Mike Johnson Mansplains Religion to the Pope
By: Pope Leo XIV (Yahoo News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Julia OrnedoWed, February 4, 2026 at 1:16 AM UTC3 min readAdd Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.
Mike Johnson put on his theologian hat and broke down scripture for the Vicar of Christ.
The House Speaker, a 54-year-old devout Southern Baptist, delivered a theological dissertation on Tuesday after he was asked to respond to comments made by Pope Leo XIV about the Trump administration's hardline immigration agenda.
In November, the Chicago-born pontiff cited scripture as he called for "deep reflection" about the treatment of migrants in the U.S. The first American pope, 70, has been an outspoken critic of the Trump administration's policies, from foreign relations to immigration.
"Jesus says very clearly at the end of the world, we're going to be asked, you know, how did you receive the foreigner? Did you receive him and welcome him or not? And I think that there's a deep reflection that needs to be made in terms of what's happening," he told reporters, referencing the gospel of Matthew. "Many people who've lived for years and years and years, never causing problems, have been deeply affected by what's going on right now."
On Tuesday, MeidasTouch reporter Pablo Manriquez told Johnson, "Pope Leo has cited Matthew 25:35 to critique Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda. How would you respond to Pope Leo in scripture?"
"So you want me to give you a theological dissertation? All right. I tell you what. I'll post it on my website later today, but let me give you a quick summary," Johnson responded before launching into a soliloquy insisting that the Bible says "assimilation is expected and anticipated and proper."
"Borders and walls are biblical, from the Old Testament to the new, God has allowed us to set up our civil societies and have separate nations. Immigration is not something that's frowned upon in scripture, in fact it's welcomed," Johnson explained.
"When someone comes into your country, comes into your nation, they do not have the right to change its laws or to change a society. They're expected to assimilate. We haven't had a lot of that going on," he said.
Johnson also said that scripture mandates that civil authorities maintain order, which he claimed the Biden-Harris administration failed to do.
"We did not take care of our borders," he said. "We should love our neighbor as ourselves, as individuals, but as a civil authority, the government has to maintain the law, and that is biblical."
After finishing his two-minute speech, Johnson went on X to write more than 1,300 words further defending his argument.
"Despite the unfounded claims of the Left, supporting a strong national border is a very Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us so," he concluded.
It might take more than that to convince Pope Leo, who has consistently criticized the Trump administration's handling of immigration.
After ICE agents in Illinois refused to allow priests and laypeople to provide communion at a detention facility, Leo said "the spiritual rights of people who have been detained should also be considered, and I would certainly invite the authorities to allow pastoral workers to attend to the needs of those people."
Ahead of the vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Leo's top ally in the U.S., urged lawmakers to "vote against renewing funding for such a lawless organization." A measure funding the agency for two weeks was signed by President Donald Trump on Tuesday.
On Sunday, Leo said in an X post that he had received "greatly troubling news" following a Wall Street Journal report citing insiders who said the Trump administration was planning a regime change in Cuba by the end of the year.
"I echo the message of the Cuban bishops, inviting all responsible parties to promote a sincere and effective dialogue, in order to avoid violence and every action that could increase the suffering of the dear Cuban people," he said.
- About Our Ads
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
A question to all of you so concerned with Christian persecution? Is this not blatant persecution? Disregarding their illegal status, shouldn't they still be allowed to practice their faith?
I find it very disturbing that priests were not allowed to provide communion to detainees.
I'll be having lots of messy fun with maga thumpers when the shit hits the fan ...
Possibly, but possibly not.
Yes. Absolutely.
But just because this particular group was not admitted does not mean they're not being allowed to practice their faith. We don't really know the details.
We're not told what kind of chaplaincy situation the facility itself is providing. We're also not told details about why these people were turned away. There are actually a whole lot of very legitimate completely non-political, very innocent reasons that might have happened.
Do we know what kind of priests they were? Was the visit sanctioned by their church? How many were there? What time of day did they go? Was the visit pre-arranged or did they just show up? What kind of credentials did they have?
Also, what are the rules pertaining to clergy qualifications in these facilities? In Texas, for example, you need to be a licensed chaplain. Did any of these people meet those requirements?
How many other churches have sent people? How many have been allowed in, and how many have been turned away? When was the last time communion was offered to the detainees?
If the facility does not have a chaplain and no clergy have been admitted for a protracted period, then yes, I think that's a significant problem.
If other clergy are coming and going, but these people were sent away either because their credentialing wasn't right or they didn't schedule properly, or some other failure to follow procedure reason, then that's a very different matter.
