“Speaker Johnson: Separation of Church and State is a misnomer”

Yes.

That's why Ohio added abortion rights to their constitution, for example.

They are clearly a Christian majority state, but individuals aren't looking for their legislators or the Speaker of the House to interpret their beliefs for them.

One interesting thing in Ohio is that so many of their Republican leaders stood up and declared that they would work HARD to DEFEAT the will of the people on the grounds of their religion!! But, government isn't supposed to HAVE a religion.

It's supposed to have representatives of the people.

Remember: of the people, by the people and for the people.

In fact, they ARE actually trying to DEFEAT the people!! Who gave them THAT charter?

 

I agree with everything you said, with one exception. You claim that Johnson is intentionally missing the Establishment Clause and I agree. But i also think you are making the Establishment Clause into something that it is not based on simple text. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

First of all, it is very specific "Congress", and requires a violation only if a law is passed.

A nativity scene on public property does not align with the plain text reading of the Establishment Clause.

 

So, if the majority of Congress vote to do these things, you believe that if their vote was based on their religious beliefs that the vote is invalid or violates the constitution?

 

Yikes!

Where did he get THAT idea?

What happened to evolution? What happened to humans having two feet? What happened to Noah's knowledge of boat building? Why should we deny archyology and other forms of investigation of our ancestors?

 

Those representatives are elected by the people to represent them in the legislature. Representatives are not required to poll their constituents before voting based on their own personal beliefs. That isn't how the system works.

If the constituents believe that their representative is no longer the best person to represent their interests, their recourse is to vote them out. It is not a popular vote system. Nor should it be.

 

They have a job to do - representation of the districts that elected them.

I know they will have their own views, but these Republicans jumped up and IMMEDIATELY went to battle against the crystal clear vote of the people!

Representative democracy can't work that way. The people deserve respect for their vote.

 

Correct. Meaning their constituents elected them to represent them in the government. That election was based on the representatives statements of their belief systems and positions on issues. It would be impossible for a representative to align their voting record with every constituent, and that isn't the intent.

Which they are completely free to do. They may not get re-elected, but that is the next sequence of the people's control of their government.

Much like the electoral college, representative government is also not based on the popular vote especially when it comes to individual issues.

It's working EXACTLY how it was intended.

 

No, that's not even slightly an excuse.

They absolutely DID have polling information - THE VOTE for the bill.

If they missed that, they could ask any news agency throughout the USA and much of Europe.

I do agree that the people should vote those individuals out of office, as they made it clear that they do NOT view the will of the people as consequential.

 

It's hilarious that you would use the Electoral College as an example of how you think a representative democracy should work!!

It's specifically designed to NOT be representative! And, it results in one individual claimed to represent the entire USA (though MAGA Trump absolutely disagrees with that).

 

America is rapidly following many other first world countries - becoming increasingly identifying as “no religion” and the millennials who do identify as religious do not have the same outlook as the previous generation

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/modeling-the-future-of-religion-in-america/

 

The answer is yes once one has developed the ability through self critique to "walk in someone else's shoes".

 

Abortion is a Western principle.

Or more Christians than you want to believe are pro choice. I know it doesn't fit the fictional narrative you want to believe but it's likely the reality.

Government does have religion because it's people and people are mostly religious. Religion is not allowed to be the government. No idea where you got this idea that people aren't supposed to be religious.

If the people are religious it would stand to reason the Representatives they choose would be as well

Yeah the government is the people, the people are religious.

The representative are trying to beat the government? So what they will fail out they will fall in line. Elections are referendums. If the people don't want that rep anymore they will pick a new one.

 

Let me guess - old judge Leon there was a Whiter shade of Pale yes? (Although I hate the thought of anyone expressing those sentiments associating with such a beautiful song)

 

Everyone is capable of change

Look at the classic story of John Newton https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-st...:~:text=Those words are life reflections,Paul.

 

That part is true, but what you cannot do is use religion to advance your faith. We see this with the social issues where a certain form of Christianity is pushing laws that are based on their Biblical viewpoints instead of a neutral viewpoint.

City hall is perfect, any profession of faith, including atheism, is allowed to pray for the city council. This can include an Imnan, a Rabbi, a Buddhist Monk, etc. We just are comfortable with our form of "Christianity" whatever that is.

I have no problem with whatever your profession of faith is, what you advocate or don't advocate as right or moral, but morals can come in all sorts of shades of gray, and there is no absolute, only the perception of what is absolute. If you use the Bible, better make sure you are using the correct meaning and context of the Hebrew word in the OT and the Greek word in the NT. English can be an is an imprecise language.

 

The House Speaker sees abortion as a serious problem that he wants to address with laws that apply to the nation.

