this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023

-34 points (13.0% liked)

Conservative

380 readers

5 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-34

Right Wing Watch is absolutely scandalized because Speaker Mike Johnson talked about being called to lead like Moses (notthebee.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We're 2 deaths away from this man replacing the constitution with the 10 commandments.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Right Wing Watch, a bunch of discount Media Matters wannabes, thinks that a Christian talking to other Christians in Biblical terms which everyone in the room understands is a tremendous threat to the country.

Naturally, the entire article relies on a strawman argument.

"He's just using metaphors his in-group understands! What's the big deal?!"

It's the fact this his in-group has historically gone out of its way to quite literally demonize the out-groups. A Christian nation, America is not. And while I don't object to a Christian holding any public office, I object to the religious right's modern rejection of the Enlightenment principles on which America was actually founded. Being moved by the spirit of god has its place, and that place is not in the halls of Congress.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago

I’m always concerned when people say god talks to them. Hearing voices is concerning. Now I understand religion will mix with government and I have no issue with that. I do not like when laws are religious in nature such as abortion and I’ll fight those.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Soooo…. We just going to pretend that separation of church and state is still a thing right? Because if we dismiss that, than the 2ndA is fair game.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The establishment clause does not call for a separation of church and state

Takes less than 10 seconds of googling to find out this is false:

By it, the federal government of the United States and, by later extension, the governments of all U.S. states and U.S. territories, are prohibited from establishing or sponsoring religion

The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation establishing an official religion, and by interpretation making it illegal for the government to promote theocracy or promote a specific religion with taxes. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's involvement with religion to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

At least do a basic search on a topic before you misinform others.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You do realize that’s a court ruling from much later? The founding fathers never intended a complete separation. Several of the states had state religions until well after the nation was formed. The ruling about the three prongs well over 100 years later.

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

The founding fathers never intended a complete separation.

Are you stupid?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Rule 3 Violation.

Do yourself a favor and make an argument...as tedious as it may be.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Make an argument with a person that more than likely thinks that the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are Santa’s origin story and a non-profit cardio fitness program he created to stay fit during the slow months?

Impossible!

[+] [email protected] -7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I am an atheist, but at least I know the history of our country. Obviously, you didn't know several states had state religions until the 1800s. Nobody thought it was a conflict.

Your position seems to be you don't know the history of the country or case law.

You probably didn't realize the lemon law wasn't until the 1970's. Until then it wasn't even thought of odd that the two mingled. Nor did you realize that in 2022, Kennedy vs Bremeton, Lemon was abandoned.

You just look silly not know the history or caselaw.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Separation of church and state was part of the origin story of America, that states were violating it since- doesn’t unwrite the constitution.

This isn’t about how much you can say to sound like you know what you’re talking about- it’s about the simple fact that separation of church and state was there from the beginning.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

No, it really wasn't. That is a basic history lesson you must have missed. Religion has always been tied heavily to our government.

If it was unconstitutional, as you claim, then you think the founding fathers would have stopped it right away. They didn't.

The founding fathers were deeply religious men and knew the two would mingle, but they didn't want a government church like the Episcopalians in England or the Lutherans in Sweden.

Many were only nominally Christian, as Diest was the day's rage. The phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.

Here is a nice breakdown of the pro/cons of the arguments. It sounds like you have never read the Constitution since you think the phrase is in there.

https://undergod.procon.org/questions/did-the-founding-fathers-support-a-separation-of-church-and-state/

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Deists are not Christians just as Christians are not Deists. The terms are incompatible.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago

Actually they are not incompatible. George Washington attended church and was a deist.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Look up the Establishment Clause. Then get back to me.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I have. I also cited you an explanation of the legal aspects of it. I suggest you read them to become more educated on the topic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The federal government of the United States and, by later extension, the governments of all U.S. states and U.S. territories, are prohibited from establishing or sponsoring religion

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And? Nobody is establishing a religion

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So… like a typical conservative- you’re just going to skip over the part that applies, and argue against the one that doesn’t?

We’re done here kid. I’m not wasting my time with you anymore, so I’m going to block you now. Based on your comment history- I’m not going to be missing any quality content from you in doing so.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You have yet to say which part you think applies nor refuted the cites I have you. You ignore the case law or weren’t even aware if the case law.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

HAH!

Dude you lost this argument the moment it started:

The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation establishing an official religion, and by interpretation making it illegal for the government to promote theocracy or promote a specific religion with taxes.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion.

While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's involvement with religion to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

Just stop man. You’re embarrassing yourself.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Who are you replying to as it has nothing to do with what I said?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

My god you’re embarrassing! It’s almost adorable!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think you are replying to the wrong person.

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

I see why the other person blocked you. You’re clearly a troll.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Please do not name call. It's part of rule 1. Consider this a warning.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Sure thing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

For the record, where was their warning when they said the other person “looked silly?” or are we showing a bias?

EDIT: Yeah. I thought as much.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Here's some more language that the Christians in the room should understand: wolf in sheep's clothing.