Christian nationalism
- No religious freedom
- Women brutalized
- Slavery allowed
- Child rape and marriage
- Dogs are not guaranteed good treatment
MAGA Christian nationalism is a death cult.
Are we forgetting we have a literal pedophile as the president?
How about we get that out?
You know what else is a death cult that brutalizes everyone? ICE.
But his a good Christian paedophile
The Epstein party continues to be concerned about women and children.
Sharia is already prohibited… by the same first amendment which republicans ignore when they advocate for a theocracy…
Basically all of those bullet points listed are things republican “christians” do. They only have a problem with it when it’s brown people doing it.
Lest you think I’m advocating for sharia law, I’m not. I’m simply pointing out that “christian law” would be effectively the same thing, and they’re both equally prohibited by the constitution.
Sharia is already prohibited…
The various ideological tenants of the law aren’t prohibited. If a county wants to declare itself “dry” and refuse to issue alcohol sales permits, for instance, there’s no real state or federal guarantee against it. The fact that the people passing the law are doing so in the name of an Islamic faith rather than a Christian faith or a secular commitment to sobriety doesn’t normally play into the rule’s legality.
Lest you think I’m advocating for sharia law, I’m not.
I don’t think people writing or voting on this legislation really know anything about Islamic religious teachings or legal codes.
If someone in a city council tried to cap the interest rate local creditors could charge, based on their opposition to the concept of usury, I doubt a lay Texan would key in on this being an aspect of Islamic fundamentalism unless some AM Talk Radio host or Joe Rogan affiliated podcaster mentioned it. If a local school district passed an ordinance protecting transgender athletes from discrimination, how many people might trace this back to The Prophet’s positive attitudes toward mukhannathun or Ayatollah Khomeini and Al-Azhar’s fatwas explicitly permitting reassignment surgery… unless a conservative pundit explicitly brought it up.
“christian law” would be effectively the same thing
There was a whole Thirty Years War suggesting the definition of “Christian Law” is not so well-defined. But, again, I think there’s a very limited understanding of historical religious strictures across every faith. People tend to only know what they’re told of, within the context of the speaker delivering the message.
What you’d consider a normal Evangelical religious edict might fly directly in the face of a traditional Catholic or Eastern Orthodox legal code.
Islamic Laws stray even farther, depending on which Islamic community you’re coming from (Indonesians can hold very different social morals than Nigerians or Turks)
Sharia law isn’t the sum of prohibitive laws based on Islam, it’s an entire legal system based on Islamic law.
If a county bans alcohol sales, it’s not sharia just because Islam prohibits alcohol. Even if someone on the county council happens to be muslim, if the legal system itself is secular, then an alcohol ban implemented under that system is also secular.
Sharia law implies you have imams writing the legal code, not legislators who happen to be muslim. “Freedom of religion” means anyone can practice any religion, but no laws can be passed on the basis of religion.
If you ban alcohol because it’s bad for the liver and the arteries, or because it destroys lives and families, or because drunk drivers are dangerous, then it’s not religiously motivated no matter what religion the people passing those laws follow.
The same logic applies to tax code and trans right. They should be written on a secular basis with the intent to be designed for what’s most beneficial to society. What’s a fair rate for people to pay to keep the public systems running and provide social safety nets for those who need them? What’s the most fair and inclusive way to enshrine human rights without marginalizing anyone?
If your religion says “be a good person and help others” so you get into politics so you can write good policy, it doesn’t make your policy religious unless you write religion into it or pass it under a religious legal system.
And I understand that there are major differences between protestant/catholic/orthodox christians, but the differences in substance doesn’t change the fact that if the legal system is secular, then the laws passed under it are secular (if those laws abide by the secular constitution).
When I said republicans want a theocracy, I meant it literally. They want to change the legal system from a secular one to a religious one. The substance of policy that would result from that change is secondary to the change itself. And yes, when they say “christian” they mean “evangelical protestant.” Which is even scarier, because at least catholics and orthodox christians respect human rights and value things like compassion and selfless service.
If a county bans alcohol sales, it’s not sharia just because Islam prohibits alcohol.
