Trump reveals executive order requiring Pam Bondi to prosecute ‘anti-Christian bias'
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-anti-christian-bias/Open linkView original on lemmy.world494
Comments160https://www.rawstory.com/trump-anti-christian-bias/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
No freedom of religion without freedom FROM religion.
Resist a theocratic state.
Supreme Court (probably)
Jesus fuck I hate how plausible this is.
Same. I've got a real bad feeling about this.
"I mean, there is no mention of the character of Jesus or their precious favorite book in the Constitution, and it's only the very First Amendment and all....and founders like Jefferson were QUITE CLEAR about their skepticism of xtianity's claims, but if you are True Originalists like we are, you'd understand how this is supposed to be a xtian nation!"
Also SCOTUS
You can order metal statues of Baphomet on Etsy. Mine helps me feel a little better when I read shitty stuff like this. He watches over me from the top of my bookshelf.
--Vermont Constitution, Article 3
Wish we could have got that one in the national Constitution.
DEI but just for Christians
be explicit: white Christians
White christian males with money.
And like donvict and fElon, they won't really be expected to go to church or anything. Unless for a photo op session.
One of the most threatened and marginalized groups out there.
There's a group of people that go around in white sheets with pointy hats and they burn crosses, often on other peoples property. That seems pretty anti-christian to me and should be the first to be investigated.
Everything about the GOP as very anti-christian. Jesus was a bleeding heart socialist by today's standards. I'm not sure what books these fools have been reading that says otherwise.
they don't read. their megachurch pastors tell them what the bible says about who to hate. they draw all their rhetoric from Leviticus and Numbers to justify their gross misinterpretation of Revelations. they ignore the gospels entirely. here are the things you need to know when dealing with christofascist propaganda
To be fair, there is a lot of really bad, problematic shit (much of it political in nature) in the Old Testament...
Which is what I'm getting at that only the weirdest dorks really practice everything in there. In the new testament Jesus even says that in following his teachings you make a new covenant with god that dissolves the old covenant established in the old testament. Any christian drawing anything in their actions from the old testament that aren't based around kindness and caring towards others is a complete jackass who doesn't even know what Jesus taught.
The "new covenant" shit is just copium. Jesus also said that:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17-18&version=NIV
Seems pretty clear to me.
Let's remember that the Old Testament not only condones slavery, it lays out the "correct" way to beat the shit out of the people you own as property.
Also, no shellfish, no clothing with more than one fabric, can't cut the hair on your temples... I seem to recall there being some strange rules about it being your duty to fuck your brother's wife if your brother dies? That's an interesting one.
Jesus explicitly said that these laws will never change.
Well put. The other thing that's very weird is how the xtians will say that Jesus both gave them a "new covenant", and therefore things like dietary laws don't apply to them. So they can eat shrimp, but No Homo, because of what the OT says.
It seems highly selective, does it not? They'll claim the OT is what gives the character of Jesus his legitimacy because of prophecy being fulfilled or somesuch, and therefore the OT is the word of god. The character of Jesus says the "not one jot or tittle" stuff, and yet, the xtians will declare "new covenant" and nope out on things that seem awfully convenient like eating shrimp, keeping the (actual) Sabbath, and circumcision.
Even weirder - the way they enshrine things from Paul - a guy who never even met the character of Jesus, and that's according to their own fanfic! People that consider what Paul says of any import should be in a religion called Paulianity, yes?
None of the new testament writers ever met Jesus.
I am entirely serious when I say this:
The latest meme/talking point working its way through all the newer, e-celeb type american christian pastors, the ones that are extreme but not quite as bonkers as the qanon, I-am-a-prophet types...
The latest sermon topic is 'the sin of empathy'.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GFOMXXDlBTw
Wowwwwww
"The cult of empathy." jfc...
Yep.
We are all the way through the looking glass now.
I have a family member who told me last year that they believe Christians are the most persecuted group in the USA, even more so than gay people.
