politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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?"
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...
So…main character syndrome. Isn’t that a prerequisite to register Republican?
As always, they are the one's in power, and therefore assume they'll be the only one's writing the rules.
A better example than pork products might be abortion.
There are literally no Jewish groups that are anywhere near as hard-line on abortion as Christians are. And the pro-life crowd would be quite upset if the laws on abortion were written by either reform or conservative rabbis.
The problem with Mike Johnson's position is that once you get past the basics like "don't murder", religions disagree significantly on the specifics. For example, according to Orthodox Judaism, you must abort a fetus that's threatening the mothers life, while some Christians would call that murder.
There's no such thing as generic "faith based principles" to base a government on; at some point you simply have to pick which religions' principles you'll enshrine.
The reason for the abortion policy in Judaism is that Judaism sees the fetus as merely "potential life" and part of the woman's body until it is born. There are Jewish groups fighting against the Republicans' restrictive abortion bans because they are based on Christianity's views of the life of the fetus and infringe on Jewish views.
If the mother dies and the baby hasn't been born yet, then two people have died. Aborting a life threatening fetus is the only sane course of action, as you are not ending one life, you're saving those who can still be saved.
There's a bunch of different kinds of ethics. That's a very consequentialist, pragmatic take. I mean, I agree that it's the moral action here, but your argument for it is very consequentialist.
Some religions take a more deontological view of ethics, where actions are right or wrong based on the action itself, rather than on the consequence it has.
For example, in Judaism, if a group of Nazis says "give us one of you to shoot or we'll shoot you all", then you're supposed to let your entire group get shot because killing an innocent to save your own life is wrong (though killing the nazis would be acceptable because they're aggressors in this situation). It sounds like you would call that insane, because the whole group dies instead of just one member.
Without separation, the government could impose and anti hypocrisy clause when people claim religious freedom -- if the person claiming it has demonstrably and willfully gone against their religion's rules, they can't claim religious freedom for a different rule.
I think it's more of a case of the dog chasing the car but having no clue what to do when it catches the car.
For example, Dobbs repealing Roe vs Wade. The right won. Abortion could be banned. The dog has the car's bumper firmly in its mouth. Now what?
Some Republicans said it should be left up to the states. Some said that they wanted a national law. Some said ban abortion at 15 weeks. Some said 6 weeks. Some said, don't charge the women. Some said arrest any woman whose pregnancy doesn't end with a baby and try her for murder unless she can prove it wasn't her doing.
The dog caught the car but suddenly had no clue what to do.
If the Republicans catch the "Christian nation car," they'll likely be similarly splintered. Some might want to respect our religions even though Christianity would be favored. Others would want to force everyone to convert or else. The former might wind up being just a codification of current society (which absolutely prioritizes Christianity over all others) into law, but the latter would be horrific for anyone not in the favored religious group. I'm not sure where that "dog catches car" would end up, but I don't want to find out.
The problem with fascism is that it always needs an enemy, and if allowed to continue long enough, will cannibalize itself in search of one.
I would love to see what the rules are after all the major religions cooperate and build a new world order. I’d imagine it’d be something like “everyone is vegan now. Be nice to everyone. Except the Roma”.
They would just change the argument again to "the founding fathers were Christian they had every intention of allowing Christian religion to inform government decisions. The founding fathers never were Muslim or Jewish nor did they enact any policy that originated from their respective religious books. So based on that history we only allow Christian laws to be made, anything else is unconstitutional."
/Vomit
They were deists though...