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.
David Jackson | Oct 30, 2023 at 8:22 pm
It’s completely beyond you that viewing the only sexual relationship that produces children at all (heterosexual), let alone the only sexual relationship that raises healthy children (intact, devoted mother & father homes, formerly called marriage/the nuclear family) as unique, could be based upon the fact it’s demonstrably and statistically unique vs all other sexual relationships, and not simply “bigotry” isn’t it? The Overton Window has gone so far to the left on this issue because too many Americans couldn’t tell you the difference between a right and a privilege, let alone equality of opportunity vs equity of outcome.
Nowhere in the US do you have a right to get married, you must get legal permission via a marriage license in all fifty states. That’s a legal privilege, not a right you can exercise at your will. Nowhere in the US can bisexuals marry both a male and female partner simultaneously (likely because they’re too small of a voting demographic to give a damn about). With categories of consenting adults who cannot get married, that means we don’t have “marriage equality” either. Yet nobody cares about either of these glaring inconsistencies because they’re too busy smugly declaring people who believe in traditional marriage are “bigots” while being demonstrably no morally different, yet basking in their delusion of moral superiority
People who do not wish to live in a theocratic society should not have to, and people who do not wish to live in a godless society should not have to either. Someone having beliefs in a power higher than human bureaucracy is not the equivalent of a theocrat. They’d have to violate the Constitution pushing a religious agenda first.
“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.”
-Weingarten
Where? Please point to where in the Constitution that’s written. You need a review of the 1st Amendment. Hint: research where that phrase came from because you wont find it in the Constitution.
g.g. | Oct 30, 2023 at 9:40 pm
Almost the first two paragraphs of your comment make zero sense in relation to the article. He never stated people who would rather participate in “traditional marriage” are bigots. Its when people say homosexuality is inherently destructive (Johnson also suggested that it could lead to the collapse of society. Read the newspapers.) that they are bigots. You are cherry-picking the arguments. You are correct in saying that the separation between Church and State is not stated in the Constitution, but it is usually implied in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The right to privacy also isn’t explicitly stated in the Constitution, but would you want to get rid of this? A state for religious people is different from a religious state. Atheists can’t exist without scrutiny in a religious state. However, secular societies (like the US) still allow individual practice. People should not make policy decisions for all when they can sum all they think into one book.
David Jackson | Oct 31, 2023 at 8:47 pm
It makes perfect sense to point out the hypocrisy of accusations of bigotry based on double standards and non-existent moral high ground. You can either argue that someone’s statement is incorrect by articulating how it is, or you cannot, and those who cannot love to resort to name calling when they can’t to desperately still feel superior. So much so other commenters below were so ready to make accusations of bigotry they didn’t even type the right pejorative and had to correct it in a follow on posts I’m honestly shocked n@zi hasn’t been thrown around yet.
If Johnson’s statements on destructive behavior are incorrect, articulate why. Whether he’s 100% correct or not he leans in a direction many see as closer to the truth. There’s more than a little evidence out there proving the stability of the nuclear family as the basic building block unit of a free society that works, and societies that deviate from this end up devolving into either anarchy or tyranny. Our society’s redefinition of marriage away from the legal recognition of the family unit into simply a legal classification of social status for the self-satisfaction of those who get it with laws like no-fault divorce and gay marriage, isn’t the “progress” towards “equality” or the “smashing of the patriarchy” people easily swayed by emotional slogans like to think it is. It’s a sign of societal decline, and if that weren’t bad enough, they believe they have social license to call everyone who points it out a bigot, and do so while they’ve doing nothing to advocate for the expansion of legal marriage to all categories of consenting adults they would have had to in order to be any morally different than those they slander.
No, it isn’t “usually implied in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment” it’s been popularized by enough propaganda people think it’s true. As for a right to privacy the words “right to privacy” don’t have to be there when “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” and “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” are written there. That explicitly details rights which cover privacy unless you’re the “living document” type authoritarian who likes to reinterpret things to mean whatever gives you more power than you actually have.
People should not make policy decisions for all when they can sum all they think into one book, but that’s not what he said. He said it was the best way to learn his views. If he had done so with a Karl Marx, or Howard Zinn rag, I’d like to think you’d still be as upset.
Shouldn’t you and Weingarten be more concerned on whether or not he abuses the power his office rather than what he believes? We used to live in a country when you didn’t have to worry about not agreeing with members of Congress because you were legally protected from any government overreach. Now overreach is the goal, it only matters if it’s your team winning whether or not you care.