In truth it was very challenging to stay calm in the face of someone saying something so blatantly biased and false. Packaged as an opinion, of course, but presented as the truth.
I asked questions and challenged some of the statements being made, but I know for a fact that the only thing I accomplished is that she's unlikely to make that particular statement in front of me again. No minds were changed that day. It's just sad.
As someone who actually IS persecuted in this country for things I cannot change about myself, I really don't get why someone would want to live under the delusion that they are being persecuted when they otherwise aren't. It's not fun and there's no benefit to being persecuted.
And by that, they mean something like this? Xtians get all kinds of privileges and everyone else has to convert or be a second class citizen?
They want to be David vs Goliath. Being the ones persecuted means that they can go on the offensive without feeling bad about it. It means whatever they do is justified as being a means of survival. It gives them an excuse.
Exactly, the Bible is written for the underdog. Constantly referencing persecution for the faith, which is non-existent in the USA, so they try to redefine what they see as micro aggressions as full on persecution. They simply want to be angry, righteous anger for Christ.
They view their Belief System (BS) being put on the same plane as other mythologies, new or ancient, as somehow being "persecuted", since they are so used to having unwarranted privileges.
They've seen that unwarranted privilege being chipped away, ever so slowly, as xtianity dies off in number of adherents in the United States (dwindling down to 60-some percent, now) - trending toward what more normal advanced countries of the West are like, and they fucking hate it. They want everyone and every part of the culture to have them up on a pedestal again, even if it means violence, and a lot of it, because "Jesus".
Well at least with the old testament they kinda were the underdogs, the ancient Hebrews kept getting invaded and occupied. Going back to when they were still just another breed of Canaanite during the bronze age all the way to the fucking Romans, hell given the context that many Palestinians are in fact the Hebrews who never left its still going on.
Yeah kinda, most of that stuff is fictional though.
The specifics are but there is more than enough evidence to say the lowland Hebrews kept getting invaded and occupied. Though the ones in the highlands had a better time, mostly cause invading highlands is annoying at best a fucking nightmare at worst.
I imagine some of those questions included:
edit: A couple more additions.
Has marriage between two christians been illegal for nearly the entirety of the existence of the USA?
Are there camps that some misguided parents send their children to to be "deprogrammed" from being christian?
My very christian mom used to always tell me that I'm gay and athiest because it's popular, but that she believed I'm actually a closeted christian. In her opinion, I chose the way I am because christians are so persecuted in the US.. Nevermind that I'm autistic, highly introverted, and have never cared about popularity or pop culture in general. I've been out to my parents for over a decade and she's only recently started to come around on it because I have a fiance now, and she sees how happy he makes me. :)
Christians are fucking wild with the BS they're willing to believe, so long as their pastor can make them chuckle and tear up a little bit inside of a 40 min speech.
No one's mentioning this, and it is important: you have to remember that these are challenges you make in public.
If she refrains from making statements in front of you, and you are in front of children, you've just spared them some of her bullshit. You might have taught them a bit about resisting claims like hers on their own, too.
Winning people over directly is great, but it's really hard to do, especially with today's conservative.
Collectively, we really need to quit doing that. Failing to call out hateful bullshit because of some weird adherence to 'civility' is part of what got us to this point in the first place.
It's because their religion claims that whoever has the worst life on Earth will have the best life in Heaven, so they're constantly seeking out ways to reaffirm that they have it "so hard".
They associate the negativity of others towards them with godliness.
If you are a victim, then you can be righteously indignant and angry about it. They like the anger.
The benefit is playing the victim and making up reasons to fight back against "the oppressors". It's a lot easier to say you will get rid of anti Christian stuff than saying you will go against every non Christians.
Yeah, Democrats did this already. They're called Hate Crimes and it's the law. Not a measley little EO.
No no but hate crimes are DEI bad word and also only happen to brown people, who deserve it!!!1!1!