I just think there is a whole lot of missing data.
Like the data proving there is a god.
Mr. Frost, this is a 'rough' vote-up for me considering the topic, and yet you are correct.
no worries, nobody sane here thinks of you as a scumbag maga thumper ...
Mr. Frost 'stuck the landing' on that one (up there)! Fair is fair!
I'm just saying that I highly doubt torturing, maiming, disfiguring, and killing fake xtian hypocrites is a sin ...
Well. . . 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (and Yours) is how a Christian should look at this across the board. A secularist would say it this way: "Do no harm," -my friend. Remembering this: personal rights begin and end at another's personal rights!
you keep forgetting that I don't consider maga thumpers christian, let alone barely qualifying as human ...
I did not forget your (strong) feelings toward MAGA supporters, "D."
for some reason, fascists, criminals, traitors, child molesters, and the people that support and protect them rub me the wrong way. no pun intended ...
Oh...yeah...You go Holy Father! Put that baptist in his place especially since he doesn't drink and he doesn't dance
looks like mike's wife has failed repeatedly to pray away his desire to continuously suck trump's dick ...
mike's cross has feet on the points ...
How do you think Jesus would feel about Mike Johnson? Protector of pedophiles, attacker of immigrants.
looking forward to hearing the pathetic theocrats wailing when their church roofs start falling in on them ...
I always knew there was something familiar about the Borg, they're just the futures rightwing conservative Christians.
good one
I find it funny that you mention Star Trek, as I just can not imagine that day when "all God's children" will commune and "hold all things together". . .an an alien space ship lands on Earth. The question in that instance will be will those new aliens be allowed to stay on Earth or ran off! Of course, that means they will take whatever GOOD (and bad) they come bearing. . . away with them to a place-whatever place-will treat them as valued IMMIGRANTS to our home. . . just imagine the color, hues, and shapes of SUPERIOR beings and MAGA supporters clashing over how to RECONCILE bigotry for the "OTHER." Just imagine how DIVERSIFIED our world will be when that day comes and aliens are the norm which can not be DENIED!
unlike the Borg, real immigrant assimilation takes about 20 years minimum.
Obviously in today's iphone society that's too slow for the dummies like Johnson.
Source?
With what is going on in MAGAland, a Hispanic would have to be deaf, blind, and just plain stupid to imagine that White Nationalist America will ever allow their assimilation. White Nationalist America is their enemy, once and for all. If they haven't yet understood, they kinda deserve the crap that's coming their way.
[✘]
Within the extended family on both sides of the border they exhibit a prejudice based on piety or darkness of the skin favoring the lightest skin color, straightest hair and whose the best Catholic. The darker ones say feckem and they are a lot more fun to hang out with, lol.
You think Trump posting an image of the first black president and his wife depicted as apes is not a big deal.
We are beyond at odds. Its just a war for the soul of the country and you are going to lose.
... pitiful...
It's strange... Skin color is no more significant, physiologically, than height or hair color. But it always seems to become any society's bugaboo. Brazil has the same problem.
it only took my DIL 10 years to assimilate to being an uninhibited capitalist hellbent on unfettered consumerism.
The curious nature of this assimilation which Mike Johnson is speaking about has everything to do with being as conservative (MAGA) as any 'trusted' MAGA supporter. Johnson certainly is not interested in any immigrant assimilation which leads and/or ends in liberalism and a lack of systemic inequality of minorities.
when mike goes to meet gabriel, maybe he'll take his family and church's congregation with him ...
Like, why is he even taking about assimilation? The Pope talked about how we treat people, and Johnson launches into this rant about borders, walls, and assimilation, which the Pope did not even mention.
The assimilation bit is particularly disturbing. If you’re a legal permanent resident, or a naturalized citizen, does it matter how much you assimilate? Will we be undoing legal status due to insufficient assimilation? That wouldn’t just be morally wrong; it would be illegal.
And then they get mad if you compare them to Nazis.
Emphatically. Conservative messaging is a continuous (long-running) game of 'smoke and mirrors.' The trick is in the subtlety. With conservatives. . .if one does not listen or read close enough suppositions land and stick in the discussion and/or debate regularly. (I see it occur all the time here on the 'right.')
Brown skin must assimilate to White...
[✘]
All this talk about assimilation and nobody talks about the Amish. Just how well did they assimilate into our co-called culture?
inbreeding is already taking it's toll on them ...