Jase | Oct 30, 2023 at 2:44 pm
The idea that a person is somehow “hateful” for not approving of someone’s lifestyle is a very narrow-minded way of thinking. The truest form of love is having unconditional compassion for others regardless of their lifestyle (whilst still discerning it), which you even quoted him displaying by stating “God loves every sinner, but we model true compassion when we remain pro-traditional marriage”. Christians tell people the truth because the truth brings conviction, which ultimately improves our lives for the better. This means that the language of objective truth is synonymous with the language of love and compassion. Since leftist ideology is completely devoid of sound doctrine, objective truth (and hence true compassion) is practically alien to them.
Also, you refer to the teachings of the Bible (a book that’s been battle-tested for the past 2,000 years) as “false hysteria” despite the fact that neoliberalism is based on an agenda rooted in mere novelty and spite for Christian values.
Furthermore, if you don’t believe that spiritual doctrine dictates morality, then what inclines us to believe that evil things such as assault and theft are wrong? A secularist would argue that you simply have something that tells you they are, or that it makes you feel bad, and those are reason enough, but according to their idea that the human brain is nothing more than chemistry, there would be nothing to discern such things, meaning that the secular view of morality is entirely paradoxical in of itself.
TLDR: America needs more leaders who actually believe in truth.
. | Oct 30, 2023 at 9:47 pm
Saying that homosexuality will lead to the destruction of society and that people should be opposed to it is not simply a difference in preference. That is an explicitly racist viewpoint, I do not understand how that is not obvious.
You should include what he said after the quote you cherry-picked. The author never said that the Bible was false hysteria he clearly said that religious extremism is.
And your Divine Command ethics approach is easily denied by any ethicist. ethics could exist without faith. There is a whole tradition and study of it you should look it up.
Real truth? That homo sexuals are inherently destructive?
. | Oct 31, 2023 at 10:27 am
*homophobic viewpoint, not racist
Jase | Oct 31, 2023 at 1:08 pm
I would highly encourage you to look into the rat utopia experiment. It’s a very intriguing study that shows a lot of resemblance to modern society (especially populated areas). Also, while I understand it was probably an honest mistake, I would appreciate it if you didn’t haphazardly throw around bold terms like “racist” without first acknowledging the actual meaning.
Furthermore, I did not cherry-pick my information, because what you label as “religious extremism” is simply following what the Bible actually says.
Also, you don’t need to talk to someone with a degree to comprehend how ethics work. Anyone who has critical thinking skills should already be exploring ethical philosophy and the meaning of their actions on a daily basis. Furthermore, that entire part of your argument is about how “experts” supposedly have superior insights into common intellectual encounters (which somehow means I should just submit to their principles?), yet you provided no specific evidence or examples of how or why secular ethics are valid.
Lastly, I never said that any particular group of people is inherently destructive, but rather that behavioral decadence is.
Somebody Else | Oct 30, 2023 at 11:19 am
I would not say that Mr. Johnson is necessarily aiming to impose his religion on the American people, but a morality motivated by it. Perhaps “impose” is too strong of a word for the latter phrase, but what I’m basically trying to say is that I think Mr. Johnson will be trying to fill his role through the lens of the morality with which he governs his life. We expect nothing less than any of any politician, really. That lens is how any person carries themselves, no matter their political party, religion, or lack of religion. It would be impossible to ask Mr. Johnson to keep religion completely out of his policy making decisions because that is a part of who he is. You similarly cannot ask a Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/etc. politician to forego their religion when making their policy decisions or an atheist politician to forego whatever their moral code is, either.
Certainly, he may have views that other people find disagreeable while others do agree with them. I would expect nothing less from a democracy. We need a variety of views for a healthy democracy. And you can certainly expect people to see certain views of their political opponents to be morally reprehensible to varying degrees. It’s that variety of views that helps us find balance for a republic as healthy and effective as we can hope to make it. Clearly, some governments have let the pendulum swing too far in different directions which has led to some morally bankrupt nations like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, but we can hope that goodness will prevail to enforce a necessary balance that does not quash the rights of the people. When views are heard of a good variety of religious motivation (including irreligious motivation) through a respectful dialogue, then we can really hope that our society will benefit on the whole.
g.g | Oct 30, 2023 at 9:42 pm
I agree with what you said and so does the author I would think. At least that is what I got from reading the article. However, Johnson has problematic and explicitly bigoted views. Religious people are not inherently bad at all, but his views are not positive regarding the unfaithful.
Garry Gruhn | Oct 30, 2023 at 9:45 am
Caleb,
I read your article regarding Speaker Mike Johnson.
Your article inspired me to find Congressman Mike Johnson’s acceptance speech.
You got me all fired up against this guy….
But I gotta tell you, I didn’t see or hear anything from his speech that angered me at all.
I think you (we) need to give him a chance!
. | Oct 30, 2023 at 12:24 am
Great article! I agree that religion should be kept out of politics as everyone doesn’t practice the same religion, or any at all. Keep up the good work!