You don’t understand yet. The words are a cover for their real intentions which are to go after the enemies of Christianity under the guise of investigating hate crimes.
Yes, nothing they say is what they really mean. Welcome to the last 40 or so years.
"moRE Of tHe SAmE" parrots the fool as the country falls.
Good thing I'm not biased against Christians specifically. Fuck all religions equally - fair and balanced.
Can we get a law in place that says if you have to sue the government to stop some obvious bullshit, that you recover your legal fees?
Laws only matter if the government wants them to matter.
Sovereign Immunity is a fucker of a concept.
Honstely you should recover 2x your legal fee's. That way you pay your lawyers, get something for yourself, and its extra punishment to the people getting sued for their bullshit.
And not from the government, but instead from the dipshit who decided to enact the policy
Unless you're targeted, you won't have standing to sue 🙃
Some places have anti-slapp lawsuits but only places with strong consumer protection.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
Every time I read something he said it hurts my brain. Everything about his speech patterns is so fucking stupid.
Dementia induced by syphilis
Syphilitic in Chief
I mean he can sign it, it’s going literally nowhere. But if this ain’t proof that there’s a genuine desire to install a theocracy in the US, then I don’t know what will convince anyone.
The fact that a President even suggests this is a clear tell that some want the US being Iran but with Jesus.
Keep in mind that they also broke into the Treasury system and own the paychecks of every federal employee. If that's not leverage, I don't know what is
Yeah, a depressing amount of Americans believe this country was founded as a xtian one. 60%
https://apnews.com/article/american-founders-christian-nation-conservative-beliefs-4ea388e8d80c54016a6a4460cbef9b82
Which is just flat wrong, of course, and doesn't really need any debate: it just was not founded as a xtian nation, and that was quite intentional. But that's the level of stupidity we are dealing with.
And something like 45% of the country WANT this country to be a xtian nation, which is also depressing.
Half the founding fathers were closet atheists using 'Deism' as a fig leaf.
And this is it. This is the step that makes the US a theocratic dictator.
This is the thing with religion: ANYTHING can be labelled as being against it. Muslims? Anti Christian bias. Atheists? Don't get me started. Gays? Obviously. Scientists? Doh! We do want the results from science, though, like computers, food, clean water, etc, but scientists are evil devil anti Christian.
I want nothing to do with the US anymore
My dude you forgot women. Women are the prime target of all religion. They'll end no fault divorce, end marital rape, institute child marriage and call it all gods fucking plan to procreate. The right to vote will only belong to male heads of family.
The Satanic Temple is going to be very busy. Maybe I should make a donation.
Please do. Lol
Jesus is pretty cool. You show me a christian who follows jesus' teachings, and I'll have mad respect. You give me some dipshit doing the most anti-christlike shit imaginable, but with crosses all around, and I'll make fun of him forever. Just a way of un-tarnishing the brand.
I'm down for whipping church sanctioned conmen and maybe even cursing some figs.
He wasn't promoting statism.
The consensus of scholars that focus on academic history of that time agree that it is extremely likely that some guy named Yeshua lived around that time and place and tried to reform Judaism as others were doing at the time (the Pharisees were the reformers that ended up being successful).
There’s a whole FAQ about this on reddit’s askhistorians that goes into detail but essentially if you argue Yeshua of Galilee never existed you cannot then accept that most historical figures were real as we have similar evidence for the existence of many people.
And Im saying they might be more anarchistic beliefs than socialist beliefs as the NT isn’t pushing a pro-governance view.
edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3
I'm sure a guy named yesua may have existed
I'm also sure he was just another guy spouting religious beliefs, he was not magical or supernatural, because none of that exists
All Im claiming is Yeshua existed and he was a rabbi around Galilee. The religion is likely very loosely based upon things he said as well as stuff people added (eg “render unto Caesar” is just saying pay your taxes).
Im not claiming historical evidence exists for the miracles.