If a Muslim community refuses to issue liquor licenses, you’re going to see Christian Nationalists accuse the municipal government of “operating under Sharia Law” in order to justify a state-level take over of the administration. These laws give them the necessary leverage.
If your religion says “be a good person and help others” so you get into politics so you can write good policy, it doesn’t make your policy religious unless you write religion into it or pass it under a religious legal system.
If you’re implementing policies in defiance of the state’s majority party, they can point to your minority religion as the reason for your opposition. And they can galvanize the broader state religious majority to strip you of municipal self-rule, by claiming your religion says “be a bad person and hurt others”.
When I said republicans want a theocracy, I meant it literally.
Any hard look at Abbott, Paxton, and Patrick suggest they aren’t theocrats nearly so much as they’re just fascists using any excuse to consolidate power. Texas is heavily conservative Christian, so they slam that peddle a bunch.
This push for “anti-Sharia Law” legislation is more of the same. An excuse to deprive municipalities of self-rule.
If a Muslim community refuses to issue liquor licenses, you’re going to see Christian Nationalists accuse the municipal government of “operating under Sharia Law” in order to justify a state-level take over of the administration.
Sure, you would see that. But they’d be wrong. Unless a muslim-majority community somehow changes the constitution to allow them to create laws on religious grounds. But it seems more likely the people to do that would be the evangelicals.
Of course republicans are gonna cry “sharia law” every time a muslim person participates in politics. That doesn’t make it accurate.
If you’re implementing policies in defiance of the state’s majority party
I’ma stop you right there. In this political system, minority parties don’t implement policy in defiance of the majority. Practically speaking, that just doesn’t happen, because it takes a majority vote to pass, and it has to pass two chambers of congress. And unless it passes with supermajority, it needs the executive’s signature. And even then it has to stand up to scrutiny by the (albeit corrupt) supreme court.
All that applies even at the state level, although some states have a different name for their highest court. But the process is the same.
Why is this screenshot cropped, rotated and tinted?
so Sharia law is the gop platform?
Always has been.
Repugs have been mirroring sharia for years, at least since the dump’s first term
Wow, close call there, Texas, you’re addessing a major risk there.
So, do Christofascist laws next.
I’d consider this a Christofascist law.
“No girl genital mutilation”
None for boys either, right?
Right?!
Interesting how they don’t mention it, right? Male circumcision is standard in Islam, it should be on the list. Anything to avoid addressing the genital mutilation elephant already in the room.
Good thing we only mutilate boys’ genitals.
It’s still shocking to me how most Americans consider genital mutilation a normal thing. My European mind can’t comprehend.
My mutilated american dick thanks you for your concern 😔
If it shocks you farther, it’s just a little check box when you have a baby boy. Just a little bit of the paperwork before discharge. You don’t even have to be there, and it’s “free”. Very strange, all things considered.
I watched my little boy like a hawk so they wouldn’t “accidentally” whisk him away and mutilate him.
Free? Free?!! In a hospital, in the U S of A?!!! Ok now I’m really shocked.
It’s not free. It costs hundreds of dollars. The user above may have had it covered by insurance, but that’s a different thing. Entirely NOT free
Oh, phew. I was worried for a minute there.
Well, it’s “free” under insurance, yes. The bigger thing is that it’s covered under every insurance and I think Medicaid, the public assistance healthcare. Not that it’s all that expensive when a birth is like, tens of thousands of dollars sometimes.
I’ve never met anyone who paid for it, though. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was in law that you had to cover it (while shit like birth control is still debated).
Insurance gets charged if it is done, but a friend told me there is no actual charge to the parents. She said there was a lot of pushback about not getting it done and that was one of their “selling points” when she said she wasn’t going to pay for it. Seems like fraud of some kind.
I mean, if insurance fully covers it, then the parents don’t get charged. That’s not fraud. That’s just how that works. It’s weird the hospital was so pushy about it though
“Now that your son is born, would you also like us to cut off a bit of his penis? It’s only $500 if you have a coupon!”
They’re just correcting God’s design a little.
If it’s done while inpatient it is covered by most insurances as part of labor and delivery. When you are discharged for the hospital it would be considered cosmetic surgery.
