 points 1 year ago

Shot for treason

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 9 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

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago

I wish these chucklefucks would realize not all of us believe in god let alone the same one they pray to.

[-] BeanGoblin 83 points 1 year ago

They do realize this. They see it as a problem that needs fixing.

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

They seem to forget one of the main reasons people founded this country in the first place. Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion.

[-] mephiska@artemis.camp 17 points 1 year ago

That’s not how they see it though.

[-] Instigate@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago

The US Constitution was set up and amended in such a way that religions could not be interfered with by the state, but such that religions could invade the state and exert influence there. It’s not so much a Freedom from Religion as it is a Freedom for Religious People. Goddamn puritans.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago

No, that's what Barton wants people to believe. But when you read what the Founders had to say about church and state, they made it pretty clear they wanted to keep religion out of the state as well.

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

- John Adams

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding....

- Thomas Jefferson

meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

- Thomas Jefferson again

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists...

- George Washington, to Tench Tilghman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers, edited by Saul Padover

...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.

- George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers, edited by Saul Padover]

For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

- George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island | Wednesday, August 18, 1790

While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to him only in this case they are answerable.

- George Washington letter to Benedict Arnold | Thursday, September 14, 1775

More on what the Founders thought.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 42 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

[-] Nedlymandico@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Now we got to listen to this bullshit. Would love to see him take a test on the bible.

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

We'll start by asking him to list all twenty commandments, since conservatives usually claim that they love them so much.

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Twenty? I'm not a Christian so was unaware of the extra ten.

[-] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

The free version has 10, but if you pay for Bible Pro you get 20

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Most "Christians" are also unaware of the extra ones, despite them being listed in black and white in the bible.

In Exodus 20, Moses is given the tablets containing the ten commandments, which are listed off in the text of the bible in that chapter and are the ten that "everyone knows."

Then, in Exodus 32:19, Moses gets so pissed off at witnessing his people worshiping the golden calf that he breaks the tablets that have the commandments carved on them. In Exodus 33 he goes back up the mountain to ask god what to do about it. In Exodus 34, god goes as far as to say unto Moses, "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." Throughout the chapter he does so, listing off a screed that contains a couple of the original commandments (no other gods before me, and remember the sabbath) but the rest of his directions are quite different from the first list.

Further, there is a recitation of the first ten commandments in Deuteronomy 5, where a different explanation for the sabbath day is given. In Exodus god claims the sabbath is holy because he created the world in six days and the seventh day is a day of rest, but in Deuteronomy he says the sabbath actually holy because the people of Israel were slaves in Egypt and god gave them rest in the form of their freedom. Moses further goes on to say after this recitation that these were the words god spoke and he "added no more," which as we saw in Exodus 34 is bogus.

I guess actually it's 18 in total, then. We can treat it as a trick question for Mike Johnson.

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

There's an interesting detail to the whole "Moses breaking the original tablets in response to the golden calf worship."

This parallels the alleged reforms of Josiah.

Josiah "finds a new book of laws" and then suddenly carries out major religious reforms. He performed human sacrifice slaughtering the priests of the high places on their altars to defile them. He hides away the Ark, the anointing oil, the manna jar. He gets rid of the Asherah worship.

And he gets rid of the golden calves in Bethel and Dan while getting rid of the old laws and bringing new ones.

Oh, and he institutes the Passover narrative.

So suddenly in the events around Moses, the central part of that Passover narrative, is a scene that has old laws being destroyed in response to golden calf worship and new laws taking their place.

Very sus.

Even more sus is that Josiah's reforms appear to be anachronistic given the correspondence over a century later between Elephantine and Jerusalem.

We should really be taking Hecataeus of Adbera's claim that the scriptures of the Jews had recently been significantly altered around the Exodus narrative under the Persian and Macedonian conquests more seriously.

Edit: Also if the Shapira scroll is legit, there was originally an 11th commandment.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Start with "Which came first, people or animals?"

Genesis 1:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Indeed. Two stories from two regions mashed up into the Septuagint along with a number of other writings, much of it proven to be anachronistic, meant to unify a kingdom politically against its rivals under one religion and one god where before there were many of each. It's also why you see god being named in different ways in different books.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 33 points 1 year ago

This guy’s a fuckin freak.

[-] WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

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

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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/

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mtchristo@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

This is turning into a South Park episode.

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

🌎👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

[-] 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.

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

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

[-] PwnTra1n@lemmy.world 8 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

[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

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

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago

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 10 points 1 year ago

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 6 points 1 year ago

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

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago

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 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] charonn0@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 5 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] KonalaKoala@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

How about a religious test on this extra set of ten commandments and start by seeinh how the idiots in the House would even pass it.

  1. Thou shall send aid to Israel and Ukraine
  2. Thou shall vote not to shut down the government
  3. Thou shall vote for a Democratic House Speaker
  4. Thou shall ban assault weapons from the market
  5. Thou shall vote to expand, not cut, Social Security or Medicare
  6. Thou shall vote to tax the very rich since greed is a sin
  7. Thou shall vote to tear down border walls that don't work
  8. Thou shall vote to invest in clean renewable energy
  9. Thou shall vote to stop drilling and clear cutting on natural reserves
  10. Thou shall vote to expand the Endangered Species List and fund the EPA.
[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No need to invent new commandments. Use the holy book they claim to follow.

James 5: 1-6:

1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

Not done your best to eliminate wage theft and tax the rich? Fail.

Leviticus 19:34

The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Not voted in favour of equal (voting, residence, labour, ...) rights for migrants? Fail.

Exodus 22:25

“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.

Not voted in favour of mandating interest free loans to the poor? Fail.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
359 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2005 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