I'm curious Mr. Speaker, where do you see immigrants trying to change laws or society? Or is that just some more bigoted made up shit you people like to do?
He is clearly talking about 'bigot survival.' That is, as a bigot he and those that agree with racial bigotry should PRESERVE their numbers (it is why they are subtly 'boxing' (white) women in to making more babies to protect their bigoted powerbase (hopefully, their numbers will swell in the next decade or two). Johnson is of that strand that believes (like Pat Buchanan) that whites will be subordinated and the biggest fear bigots have is not that our nation will EXCEL because of its diversity. . . which it already has done as minorities have struggled and excelled in this country for its good. . .they fear that our country will not wish to continue with whites in any way as 'partners' in freedom, prosperity, and liberty.
That this country will 'slide' into degradation and 'third-worldism' - simply because "Others" have come here and 'maxed' out their numbers. . . and bringing their 'ism' from foreign lands here.
Nevermind the fact that minorities love this country because of what it ASPIRES to be: a home. . . a real home for freedom, prosperity, and liberties FOR ALL. Well, *gasp* that is what aspiration WAS leading us to. . . before Trump and MAGA setbacks!
Let me be clear, minorities I know (and those I do not know I hope) do not want our country to be second to any other nation. Having a permanent seat in the halls of power should strengthen this country - not diminish it. Yet, that is what Johnson fears that minorities with power will vote to cancel BIGOTED PEOPLE PERMANENTLY. And, as we are learning bigotry is "FOR LIFE!"
Perhaps Pope Leo XIV can explain why Vatican City has borders and walls. A church sanctuary is, itself, protected by it's own wall of moral authority. Jesus Christ has promised (and threatened) a judgement of salvation to separate the worthy from the unworthy.
Exodus 22:21 and Leviticus 19:33-34 is cautioned by John 10:1 and the wisdom of Proverbs 5:10, Proverbs 5:17, Proverbs 11:15, Hosea 7:9. Even Pope Leo the XIV must be the defender of the faith and protect the Catholic Church from being usurped by strangers. Surely Pope Leo XIV understands that salvation does not depend upon handing the Keys of the Kingdom to strangers.
The scripture of the Two Swords (Luke 22:38) is warning and instruction by Jesus to defend the moral authority and the social order of a society or nation from intruders and usurpers.
While I agree the current government enforcement of immigration law violates the spirit of both Christian theology and the founding principles of the United States nevertheless Biblical scripture does not justify eliminating enforcement of immigration law. Essentially the Trump administration is doing an appropriate thing in the worst way possible. The requires improving the method rather than surrendering our culture and national sovereignty. The cruelty of Trump does not nullify our responsibility for stewardship of our national identity and cultural legacy.
perhaps you can explain why thumper churches need to have armed security and armed members. FYI - it won't matter ...
You understand that the bible is against organized religion? Probably why they have no faith that Yahweh/Yeshua will protect them.
Hence Protestantism. Martin Luther was more enlightened than secularists care to acknowledge.
Yes, we are to pray within the confines of our faith. Prayer as a public performance, without faith, is merely performance for an audience. The verse does not intend for us to hide our faith.
It actually does. It was from a time when christians were actively persecuted for practicing their faith.
It isn't.
Not close. It's an admonition against self aggrandizement and virtue signaling.
Also not close. There were no Christians then. Everybody listening to that was Jewish.
nirvana ...
Matthew was new testament, he was one of Jesus' supposed disciples.
Yes. Which is why his writing was canonized.
The verse you quoted is part of the Sermon on the Mount, which begins in Matthew Ch 5. Jesus has only just recruited Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew (Matt Ch 4), as well as James and John. These guys are all Jewish fishermen. They understand Jesus is different, but they don't understand the full nature of Him as the Christ and what that means.
Christ is a title, BTW. It's a derivative of the Greek "Christos", meaning "anointed one", which is the translation of the Hebrew "Mashiach" or "Messiah".
Matt 6:6 is also part of a longer lesson on humility and avoiding self-aggrandizement and hypocrisy. The whole section starts in verse 1 and reads (NIV):
In other words... don't be a self righteous, virtue signalling bastard.
Generally speaking, a fair amount of Jesus' teachings fall into the category of "don't be such self-righteous bastards", which is insanely ironic given how often the self-righteous bastards like to quote Him.
In any case, Christianity isn't an organized thing at this stage, so it certainly wasn't on the radar for persecution. Christian persecution doesn't start until after Pentecost.
Interesting....