Do you get to keep the leftovers?
Only at hospitals that decline to accept tips.
Ooooofff…
I’m gonna let it slide, but I’m watching you.
Nah… they let you keep the placenta, sure, but the doc gets to keep the foreskin for their special baby skin leather doctor’s coats.
Thank you for mentioning this. I don’t even have that set of equipment, and it boggles my mind that this is normal and acceptable to anyone. Even using religion as a reason just seems ridiculous. Why the hell would you ever cause that much physical pain to a child for a cosmetic procedure?
“Oh, they’re transing the kids!” Fucker, you asked your doctor to cut off part of your son’s junk before he even developed the capacity to lift his own head. Shut the fuck up.
Haha, oh honey circumcision may be the most common genital mutilation procedure, but wait til you learn how those transphobic motherfuckers write exceptions for coercive intersex surgeries into their anti trans laws.
Really can’t be overstated how different “female circumcision” is from the male version.
Like comparing ear piercings to ear cropping.
Saying they’re the same is bad but comparing circumcision to ear piercing is even worse. Piercings heal, that foreskin is gone forever.
Speak for yourself. My dad gave me mine on my 18th birthday and i planted it in the garden.
You sprout some wood?
So do you think the mild forms of FGM should be allowed because those are pretty comparable to the male one? Personally I think both should be banned.
I think banning circumcision runs you into many of the same problems that are encountered with banning abortion or gender transition. Or tattoos and ear piercings, for that matter. Or drinking.
You can scare physicians/professionals into refusing to perform it. But then you deal with all the amateurs and their consequences.
Gender transition and abortion are also illegal to do without consent
They’re illegal to do with consent.
I think the point is that it’s not a great comparison because the main argument against circumcision is that it’s permanent and babies can’t consent to it, I don’t think many people try to say that no one should ever be allowed to get a circumcision.
babies can’t consent
Parents make a whole host of medical decisions for their kids that they don’t formally consent to.
Just pounding on consent gets you in the same circle as the anti-vaxers
I don’t think many people try to say that no one should ever be allowed to get a circumcision.
I see a desire to make false equivalency between two very different procedures, because they both have “circumcision” in the name.
Depends where, they are legal with consent in most western countries.
They should both be banned
Please elaborate on how Type IIa (by World Health Organization standards) differs so greatly. e: Also, why comparison is even relevant here.
Please elaborate on how Type IIa
defined as the removal of the labia minora
two hairless, highly sensitive cutaneous folds located within the labia majora, surrounding the vaginal and urethral openings
:-/
Hmm, since prepuce (foreskin) is a hairless, highly-sensitive cutaneous fold covering and protecting the glans, why is it okay to remove one, but not the other? Or, since they derive from the same zygotic tissue and are homologous, why is it not okay to excise the clitoral hood?
I keep asking these questions, and nobody ever has a good answer, and the only difference that I can divine is that one is okay because it’s done to boys.
I don’t think it is good, but idk if it should be banned. A lot of guys seem ok with it?
If it should be banned, there needs to be a public education push about why.
Guys are okay with what? Removing foreskin, or removing the clitoral hood?
Neither. OK with the fact that their own foreskin was removed. I’m not one of them.
The middle 4 bullets are standard practice for our current epstein overlords and the top bullet is the Christo-fascist wet dream. At least we get dogs?
…Well, as long as you hide them from Kristi Noem…
Good thing they don’t read the Bible, because other than the pet dog thing, it’s a tie
Well according to us (muslims) its send by same god soooo thats why maybe ?
Never seen an em-dash placed within a hyphenated word before (“death—cult”)
It’s written by ai
- Texas keeps trying to force Christianity into public schools
- Texas has a bounty system for women who lose a child in childbirth
- Texas continues to use the 13th loophole to compel labor without pay for prisoners
- In Texas, emancipated minors and teens with parental permission can be married over the age of 16
- Texas actually bans FGM, but they do allow male genital mutilation
- Texas police do also shoot dogs.
Some real big projection going on.
is this a hidden vote to ban the Republican Party in Texas?
