Monday’s Vanity Fair headline: Mike Johnson Said He and His Son Monitor Each Other’s Porn Usage, and Yeah, It’s Exactly as Weird as It Sounds. The new Speaker of the House, we learn, has the Covenant Eyes app on his phone. So does his teen son. Covenant Eyes doesn’t block any websites, but it does issue weekly reports to a designated accountability partner. The app flags content that may be inappropriate -- generally, pornography or “porn-adjacent” material -- with the idea that the accountability partners will then discuss the reports.
Counterpoint: It's entirely fair to judge someone who has the power to enact legislation that is entirely based on his personal religious philosophy and who has expressed nothing but disdain for secular laws that acknowledge the separation of church and state. Johnson is not a private citizen. He is third in line to the presidency and by that standard it's completely fair to interrogate his moral philosophy and the ways in which he abides by it because it's not out of the question for it to be a possibility that he will attempt to propose laws that force everyone to live the same way he does.
A person's beliefs cease to be private when they have the power to force other people to abide by them. In that case, it is actually dangerous to not interrogate them. If Mike Johnson doesn't want people examining his beliefs, he can retire from politics. It's really that simple.
This is a terrible argument, Hugo. You know that there is a huge difference between hiding your sexuality due to the prejudices and bigotries of your community and actually enacting laws that reinforces the very same discrimination you're trying to escape. And while it is true a person can separate their personal beliefs from their actions, you know very well that is not how the world works. Mike Johnson has EXPLICITLY said that all you need to know about his political philosophy can be found by reading the bible. His record supports this. It's entirely fair to judge him because of this. If someone tells you it's their goal to oppress others in the name of their devotion to their religious convictions, it would be strange and weird to not criticize them if their desired goals are in direct opposition of your personal autonomy. By your definition, civilization is allowing bigotry to flourish because it's not polite to point it out.
Counterpoint: It's entirely fair to judge someone who has the power to enact legislation that is entirely based on his personal religious philosophy and who has expressed nothing but disdain for secular laws that acknowledge the separation of church and state. Johnson is not a private citizen. He is third in line to the presidency and by that standard it's completely fair to interrogate his moral philosophy and the ways in which he abides by it because it's not out of the question for it to be a possibility that he will attempt to propose laws that force everyone to live the same way he does.
I’m reluctant to start interrogating anyone’s private beliefs - how far does that go?
A person's beliefs cease to be private when they have the power to force other people to abide by them. In that case, it is actually dangerous to not interrogate them. If Mike Johnson doesn't want people examining his beliefs, he can retire from politics. It's really that simple.
That reminds me of the days we went after closeted gays in politics disguising homophobia as concern that they might be vulnerable to blackmail.
Private convictions can be divorced from public actions. That’s probably the distillation of what it means to be civilized.
This is a terrible argument, Hugo. You know that there is a huge difference between hiding your sexuality due to the prejudices and bigotries of your community and actually enacting laws that reinforces the very same discrimination you're trying to escape. And while it is true a person can separate their personal beliefs from their actions, you know very well that is not how the world works. Mike Johnson has EXPLICITLY said that all you need to know about his political philosophy can be found by reading the bible. His record supports this. It's entirely fair to judge him because of this. If someone tells you it's their goal to oppress others in the name of their devotion to their religious convictions, it would be strange and weird to not criticize them if their desired goals are in direct opposition of your personal autonomy. By your definition, civilization is allowing bigotry to flourish because it's not polite to point it out.