Well there's this:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
(KJV: Luke 17:21)
the kingdom of God is within you.
Like any other disease.
Who exactly are you praying to?
maga geezus, the fake white one with blue eyes ...
[✘]
I think there is a big disconnect in most conservatives thinking that liberals support illegal immigration. They don't, at least not the majority. You can find the extreme folk who support removing borders or getting rid of all enforcement but they're whackos on the fringe. Most on the left believe in walls (when appropriate and cost effective) and border/immigration enforcement. You didn't hear them complaining under Obama but you also didn't see this kind of callous intentionally provocative campaign of terror designed to instill fear in all immigrants as we've seen under the Trump administration.
So, while I get that walls were in the bible and walls are around the Vatican, these attempts to justify the current obviously unamerican and unchristian actions being taken by claiming the bible supports walls is an obvious strawman to deflect from what they're doing. No one on the left right now is complaining about border walls, no one on the left is complaining when ICE arrests an actual gang member or known violent criminal whether they're an American citizen or not, I'm glad those types of criminals are off our streets and that doesn't conflict at all with Jesus' teachings. But the racial profiling stops, the masked agents with no accountability shooting Americans in the streets, the harassment, detention and illegal deportation of immigrants who were simply waiting for their day in court on an asylum hearing or citizenship requests due to marriage or close family relatives sponsoring them, and even American citizens being pulled out their cars, unlawfully detained and some even deported, that's what the left is outraged over.
I support increased legal immigration because I'm not a xenophobe and I know the facts about how immigration is a boon for our country and I'm also not a stupid fucking idiot afraid of losing some fantasy 'white culture' which is why I don't give a fuck about how deeply legal immigrants "assimilate". I think our nation is far better when we don't demand some 'full assimilation' but welcome other cultures and ideas to flourish among us as the melting pot we have been since our founding. It's why we have millions of Americans who enjoy different celebrations from around the world each year from every faith and culture and we are all the better for it. Does that make some xenophobic bigoted morons angry? Clearly it does, but frankly I really don't give a fuck about what some intentionally ignorant backwards idiots believe.
That disconnect is a two-way street isn't it? IMO what you are describing is the modern political practice of normalizing the extreme exception to maximize political absolutism. The reality is closer to a bipartisan consensus on the need for border security. The stark contrast of Democrats want an open border and Republicans want a sealed border does point to current disfunction of retail politics. The reality is that neither party are representing the views of a majority of people.
That comment misses the point that Exodus 22:21 and Leviticus 19:33-34 is cautioned by John 10:1 and the wisdom of Proverbs 5:10, Proverbs 5:17, Proverbs 11:15, Hosea 7:9. Conflating the necessity of enforcing immigration law with the cruel manner currently be used to enforce the law confuses the issue. The problem is not what is being done. The real problem is how it is being done. The 'what' and 'how' are not interchangeable.
Without an expectation for conforming to our national identity and cultural legacy (assimilation) we risk losing both. The lack of assimilation wipes away the principles being expounded to advocate for immigration. The 'melting pot' creates a hash that loses flavor and identity. Hyphenated ingredients in the melting pot doesn't disguise the blandness of the whole. How can we sustain a unifying national identity with a multicultural collection of disparate identities? If we do not expect assimilation then we lose the benefit of immigration contributing to the whole. We all become strangers in our own country.
Agreed.
I think that the loudest voices in each party often are the only ones heard, and those loud voices today seem to be coming from the fringes of both parties. I think there are many legislators on both sides who are truly trying to serve their constituents but are bullied into compromise by the uncaring machines both parties have become in their quest for political dominance.
On this I have to disagree in so much as the 'what' includes arresting and detaining immigrants who are lawfully waiting for their day in court as well as American citizens who don't happen to look 'American' enough and didn't happen to have their papers on them when they got stopped. While I have no problem with ICE following the law and serving warrants to go in and arrest known undocumented immigrants who haven't shown at their court hearings or have committed other crimes besides being here undocumented, some of the things that are being done by this administration should be done no matter how you do it, other than to follow the law which would seem to be to follow the courts decisions of which they are not. They are openly defiant of the law which is also part of the 'what' and not so much 'how'.
I couldn't disagree more.