And yet, you have zero evidence to support that claim. In reality, there were about 100 Yeshua's (It was a common name), who were rabbis, in that region.
And some of the more fantastic stories were cribbed from already extant mythology.
Its a lot like the "evidence" of "divine inspiration" for the NT is "Well, it matches the OT!!" No shit, the people writing the NT were familiar with the OT, and made attempts to do so.
So, when we get down to brass tacks, this "Yeshua" character was likely an amalgamation of several people. Like John Mastodon.
Loads of people talk about John Mastodon right now. Does that mean John Mastodon existed or exists?
Spoiler: yes, John Mastodon exists, and peace be upon him, and may he grace us with neverending blessings delivered by his Arch Angel - ActivltyPub.
I have offered a source with multiple linked sources that explains why this consensus exists. If you choose to ignore that consensus of experts you are choosing to not accept what people who have spent decades working on this question which is your right but IMO is rarely the wise choice when you are uneducated on the subject.
What’s the proof fir this amalgamation idea you are claiming and how of you explain thousands of people all across that part of the world having the same beliefs and names for Jesus within 3-4 decades of his death and please remember this is 2000 years ago so news travelled slowly.
What evidence exists? I mean, we have literally multiple accounts and writings by Aristotle... Or Eratosthenes... Who would be, by and large, contemporaries, at this scale...
Yet for Yeshua? We don't even have birth records, which would have been meticulous, especially since a census happened at the same time. We can't even confirm most of the documented events that were claimed.
In fact, all writings that state he existed weren't even written until about 70 years after he purportedly died (Which we have no Roman records of the time, indicating even a scenario as described, which is kinda shocking).
In all likelihood, he is an amalgamation of several radical figures, as most of his story was cribbed from earlier, already extant, savior mythology.
Bo we have writings we believe were written by Aristotle because other people from around that time say he did. We have similar things for jesus such as the writings of people who recorded the existence of people who followed a guy named Jesus a few decades after his death. It would ge really odd for people around the Mediterranean to all follow the teachings of a guy who they call by the same name who never existed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3
Yes, we have contempory, verified sources of Aristotle's lectures, and writings.
We have no such thing for Yeshua. The earliest is, as you say, "a few decades", aka 70 years. That's two entire generations. Nothing contemporary, and in fact, contemporary documents actually contradict much of what was written.
And yet, here were are, writing about a mystical man in the sky... Who never existed, as far as any evidence tells us. And, in fact, whatever evidence we DO find, contradicts the claims made by adherents to that mythology.
Hell, how many Romans wrote about how awesome on the field of battle Hercules was... Pretty certain a demigod never existed by the name of Hercules.
BTW, from your link:
"There is no physical or archaeological evidence tied to Jesus, nor do we have any written evidence directly linked to him"
We have things that other people who may or may not have known Aristotle claim Aristotle wrote. If you believe Aristotle and Plato were real people then you should accept that Jesus was based on somebody even if the message he was spreading isn’t the same as the faith maintains now.
Why not try reading the link rather than expounding upon a false understanding? For example the earliest writings are from around 70CE which is 37-40 years later. You shoildn’t be making any claims when you are making mistakes this simple because you clearly aren’t coming from an educated perspective.
I’m not saying Jesus Christ in the Bible is a historical figure. I am saying there was a real human being that was a basis for the faith.
And again all of this is based on what actual academic historians maintain not religious figures. What is your take based upon other than conjecture?
Every source of evidence I have heard of concerning Jesus having actually existed is either from the Bible or from religious relics like the shroud of Turin, that also aren't even real.
So you look at biased non-academic resources and then conclude that the belief is not academic? Do you not get the problem is the resources you are using?
I mentioned a very specific source to start with which is Reddit’s askhistorians FAQ. Try looking at that because it is entirely constructed off of academic history.
You can choose to believe whatever you want but the consensus of historians focused on this is that he had to exist in some fashion albeit not as a messiah.
