Posted on 12/09/2023 1:45:27 AM PST by spirited irish
I’ve written several columns in this space about the weird media meltdown in response to new U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. First, journalists rushed to tell on themselves by mocking the fact that Johnson and his son use Covenant Eyes, an accountability software designed to help people keep their lives porn-free. Then there was the spate of stories breathlessly informing us that Johnson, a self-confessed Christian, does in fact believe all sorts of Christian things. The term “Christian nationalist” has been chucked about quite a bit, although what those using it actually mean is “Christian in the public square.”
But the ante, as they say, has been upped. James Carville, the famous Democrat political strategist who helped engineer Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential victory, went on HBO’s Realtime with Bill Maher to discuss just how dangerous Mike Johnson and American Christians really are to the United States – as it turns out, very dangerous.
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotandliberty.com ...
This is supported by Article VI of the Constitution:
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
And the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;The "religious test" clause meant that government could not prevent people with deeply held religious beliefs from participating in government.
The "establishment" clause meant that government could not define a national religion nor can it interfere with the practice of religion.
Further evidence includes religious language contained in the Preamble to the Constitution:
Blessings of Liberty... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America....and the Oath of Office in Article II and Oath or Affirmation clause of Article VI (which gives officers of the United States a choice to take a divine oath or secular affirmation:
Article II:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."Article VI:
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
And finally, we have a National Cathedral in Washington, DC.
None of this would exist if we were supposed to keep religion out of government.
-PJ
No fascist diversity supremacists
Not too much freedom - pluralism either
From what I understand, there's a lot more freedom in Russia than most people think. They don't have freedom of speech like we do but if the globalist/rats/rinos have their way, we won't either.
Otherwise they are pretty much free to do as they please and that's with a war on.
Ukraine on the other hand is a total authoritarian society with very little freedom with a fully corrupt government. Basically an extension of the US government. That's why the corrupt goobers in our government want to prop it up to keep the grift going.
From George Washington's first inaugural address:
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
Would you tell George Washington to keep his faith private, too?
-PJ
First of all, let me say that I am a devout Christian and I do not think that any Christian should hide his faith.
That is not what I meant.
What I meant is that Johnson, as a devout Christian, should not make his Christianity the main focal point of his job of leading the House of Representatives when this country at this moment is so completely divided. He should not hide his faith but he cannot lead a divided House if he gives the impression that he plans to only represent his fellow Christians and anyone of any other faith or no faith at all should NOT expect any representation from him. He cannot lead a divided house if he gives the impression that he sees his job as primarily an opportunity to win converts to the faith.
He was not selected to first and foremost be an evangelist. He was selected to do the job of Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Now secondarily, as a Christian, it is his job to declare his faith and act in complete accordance with it. That should not conflict with the job of Speaker.
If Speaker Johnson believed that the job of Speaker conflicted with his faith, he should have declined the job.
Bottom line: He was not hired to be an evangelist. He was hired to be Speaker.
I damn sure would tell him to keep his faith private if it started getting in the way of winning the war.
You would instruct him differently?
Whether he is or isn't there's a dark energy coming from within him that draws certain souls into its orbit.
What I meant is that Johnson, as a devout Christian, should not make his Christianity the main focal point of his job of leading the House of Representatives when this country at this moment is so completely divided
Are you saying that the country IS NOT divided right now? Are you saying that the idea of a divided country is not accurate but is only being pushed by the media?
The fact that they are constructing a narrative to destroy Johnson is actually secondary. Whatever the truth is about his faith, as you put it, is not really relevant. It’s sort of a parallel with the famous Trump meme that they’re not really after him, they’re after us.
They are demonizing Christians and Christianity - the REAL Christianity. Mike Johnson is just a convenient conduit at the moment. This is exactly and precisely how the Nazis demonized the Jews until they were strong enough to attempt to wipe them out in Europe. The modern fascists - Democrats are truly fascists not communists (though there’s not really a qualitative difference here).
And if they can control this society with enough strength, and they’re trying their hardest, they aim to complete a holocaust here against Christians…the real ones.
Is that your opinion also...that our president must first and foremost be a devout Christian?
-PJ
-PJ
Isn’t that exactly what you did to me in post 63?
But if Free Republic were alive in 1780s, you would have been posting your opinion about such, eh?
Keeping his faith private would be better. Separation of church and state.
No, I used your own words:
"I would have preferred Johnson keep his faith or religion private."
...when I asked you if you would you tell George Washington "to keep his faith private", too?
Big difference...
-PJ
Ohhhhh. I see. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
That one, as written, can come back to bite us. It precludes us being rid of Islam, which is incompatible with our form of government and a clear and present danger to us.
We have to declare it a socio-political system rather than a religion.
Not a Hochul fan by any means, but one of the juiciest things about her doing this shows up Gov. Hairgel of California to be the cowardly dork that he is.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.