Just because a city has many little pockets like China town or all the other subcultural America doesn't make them any less American! For fucks sake! It makes us a much more vibrant and, in your analogy, flavorful nation when we embrace every culture from around the globe. We are a nation of immigrants who can be Italian American, Polish American, African American, Japanese American and every other flavor you can think of. There is no reason to diminish a person's heritage just because they've immigrated to America. Should their national allegiance change? Of course, they are now swearing an oath to the constitution. Here are the key points in the citizenship oath:
I see nowhere in there where it says you have to give up your cultural identity, that you have to stop celebrating foreign holidays or dressing in the traditional clothing from the country you came from. That is not what 'assimilation' should mean, all an immigrant should be expected to do is uphold the laws out our nation and be willing to defend it.
We've been doing it for decades; there is no problem unless some bigoted dipshit gets their panties in a bunch over a fellow Sikh American wearing his turban and proclaims he's an infidel trying to blow up a plane. Those bigoted dipshits are the fucking problem, not the Sikh American wearing a turban and a robe.
Again, I totally disagree. That's like saying you can't have a fun Halloween Party unless everyone dresses up as a scary monster or witch, no Unicorns, happy cartoon characters, no doctors or nurses, farmers or sports players, no. Unless everyone dresses up horror themed, we lose the benefit of the guests contributing to the whole. Oh no! We can't have that! Whatever will we do?!?
We aren't strangers if we're willing to go next door to the Muslim family that moved in, bring them a housewarming gift and ask them how they like the neighborhood. And then you might try asking them about their faith and look at the many similarities there are between Christianity and Islam. And when some difference is found, don't storm off like an asshole. If we all tried to understand other cultures a little more we don't have to be strangers in our own country. Love your neighbor as yourself. It doesn't say that only applies if they're the same skin color, culture or religion as yourself.
Does he need to? Why?
The pope didn’t say anything about borders or walls. He said there should be “deep reflection” about how people are treated and that for those in custody, their spiritual needs should be met. What does borders and walls have to do with that?
The Pope was quoted as saying "Jesus says very clearly at the end of the world, we're going to be asked, you know, how did you receive the foreigner? Did you receive him and welcome him or not? And I think that there's a deep reflection that needs to be made in terms of what's happening," he told reporters, referencing the gospel of Matthew. "Many people who've lived for years and years and years, never causing problems, have been deeply affected by what's going on right now."
It's easy to chastise others from inside a citadel that does not allow 'foreigners' to just move in and resided there. Vatican City has borders, walls, and sovereignty. Vatican City cannot be multicultural. Vatican City is Catholic First and relies upon its sovereignty to maintain the purity of that culture.
Jesus did not teach only love. Jesus also taught law and responsibility. Christ's compassion is constrained by judgement. The only way to reside in Christianity is to accept the culture and assimilate.
It is true that judgement (and justice) without compassion allows cruelty. But compassion alone, unchecked by responsibility of judgement, becomes chaos. Either extreme poses a threat to civilized coexistence. The teachings of Jesus, as a whole, were about balance. There is a time and place for compassion and for judgement (and justice).
Again, so what? The Pope didn’t say anything like “don’t have borders or walls or sovereignty.” He asked that we consider how we treat people.
Meanwhile, the Vatican is not shooting unarmed people, or tearing families apart. Catholic spiritual leaders visit prisons and attend to the spiritual needs of the people incarcerated there. But the Pope doesn’t go around saying “don’t have prisons.”
This really is not that complicated a distinction. Unless you insist on conflating two different things.
Are you referring to a specific example of Jesus holding back his compassion? Are you saying that we therefore are excused from treating people decently as we enforce our laws? Because it seems like you are.
What are you talking about?
What do you mean by judgment? Where do you think the Pope was saying something about judgment? You make it sound as though you think the Pope is advocating lawlessness in the name of compassion. I don’t know anyone who advocates for that, including the Pope.
Why is it we can’t have a simple call to reflect on behavior without a reflexive tantrum? It’s like “You want me to show compassion? Show mercy? Well, then you just want chaos and anarchy!” It’s honestly pretty childish.
Tacos is on point, Nerm in 6.4.2. The pope is not advocating for so-called "open borders" because even the Bible recognizes gates (borders) to enter into its Heaven. Of course, the maintenance of the Catholic faith ("citadel" as you term it) means some actions can not be permitted inside the walls of Vatican City or the 'purity' of that religion of billions itself can be corrupted. (Moreso than it is considered so today.)
This is about declaring "all people" not citizens of our country without some proper or in some cases even with documentation. . . to be personas non gratia. And thus, besetting them so extremely in a process of removal that at times appears a removal of human trash! Indeed, more care may be being taken with ordinary trash.