You got a specific link for this source of info? Because I'm looking at their FAQ right now and the only thing even mentioning Jesus is specifically about what Askhistorians users think of Reza Asland and his work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/comment/chf3t4j/?context=3
This is the answer in the FAQ which links to another as well.
"There is no physical or archaeological evidence tied to Jesus, nor do we have any written evidence directly linked to him."
And, not even where it should be at.
But, I suppose we should all accept Hercules lived, was a demigod, and was a great warrior, because a lot of people wrote about him.
And, while we're at it, we all know, and should accept as fact, that Mythras lived, because a lot of people wrote about him, and how he died, and rose again to save his people.
And you’re ignoring all the nuance explained there about why historians accept the existence of someone for what reason? It isn’t because you are educated in this field.
You keep trying build strawmen as Im not claiming Jesus was divine. Why?
There is abundant testimonial of his existence, enormous bodies of archeological evidence dating the nascent Christian church to the period immediately following his life, and plenty of contemporary evidence describing the more prominent figures central to the gospels and the various letters that follow.
We have at least as much evidence of Jesus as we do Socrates or Confucius or Boudica or Pakal the Elder.
Not exactly. Socialists are not a Millenarian Cult eagerly awaiting the end of the world. The early disciples believed the apocalypse was nigh and material wealth would be of no consequence in the Next Life. Their socialist policies were heavily informed by their dogmatic belief in a Final Judgement coming within their lifetime.
Modern socialists don't hold this view at all. On the contrary, they tend to be deeply concerned with the long term health and well-being of their communities, their economies, and the global ecology. One of the major distinctions between modern Friedmanian free market thinking and MLM economic central planning is the focus on fluctuations in market price relative to the long term socio-economic consequences of current economic policy.
If anything, it is the capitalists (particularly the more Millenarian-minded Protestant cults) who behave like there's no tomorrow. The socialists are the ones talking about the next century of climate change and the next millennium of biodiversity / sustainability.
We don't really have evidence of Jesus' historicity. I mean absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but, all in all, there's pretty much zero direct evidence of his existence. Almost nothing that would point to historicity in the gospels is corroborated by archeology... like was Pilot a person who existed? Yes, very likely he was. Is there biographies of him? Yes, there are contemporaneous sources showing him to be real. Is there anything, outside of the gospels, recount him meeting Jesus in any capacity let alone a whole trial and execution? No, there's nothing like that. The whole scenario of Jesus' life as chronicled by the gospels doesn't hold up to scrutiny... sure, some of the people and many of the places do exist, but just because New York exists it doesn't mean Spiderman is real.
As for the early church, even Paul doesn't claim to have known a historic Jesus but rather only recounts experiences of visions of Jesus and angels.
We have multiple written testimonials, period artwork, and documentation of the resulting mass movement.
You could play the same game with Socrates. Dismiss the fragmented reproductions of - periodically contradictory and occasionally fantastical - accounts of the pupils of his pupils and he doesn't exist either. Indeed, there Socratic problem tackles the root challenge of reconstructing the veracity of a 2000 year old figure's existence. To complicate things, some of the earliest writings on Socrates known to exist are Gnostic Gospels (which contains fragments of a transcribed copy of Plato's Republic).
You disabuse yourself of historical Christian accounts at the peril of ignoring the accumulated history of the ancient world.
We have real life video accounts of people in costumes identical to that of the cartoon character climbing buildings. What's the line here? Are we saying nobody's ever gained superpowers from a radioactive spider? Or that nobody's ever dressed up in a costume like that to chase after petty criminals? Or that nobody's ever climbed a building in that iconic outfit?
If, two-thousand years from now, we discovered a written account of one of these performers along with a handful of comic book fragments discovered in a book case buried in a cave in the deserted island of Manhattan... what kind of conversation would you have?
If we then somehow managed to resurrect a snippet of footage what would be concluding, then?
