Mike Johnson and his allies tried to defend his extremist views. It didn’t go well.
Opinion | Mike Johnson and his allies tried to defend his extremist views. It didn’t go well.
How did it not go well? The article just details how people are defending his record and beliefs but shows no repercussions nor is it "not going well" for his defenders. He is second in line for the presidency with insane beliefs and theocratic tendencies. Sure seems to be going just fine for him, unfortunately for us.
Maybe it's "not going well," because the majority of the public aren't buying their shit? Seems to kind of ring hollow when they have the power to both bring bills to the floor and vote on them.
“It’s a central premise of the Bible that God invented civil government,” Johnson told Olohan, who added that, “like many Americans of faith, Johnson sees government as a ‘design of God’ and ‘a gift to mankind in a fallen society.’
These people are literally insane.
It would still be concerning if these nut jobs actually followed all the Bible’s “teachings” like they espouse to but instead they believe that they get to decide what parts of the Bible should be taken literally, what parts need “modern” interpretation and what parts are ignored or hidden.
This makes them even more dangerous because it gives them the power to decide who is abiding by their god’s law and who is in violation of it.
which literally describes every organized religion
Agreed but I think we can all agree that while cults are troubling and shouldn’t exist, death cults are even more so. The type of “Christianity” he subscribes to is very much a death cult.
In fairness, they have to. There's a fun challenge out there that says open the Bible to a random page and do whatever it says. The last person to go to jail wins.
The Bible doesn't teach morality. It reveals the morality the believer has chosen.
This man looks like he's always about to kiss you full on the mouth but you know what he really wants to do is make a jacket out of your skin. 0 stars.
He won't seek consent for either and he's already drafting a bill that that look you're making... yeah, that look... is implied consent.
Did you just reply to yourself?
Yes. (See what I did there?)
Off topic, but there's something really really wrong with this guy. I don't like the continuous half smirk on his face. I don't like absolutely anything about him and find him creepy.
That’s the uncanny valley reflex.
At some period in Homo Sapiens evolution we developed an instinct for … things that weren’t quite right. They looked like people they talked like people. They were not people. They were dangerous, they were non human. We faced evolutionary pressure to recognise them. That means if you could not recognise these … things you would be removed from the gene pool.
That is why you find him creepy.
I am trying to think of an example of something dangerous that talks like a human, almost looks like a human, but isn't human... A politician?
He’s such a smarmy, sinister looking creep.
That’s language from the Treaty of Tripoli that was signed by John Adams, our second president. The Founding Fathers were grounded in Enlightenment philosophy. Whatever their personal faith was, they recognized that faith should not dominate politics. That is a threat to democracy and honest compromise in policy.
they understood the only way to religious freedom would be agnostic democracy