this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
207 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19146 readers
3304 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
 

The new speaker’s view is “the First Amendment for me but not for thee.”

The newly elected speaker of the House of Representatives, J. Michael Johnson (R-La.), spent years as a practicing lawyer before his election to Congress in 2016, focusing in particular on free speech and free exercise of religion cases under the First Amendment.

Johnson’s hard-right political and religious views are well known. Johnson is an evangelical Christian who has condemned homosexuality as “inherently unnatural” and called same-sex marriage “the dark harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic.” He served as spokesperson for the Alliance Defense Fund (now known as the Alliance Defending Freedom) whose website touts the “sanctity of life” and “the creative capacity of the union between a man and a woman.”

Less understood is Johnson’s litigation history, and what it suggests regarding his beliefs on the nature of individual rights under the U.S. Constitution and the role of religion in government. So I read about a dozen of the First Amendment cases he was involved in before he went into politics.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] homesweethomeMrL 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

TL;DR;

Johnson’s theory, summed up, appears to be what might be dubbed, “the First Amendment for me but not for thee.” As he has described it in his own words, “the founders wanted to protect the church from the encroaching state, not the other way around.”

But only when that church is Christian.

Long form article doesn’t need to be.

[–] Sanctus 2 points 1 year ago

Pick uo any history book. This is verifiably false. Johnson doesn't remember the Founders came from a place whence the king changed religion, everyone converted or died. This is what he is advocating for, because that is what happens with State sponsored religions, no one can dissent.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago

This doesn't surprise me at all. Christian fundies have a built-in religious imperative allegedly from their god to proselytize at every opportunity.

That kind of activity naturally bumps up against the rights of people who don't want to be harassed by apologists. And since in their view, Yahweh is above human institutions, their imperative is defacto above it, too. Therefore, the rights of individuals must come second to the rights of the Christian apologist.

And this is why it absolutely matters what you believe. Christianity doesn't exist in a vacuum, and this kind of belief is internally consistent with the religion. Nobody should get a pass simply because they think a god "said so."

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Sanctus 5 points 1 year ago

Good news, everyone! We've long passed this mark!

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can afford this guy his faith. Sure.

But he obviously cannot afford other people their faith if it's different than his. Sad state of affairs.

[–] IchNichtenLichten 14 points 1 year ago

Every fundie on the planet believes theirs is the only true faith.

We really shouldn't be electing these crackpots.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

This is exactly why I can't afford this guy his faith. Religion is a cancer.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

This isn't news to anyone who comprehends conservative thinking

From Francis Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He's 100% secretly gay. Can't wait for his scandal.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Straight people are perfectly capable of being homophobic.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but it's also a sad fact that many of the extremely anti gay activist types are in fact repressed gays. People who, under the terror of fucked up religious ideology rather decline others their freedom and actual life rather than admit their own sexuality.

[–] pottedmeat7910 10 points 1 year ago

There is no way that guy isn't a power bottom. No way.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What the fuck is “sexual anarchy”

[–] captainlezbian 23 points 1 year ago

A good time

[–] logicbomb 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That entire quote is ridiculous:

Johnson is an evangelical Christian who has condemned homosexuality as “inherently unnatural” and called same-sex marriage “the dark harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic.”

I'd like him to lay out a reasonable set of events that starts with same-sex marriage and ends with the doom of a republic. Because it sounds like the sort of thing that you say because it sounds good, but you're banking on people never thinking about it, because it's illogical garbage.

[–] captainlezbian 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

-legalize same sex marriage-> conservatives decide to destroy democracy instead of allowing it to continue

[–] TheDoozer 5 points 1 year ago

Kind of like the "drugs are illegal because they'll ruin your life... because you'll go to jail if you're caught with them because they're illegal" argument.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

"Look what you made me do!"

[–] logicbomb 3 points 1 year ago

They had already decided that before same sex marriage was legalized.