You can dispute Magical Jesus with the same cavalier attitude as Spiderman. But this is more akin to disputing the existence of Eliot Ness by pointing to a stack of Dick Tracey cartoons and saying "Unbelievable!"
He kinda was, if you look at the satanic principles and how Jesus treated people. And beat the conmen out of the church because he knew violence was needed sometimes.
How many EOs does this dickhead have now in these two weeks alone?
How many does a normal president have in a full four year term?
Anyone wanna get together, publicly, and burn a huge pile of Bibles?
Whoawhoawhoa...have I been going to the wrong Communist Socialist Democrat America Hater meetings? We've been burning babies, not bibles. Looks like we goofed.
As long as the babies have been baptized before they’re burned, Y’all Queda should be fine with it cuz you’re just express shipping them to heaven.
Do we have a c/brandnewsentences yet?
Never have I felt the urge to do so, but yes.
Sure, as long as we don't do crosses.
you should definitely make this a thing
They're gearing up to roll out project 2025.
They're not "gearing up;" it's steamrolling us as we speak.
It ain't gonna be bloodless
Nope. Not at all, not even a little.
Most of the shit they've been putting out is Project 2025...
It is funny after years of fighting taliban the US now need to deal with neo-taliban at home.
There’s a reason christofascists are often referred to as “Y’all Queda”.
The takeaway can be Bin Laden won, the terrorists won.
Freedom fighters.
We've always been plagued with these people but now they have a tool like donvict.
An entire voter base can't rabidly denounced [insert scary middle eastern religion] religious rule while salivating at a chance for Christian religious rule.
It's been here all along.
Didn’t Elon Musk and Michael Flynn just post about how they will stop processing payments to a Lutheran organization?
Let’s start there.
Those weren't Real Christians. They were followers of some fringe leftist ideology from the Middle East.
I just got your post two days later. I am an idiot.
In case anyone wants to see the post. It's not an organization that only liberal Lutherans supported either. LCMS (the larger conservative branch) supported this organization for years, too.
I went to an LCMS church as a kid, it felt like one step down from Catholicism.
For those who don’t know, there are two main branches of the Lutheran Church in the US.
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (known as LCMS)
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (known as ELCA)
More Liberal views
Doesn’t believe scripture is 100% accurate , especially when it comes to history and science
Does allow for same sex marriage
Allows women and LGBT+ to be ordained
Does not fully endorse creationism
Contemporary Worship
Also, I believe Tim Walz is a member of an ELCA church.
I feel like Trump’s quote here from the article is even worse than the headline suggests.
First is the use of the word eradicate rather than prosecute. It’s a much more dehumanizing tone, as if there a bunch of pests that need to be wiped out.
And second, which is no surprise but is even more worrying, is how much praise he put on Bondi there. That means loyalty to a person rather than to a nation or constitution.
First time?
The Christians who back this can suck my dick. Trump included even though he's far from a Christian. He's more like a Steve.
And by "anti-xtian bias" he means, not properly privileging xtianity.
That's what these assholes complaining about xtian "persecution" ALWAYS mean. They hate to be ignored, too. Being told that their rules are FOR THEM and not anyone else in their book club, it absolutely infuriates them.
Why do you use "xtian"
X was used by early Christians in place of Christ. It is the first letter of Christ in Greek, and was used as a discreet way to indicate that someone is a Christian - back when Christians were ACTUALLY persecuted.
Why say many words when few words work
As a reminder: The guy defending Christianity is a rapist and adulterer who set free 1500 criminals, including pedophiles and child rapists.
If Jesus was real, he would bitch slap Trump so hard it would take the paint off his face!
Hi Canadians!
Want to join our christofascist state where we jail those that don't believe in sky daddy?
No thanks, were good. We just got out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution?wprov=sfla1
says the fucking antichrist
There's more evidence for Trump being the literal Antichrist than there is for him following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I asked Kagi's LLM AI about this and here's what it said:
please don't lean on LLMs to finish your thoughts for you. even if Kagi is awesome, don't do your own critical thinking such a disservice.
