Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, in his first remarks after being elected Wednesday afternoon, told Members of Congress that “Scripture” and “the Bible” are clear that they have been “ordained” by God.“I want to tell all my colleagues here what I told the Republicans in that room last n...

Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, in his first remarks after being elected Wednesday afternoon, told Members of Congress that “Scripture” and “the Bible” are clear that they have been “ordained” by God.

  • @[email protected]English
    21•1 year ago

    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Specifically, I like this line here, that was present in the third paragraph I quoted from the Constitution:

    no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean that we specifically don’t care if God, Allah, Buddha, or whoever says they are supposed to be in power?

    Edit: and since we both want to be dickheads, today, why don’t you show me where it says in the Constitution to base our laws around the bible?

    • @[email protected]English
      -15•1 year ago

      None of that says that church and state must be separate, just that there can be no religious test. There’s nothing in there barring him from saying “I think God blesses the people here”

      In fact, to really be edgy, that also doesn’t prevent the government from say donating $10B each year to some Christian church.

      To your second point, I never suggested that the Constitution says we should base our laws around the Bible.

      My only point is the oft quoted Separation of church and state is only an idea from the Jefferson papers. If you want to make sure church and state remain separate, and the new speaker doesn’t start using federal funds for his church, perhaps it’s time to actually put separation into the Constitution?

      • @[email protected]English
        6•1 year ago

        If no qualifying religious measure can be used to install a person into office, it stands to reason that religious belief shouldn’t come into play.

        I would hope our (the US’) political system would be aware enough that writing private funding into any religious system would be seen as favoritism and the remaining belief systems would be righteously offended at the lack of consideration, or perhaps even the outright rejection of our beliefs.

        This nation was built on immigrants (and the blood of natives, but that isn’t what we are discussing) from every walk of life, every religious circle. To disregard others in favor of your own belief SHOULD be political suicide. These elected officials, after all, supposed to be elected to help with the concerns of the WHOLE populous, after all, not just a specific subset.

        Playing religious favoritism has a high potential to try to convert the country into a religious state, as funding continues to be funneled into these specific religions, and in turn the churches funnel money back into the candidates as lobbying.

        Coming to that point, does anyone who wants to to fund the church with government money which would be better used to take homeless off the streets, feed homeless children, or making people’s lives in general, don’t have the people’s, or even God’s best interests at heart?

        Do they tithe their first ten percent, as the Bible says? Surely it would be in their tax records as charitable donations? If not, that would make me even more suspect of their intentions.