He is a white evangelical protestant, the ONLY religious denomination in the USA where a majority doesn't want abortion to be available all or most of the time.

It's not news that representatives can lose the vote. It IS news that so many Republican politicians in Ohio immediately stood up to declare their opposition to that the majority of Ohioans just got through demanding as a constitutional change!

 

So?

Again, so?

Yeah so your point is moot.

If Ohio has an issue with this as big an issue as you think they should have then they'll vote against them may even hold special elections. If they see your reaction as hysteria they won't bother.

Politicians blab endlessly about all the things they are going to do but they are the servants but the leaders.

 

According to Evangelicals and Mike Johnson's belief, God told them and gave them authority. Shall we look at Greg Locke, Paula White the Evangelist, and all the other "pro Trump" pastors out there. There are plenty who say this. Why else would they stroke Trump's ego saying he is the Next Coming Messiah.

But I disagree with you. It was clear Mike Johnson was focusing on the freedom of religion. In those days, religion was whatever specific denomination you belonged to. Christ Church in Philadelphia is one notable example. Espicalian was one of the largest denominations then along with Presbyterian and Unitarianism. But a majority of the Founding Fathers believed in Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief that is Christian in origin, but is based on reason, not religious dogma, as a reasonable measure to solve social and political problems. Religion in those days was deeply rooted in religious dogma. As learned people, they did not want another 30 years war on American soil based strictly on religious dogma. See link below for further information.

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...fathers,solving social and political problems.


In addition, all used or proffessed to be Christian from any of the faiths that were available in the US. However, under reason, religion should not take a prominent role in government. That is the one thing they all agreed upon with the 1st amendment, specifically the two religion clauses. Johnson focuses solely on the freedom of expression, in so far that religion should not only guide our moral principles, but also our legislation. That is where the no establishment clause came in. Once religion is passed through legislation on moral, social, and political grounds, it becomse a very quick, and slippery slope in which those in power will prefer their form of christianity rather than religion as a whole. We see this when people of faith want to use the government to ban certain religions, like Islam and Atheism for instance. Most Chistians today won't know what a Buddhist monk believes or does not believe. This is founded on the second link which Mike Johnson totally ignores.


https://www.masters.edu/master_tmu_news/the-faith-of-the-founding-fathers/

 

Mike Johnson sees abortion a moral code that should not be crossed on his religious grounds. Politically, he thinks he can win by banning abortion at 15 weeks. I can guarantee you his evangelical supporters will be in fits if it is not totally banned. But with the Dobbs decision, it is now left up to the states. So far, the Evangelical Republicans have lost at every turn. It is why they want to use the legislature to pressure politicians to pass the bill into law and why we have 10 states with some of the strictest abortion rules known with some states have no exceptions whatsoever.

Abortion as a whole has been going down since the 1970s. this has been accomplished with education, medical advances, and so forth. In this link, it shows the historical rates of abortion in the US in raw numbers. The highest was in 1980, with some 1.6 million abortions. In 2015, it was under 860k. Current numbers are at 930k. But from 1980 to today, the regression analysis shows a downward slope. So why be concerned unless it has to do with religious dogma.

 

The key word is "respecting." What the Founding Fathers did not want was the government to give preferential treatment based on one's religion. that is why we don't have a religious test of any sort based on Article 6 where no religious test shall be required for anyone who affirms the oath of office in support of the US Constitution. YOu are not required to place your hand on the Bible and only the Bible, You can use any book, a science book, Quran, or whatever. In fact, you don't need to use a book period, but using a book, any book is more traditional than law. Members of his own party as well as who Johnson is associated with do not believe this in any way whatsoever. But the two clauses put together is simply restated as "separation of church and state. Church is the freedom of expression, and the state is the no-establishment clause. It does not mean a person who is a member of Congress, the President, or a GS 5 employee cannot use their religion to guide them through the day on matters not specific in the law, procedural manuals, or whatever.

As for the public square, the key is all or none. that's it. If all is allowed, then the No Establishment clause is not violated. But Evangelical Christians generally tend to ignore the No Establishment Clause. They are perfectly willing to put the Nativity Scene or even Hannakah, but god forbid if an Atheist does something there, or a Shinto Monk or a Buddhist Monk. There may be neutral langauge such as no "naked people" in the scene or something, but that generally applies to all.

 

Why not ? Morals and morality do not originate solely from religion.

 

Who taught you that murder, theft and rape are wrong? Someone did. You weren't born with it.

 

If we had a Muslim president, do you think The United States would be supporting Israel?

 

They aren't innate, either. You were taught morality by someone. I bet your parents taught you, just like mine did.

 

Who has forced religion on you? Post the law doing such a thing.