I totally agree with your point though. I'm pretty anti-religious myself, but at least having grown up catholic I did have to learn about a lot of that stuff.
and yeah, these fucking nazis are about as literally anti-christ as anyone can POSSIBLY be. These fucks would waterboard their own savior without a second's hesitation.
The courts will strike this down as fast as the birthright citizenship thing. Flagrant violation of the Estate Clause
These aren't laws whatsoever, so they don't even need to strike anything down, just dismiss any attempt at actually doing something like this lol
How long until living an "anti-Christian" lifestyle is evidence of an anti-Christian bias?
Oh, that's immediate. That's what they always mean by "anti-xtian bias" - not privileging their bullshit rules that their little book club has (and that has zero relevance in a secular nation like the United States).
Telling them to go pound sand is incredibly hurtful to people that want to bring back witch trials.
Thats fine, I'm just as happy being fully "anti-religon" for equality.
Do they mean the woman he bribed to close an investigation of his scam university? That Pam Bondi?
Didn't he also hold one upside-down for that impromptu photo op way back in his first term? Further evidence of sacrilege!
So we can still be anti christianity as long as our opinions are based on facts?
They have no idea what "bias" actually means, they just intend to weaponize it to be whatever they want. Like they do with every other word.
Awesome. They’ll prosecute liars, thieves and false idols. Finally some good news. Right?
Christian Nationalists wanted their Nazi uprising, they got it.
Doesn't this still require specific existing laws (as in actual statutes) to charge someone with violating? Or can they just charge and convict on arbitrary things they don't like, now?
The thing with Trump is, he doesn't care. He will do whatever he can until he's told he can't. So, until this gets challenged and makes its way through the courts, he will do it. So much of our system is built on "norms" that he can get away with doing things that seem like they shouldn't be allowed. Until democrats start doing the same, they'll keep losing for failing to do what the people want.
And the less specific he is in talking about things like this, the more this will be blatantly abused
What happened to freedom of religion?
The xtianists think freedom of religion means choosing from one of hundreds of various xtian sects. They think freedom FROM religion does not exist in Jesusland.
They'll do to freedom FROM religion (which the first amendment requires) what they did to the right of privacy in Roe...
Wait until they get a supermajority, then they'll correct that part of the constitution to better reflect that.
I'm atheist. GFY, you imbecilic mango monkey.
Fuck Pam Bondi and fuck fascist POS orange idiot! But above all fuck christians...all POS religions for that matter...religion poisons everything! Just imagine how much better off the world would be without the religious BS! What is brown nosing pam going to do with anti christian bias? Punish me for a hate crime? Thought crime? Fuck all religious ideology!
It's about time. Those poor christians have always been marginalized in the USA, just like white men who own property. And billionaires. And the 1% in general. When will someone finally think of them?
If you can't read sarcasm in the above, you're too illiterate to be on the internet. Get off the internet.
I think this is a good time to promote a blog and podcast that I like:
https://friendlyatheist.com/
The same way my friend freaks out about "anti-Apple bias" when we ask questions like "but for the cost, is that a good pair of earbuds vs this other pair at lower cost?"
Under his eye. You're all so fucked. Anyone not looking to leave that country is fooling themselves.
It's not as simple as leaving the country. Not everyone has a passport here. And the vast majority of Americans cannot afford to up end their lives and skip town let alone move to another country entirely. Then it comes to which country to move to. Most countries have requirements for visa entry. If you intend on staying permanently, you have to meet even stricter requirements like higher education, and even then, they won't permit your visa if you aren't in a field that would do good for their country. Some places may have a program similar to America's H1B visa where you can get a job and work in that job to stay in the country but then your livelihood is at the mercy of a stranger in a foreign land letting you keep your job until you can convince the government to give you citizenship. You don't just move to another country. And anyone who can just move to another country is exceedingly privileged.
I'm not leaving. I'm here til the bitter end.