The new speaker’s view is “the First Amendment for me but not for thee.”
The newly elected speaker of the House of Representatives, J. Michael Johnson (R-La.), spent years as a practicing lawyer before his election to Congress in 2016, focusing in particular on free speech and free exercise of religion cases under the First Amendment.
Johnson’s hard-right political and religious views are well known. Johnson is an evangelical Christian who has condemned homosexuality as “inherently unnatural” and called same-sex marriage “the dark harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic.” He served as spokesperson for the Alliance Defense Fund (now known as the Alliance Defending Freedom) whose website touts the “sanctity of life” and “the creative capacity of the union between a man and a woman.”
Less understood is Johnson’s litigation history, and what it suggests regarding his beliefs on the nature of individual rights under the U.S. Constitution and the role of religion in government. So I read about a dozen of the First Amendment cases he was involved in before he went into politics.
TL;DR;
Johnson’s theory, summed up, appears to be what might be dubbed, “the First Amendment for me but not for thee.” As he has described it in his own words, “the founders wanted to protect the church from the encroaching state, not the other way around.”
But only when that church is Christian.
Long form article doesn’t need to be.
Pick uo any history book. This is verifiably false. Johnson doesn’t remember the Founders came from a place whence the king changed religion, everyone converted or died. This is what he is advocating for, because that is what happens with State sponsored religions, no one can dissent.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. Christian fundies have a built-in religious imperative allegedly from their god to proselytize at every opportunity.
That kind of activity naturally bumps up against the rights of people who don’t want to be harassed by apologists. And since in their view, Yahweh is above human institutions, their imperative is defacto above it, too. Therefore, the rights of individuals must come second to the rights of the Christian apologist.
And this is why it absolutely matters what you believe. Christianity doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and this kind of belief is internally consistent with the religion. Nobody should get a pass simply because they think a god “said so.”
Good news, everyone! We’ve long passed this mark!
I can afford this guy his faith. Sure.
But he obviously cannot afford other people their faith if it’s different than his. Sad state of affairs.
Every fundie on the planet believes theirs is the only true faith.
We really shouldn’t be electing these crackpots.
This is exactly why I can’t afford this guy his faith. Religion is a cancer.
He’s 100% secretly gay. Can’t wait for his scandal.
Straight people are perfectly capable of being homophobic.
Yeah, but it’s also a sad fact that many of the extremely anti gay activist types are in fact repressed gays. People who, under the terror of fucked up religious ideology rather decline others their freedom and actual life rather than admit their own sexuality.
There is no way that guy isn’t a power bottom. No way.
This isn’t news to anyone who comprehends conservative thinking
From Francis Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288
What the fuck is “sexual anarchy”
A good time
That entire quote is ridiculous:
Johnson is an evangelical Christian who has condemned homosexuality as “inherently unnatural” and called same-sex marriage “the dark harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic.”
I’d like him to lay out a reasonable set of events that starts with same-sex marriage and ends with the doom of a republic. Because it sounds like the sort of thing that you say because it sounds good, but you’re banking on people never thinking about it, because it’s illogical garbage.
-legalize same sex marriage-> conservatives decide to destroy democracy instead of allowing it to continue
Kind of like the “drugs are illegal because they’ll ruin your life… because you’ll go to jail if you’re caught with them because they’re illegal” argument.
“Look what you made me do!”
They had already decided that before same sex marriage was legalized.