Pope Leo XIV only spoke of compassion and implied that borders were unimportant by saying ""Many people who've lived for years and years and years, never causing problems, have been deeply affected by what's going on right now." That's hypocritical sermonizing from someone secure behind borders, walls, and sovereignty.
In the story of the adulteress, Jesus stopped the stoning (compassion) and admonished the woman to go and sin no more (judgement). The compassion of Jesus had strings attached.
Pope Leo XIV is advocating chaos in the name of compassion. Was the Pope calling for enforcement of law with compassion? Or did the Pope elevate compassion above the law?
Because Pope Leo XIV is not some guy on the street. The Pope is not a talking head infotainer, a blogger, or an internet influencer. Pope Leo XIV is the Vicar of Christ whose responsibility is to teach and to protect the legacy of Jesus on Earth. Pope Leo XIV controls the Two Swords (Luke 22:38); the spiritual sword of Jesus Christ and the temporal sword of the Catholic Church. Papal opinions carry the authority of Jesus Christ and God the Father.
The Pope is much more than a spiritual leader. That's why the Protestant Reformation was such a big deal.
I have already stated that Trump's enforcement violates the spirit of both Christian theology and the founding principles of the United States. Trump's enforcement does lack compassion and we have seen the chaos that lack of compassion has caused.
But Trump's cruelty is not an excuse to avoid enforcing the law. Elevating compassion above the law also violate the spirit of Christian theology and founding principles of the United States, too. We have also seen how elevating compassion above the law creates chaos.
The immigrants who are residing in the United States without permission are not persona non grata. They are citizens of a foreign country illegally residing in the United States. These are foreign citizens who have ignored the laws of the United States and have exploited the compassion of the American people for their benefit. The purpose of these foreign citizens illegally residing in the United States is not to strengthen the United States; that was not the motivation for entering the country. These foreign citizens were not doing the United States a favor by violating the law.
Foreign citizens intruding into the American culture will change that culture into something else. That's no different than other religions intruding into the Catholic Church and changing the culture into something other than Catholicism. Biblical scripture teaches that there must be a balance between compassion and the judgement of law. Biblical scripture also teaches us to protect our culture and heritage from exploitation of our compassion.
Foreign citizens illegally residing in the United States have a vested interest in destroying the cultural underpinning compassion to avoid sharing the benefit of residing in the United States. That's how compassion without the balancing influence of law results in chaos.
No, it doesn’t. He is talking about how current events are effecting people. Nothing about that implies that borders are unimportant. Nothing.
Analogy. If a cop arrests someone for DUI, and we insist that he not beat the shit out of the suspect while taking him to jail, that does not mean we endorse drunk driving.
Two things:
First - according to scripture - no, it didn’t. If there were strings attached, he would have made her promise not to sin or she should be stoned. Instead, he addressed the people who brought the case to him. It’s not clear that a stoning was even happening. In any event, the story says the Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus, stated the law, and asked his opinion. And he says,
He doesn’t even say “don’t stone her.” He literally dares them to do it.
In response to Jesus, the men walk away and leave the woman with Jesus. So, maybe she wasn’t this menace to society, after all. And then Jesus gives her the kind of advice he would give anyone.
Second - and this is maybe not crucial information - this passage is widely considered to be a forgery by scholars. It does not appear at all in the early manuscripts, but centuries later. I’m not saying it didn’t happen. Not everything in this world is written down right away. Some stories survive only through oral tradition for a long time.
He is not. You are seeing what you want to see. At no point did he say we should not have borders or immigration law. He certainly did not advocate for chaos. That is ridiculous.
You are making an assertion about motivation. . . you can not do this without some elaboration. . . .care to share?
I am not sure why you persist in not understanding the point of the Pope's. I am not a member or apologist for the Pope or Catholicism. . .and yet even Jesus was a 'surprise' with a message of compassion for humanity. . . when it is clearly evident that God (The Father) is a proper Steward of (holy) rules and law.
From what I can see, the Pope is not telling the United States to give up its right to borders. He is a man who is bound to an oath of service of people. . . which apparently he takes seriously. . . thus, he is not seeking his own. Power used to create and INFLUENCE good conduct by others is a power unto itself!
As far as culture changing. . . we ought to and are expected to have a positive INFLUENCE on each other from encounters—hopefully. It is a real problem when people do not ALLOW themselves to be IMPACTED by those that are telling them the truth on behalf of the Good.
