With the recent placement of Mike Johnson as the new speaker of the House, considerations of how he will govern are on the forefront of America’s minds. 

Most pressing is his apparent theocratic governing style. In an interview with Fox News, Johnson stated the best way to learn his views is to “go pick up a Bible and read it.” He goes on to refer to the Bible as his established worldview. 

Why is this a problem? I do not take any issue with Johnson being a Christian, but we should all take issue with the fact he can sum up all of his worldviews in one book. 

In society, secularists are not allowed to derive all of their opinions from a single book. If I acted like Raskolnikov in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment,” I doubt that anyone of faith (or secularism) would tolerate my behavior. Nor should they. 

I understand that religious texts have a much deeper history and a great deal of historical significance that Dostoevsky falls short of. I am not equating the Bible with common literature. However, even if you are a believer, it is another question to ponder whether you want someone making important policy decisions that affect your non-believing counterparts. 

I support the idea of religious freedom. People should be able to practice their religion free from discrimination or hate. In turn, I expect believers to keep this in their personal umbrella. People who do not wish to live in a theocratic society should not have to.

Unfortunately, Speaker Johnson does not adhere to this ideal. The same freedom he exercises now will turn into abuse. But what if he does govern without his religion? What if he maintains the “wall” between church and state and keeps his views out of legislation? These are fair questions. However, I do not believe that we should give him the trust some might believe he deserves.

In one editorial, Johnson suggests that “homosexual marriage is the dark harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy that could doom even the strongest republic.” He goes on to say, “Simply put, sex outside of the marriage of one man and one woman is ultimately destructive.”

This is not all though. In a different editorial he describes how his faith bolsters his homophobia. He writes, “God loves every sinner, but we model true compassion when we remain ‘pro-traditional marriage’ and conscientiously opposed to all deviations from it.”

Views such as this are based on nothing else but false hysteria that usually accompanies religious extremism. For obvious reasons, they are of no use to us and shameful for a high-ranking politician. 

For America’s sake, I hope Johnson performs well. After all, the American people bear the brunt of poor policy decisions, and that fire should not continue to be stoked. 

However, given his radical, religious tunnel vision, there should be no expectation that he will govern for all. It is important for the American public to remind ourselves of the separation between church and state that has been established as a founding and fundamental principle of our great nation.