All religions seem to be so twisted and vague that they can be pretzled to fit any convenient scenario. At least atheists are dealing in reality.
that's by design ...
he speaks for a lot of us
Men telling women to smile is misogynistic. When a man tells me to smile my RBF gets significantly worse
I (male) told my male co-worker this morning that he'd be prettier if he smiled more. LOL!
oh that's funny! How did he take it?
He laughed. We joke all the time.
It's not funny if it's a joke...
LOL!
Like, when is the last time someone asked a man to smile? What it really means is, “be quiet, sweet, silent, and non-threatening. And wait for a man to tell you what to do next.”
I think I might just find the grumpiest most misogynistic man I know and tell him to smile
he's in the white house and you're not 14 years old anymore ...
Mike Johnson is a Christian Nationalist. Christ preached love. These people preach (and practice) hate.
Christian Nationalists may call themselves Christians (or anything else they wish), but their beliefs and practices are totally opposed to Christ.
So, I looked at Johnson’s X post and it’s the usual Christian Nationalist stuff. For example,
He makes the argument that all of that famous “love your neighbor / welcome the stranger” stuff is directed at individual believers, not the government. He writes,
That’s supposed to end the discussion, but the unspoken conclusion - the “therefore” of that observation - is that government has free rein to be as shitty and cruel as it likes. It doesn’t seem to matter that we are talking about a government run by self-proclaimed Christians. You might assume that a Christian would seek to be kind and welcoming all the time, but as soon as they enter government, they get to be a brutal Roman. And it’s all fine because blah blah blah government.
To my mind, a Christian - as they are able - should always look for ways to be kind, generous, and welcoming. Christian Nationalists look for excuses to avoid that behavior.
I believe this policy should apply in all aspects of our life. It doesn’t shut off when you leave home and go to work; and it certainly doesn’t end just because you’re working in government.
One of the favorite passages of Christian Nationalists is Romans 13, which Johnson cites. This chapter opens with some stuff about God creating systems of authority and how people should obey government and not resist. One of the more infuriating things that Johnson does as he cites this section is to say that context matters.
And then he offers zero context for this passage. I will supply some.
Paul thought the end times were coming. And I mean very soon. Within his lifetime. Paul - who had, himself, been jailed - didn’t want other Christians making trouble for themselves by resisting the authorities. There was no need, in his mind, because God was coming to fix it any day now, anyway.
There is no way that he envisioned a government of, by, and for the people 2000 years in the future, when he wrote that. And even if he did, that’s like just his opinion, man! Paul was just a dude, not God. A dude, by the way, who had previously worked for the authorities, persecuting Christians, and was now in rebellion against that authority, promoting the very ideology he was supposed to be suppressing. So much for not resisting.
As Americans, our entire society and government were founded on resistance. Our Declaration of Independence declares that individual rights come from God, but government authority comes from the people.
The Declaration also identifies a right and a duty that the people have to resist and change unjust government.
So the idea that Americans should just shut up, obey, and never resist, is not only not Biblical, it is distinctly unAmerican.
I could argue that our government is not on a biblical footing, because Roman 13 ("the divine right of kings"). . .is an argument for King George of England not to have been rebelled against as an APPOINTEE of God. (Will have to do 'it' later on my way out for now!
)
That's your conclusion. Don't project it.
Yes.
Governments, however, exist to establish and maintain order. That includes enforcing the laws, even if they're shite. Refusing to enforce a law because it goes against Christian beliefs is Christian nationalism in action.
We have great difficulty understanding it now, even as we live in it. I assure you nobody voting for budget appropriations in Washington has any meaningful understanding of how hard a HVAC tech in Texas has to work to earn that money.
Change. Yes. The magnificent thing about this country is that we can change the law. Which begs the question, "why haven't we"?
Our immigration laws haven't been significantly overhauled in 40 years. If we actually cared as much as we pretend to, that wouldn't be the case.
thumpers are allowed to exist in america at the convenience of the constitution and will be subservient to that document if they wish to remain here. religion has no place or voice in the mechanics of our government functions.
Don’t tell me what to do. M’kay?
Where did you get that idea? Mussolini?
Here, in America, it’s a little different. According to our Declaration of Independence, government exists for a different purpose:
And according to our Constitution, the government exists to:
Basic civics. And history.
Yes.. keep going..... Secure them against what, exactly? Or... more specifically... secure them against whom?
Governments secure your rights by maintaining order. Without order, there is nothing stopping someone else from relieving you of your life, your liberty and/or your happiness. It's the most basic function of government, existing long before anybody wrote down laws.
Yes. Exactly. Insuring domestic tranquility involves making sure we don't violate each other's rights, and providing for the common defense makes sure they're not violated by invaders.
How exactly does a government achieve that without order? It doesn't.
Tyranny and tyrants.
I quoted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Your response is basically “just believe me bro.”
Do you not understand that you are defending authoritarianism? Mike Johnson thinks we should obey him (and Trump) because God gave them power. You’re defending that horseshit and saying the purpose of government is to force order on people, not to serve them.
You ignored my comments on the Bible, which is ignoring at least half the issue. To my mind, any good Christian and any good American should reject his assertion.
And you imagine you don't have those living on your street?
No, my response is to point out the naivete of thinking tyrants only live in a palace somewhere.
Just rejecting the melodrama.
To refresh here, the Pope.... a Christian leader with his own nation.... is admonishing the United States for not adhering to Christian doctrine.
So are we now claiming that overriding secular laws for the sake of Christian doctrine is no longer Christian nationalism? Are we claiming that the Papacy hasn't spent the better part of the last 1800 years as one of the most authoritarian offices on earth?
Citation? Or are you projecting again?
And more projection.
A democratic government does not "serve" its citizenry by ignoring the laws those citizens enact in favor of religious doctrine of a church who represents a minority of those citizens. One would think that's the most obvious thing in the world.
They're not any of the issue, because despite how much you now apparently want one, we don't live in a Christian theocracy.
Do you understand that you cannot abandon democracy when it's convenient? We. Have. Laws. Passed by We the People. We don't just ignore those because the Pope says so or because we don't like watching them enforced.
Your horseshit deflections are all over the place - and all to defend white nationalist fascism. You haven’t touched the content of the seed or my commentary on it. That’s cool, though. It means you’re in sync with the lying kleptocrats who care only about holding on to power and enriching themselves.
This strawman is, IMO, the point where the discussion turned into crap.
uh oh, looks like the "render unto caesar" crowd is getting ready to get froggy and jump. that'll be fun for me ...
To my mind, his whole last response was a desperate barrage of sea lioning, whataboutism, straw men, what have you. It was so frantic and chaotic that it had ceased to even resemble an exchange on the actual topic. None of it is about whether or not Mike Johnson is right or wrong (and why).
Well in PA we had an HOA and the self appointed "president" was a tyrant and a bully whose name translated to "ill wind".
I ran against him to force him and his measuring tape and light meters to retire.
Johnson is wrong because he's religious; he needs the Bible and a belief in a God to justify everything he does.
He cannot think for himself.
The Pope isn't much better; he is restrained by similar beliefs in spite of the Papal history of many tyrannical Pontiffs throughut Christianity's short history.
Likewise the Founding Fathers used religion to convene our rights upon us, starting out with white male landowners in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It took a Civil War to extend some of those rights to more men.
Decades later women miraculously got the right to vote.
Nowadays we still fuss over genders and rights for gays to marry or use a public bathroom because....God.
I can't imagine living long enough to see this country mature and own it's own baggage.
Not exactly. Johnson - all Christian Nationalists - read only the verses of the Bible that fit their need for political power. He doesn't read the Beatitudes:
I've taken down a few condo HOA lords that thought they could extort free home improvements from me. my favorite was one where I got to watch the president get voted out of office immediately after I disclosed to the rest of the homeowners in my price presentation meeting that he had privately demanded his home products be free to him for final approval of my building contract, with that cost spread across the rest of the owners. it was a very uncomfortable HOA meeting for him, which I enjoyed watching very much. I did all the condos in that building, except for his, because he ended up selling shortly afterwards. the new owner was the last project I finished in the building 4 months later.
Dictatorial kings.
the golden crutch ...
based upon their savior's attitude towards hypocrites in the bible, I highly doubt that it's a major sin to kill maga thumpers ...
And then Johnson - engaging in no reflection at all - gives us a word salad of something that sounds like the Divine Right of Kings, law and order hysteria, immigration law, divine borders, etc. Basically, a whole bunch of nonsense that fails to address what the Pope was concerned about. I.e.: how people are being treated.
The Pope didn’t say the government shouldn’t have laws or enforce them. He said he was concerned about how people were being treated as those laws are - allegedly - being enforced.
Johnson wants you to believe that his agenda is shaped by the Bible. That is simply not true. What’s actually happening - both with him, and with the party - is a desperate campaign to seize and cling to power by demonizing part of the population. And they excuse it by claiming it is biblical, knowing full well that most people don’t actually read scripture, much less study it.
... or comprehend it.