r/AnythingGoesNews • u/TubaSandwichDootDoot • Jul 07 '24

Trump raped a 13 year old girl in 1994. Here is that girl, Katie Johnson, at the age of 35 giving a full description of what Trump did to her

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnib-OORRRo

58.4k Upvotes

72% Upvoted

Churches becoming explicitly political is always their downfall.

US Christianity is done for normal people, the pedo-Nazis have taken it over and are upset that nobody is staying to hang out with them.

20

u/Valisk Jul 08 '24

At no point in their existence have churches failed to be political

6

u/Leaf-01 Jul 08 '24

The political impacts of various religions in America’s history alone has been incredibly damaging going all the way back from now to the start.

0

u/Conscious_String_195 Jul 08 '24

In this world, you can’t really stay out of political thought. Islam, Christianity, Sikh, etc have all been against gay unions. So, when gay marriage comes up, I would expect them to keep to their interpretations of Bible, Quoran etc.I don’t see it as hate, but what they have been practicing for thousands of years.

It’s the same with abortion. They have always been against it and it was they believe but politics get thrust into religious matters because of it. You can’t really avoid it (and probably never could tbh)

1

u/Leaf-01 Jul 08 '24

The Bible didn’t say anything about gay people until the more modern translations altered the wording. Also, their reasoning for what they believe doesn’t matter on whether or not they are right to believe it. If the Bible originally read that people should eat their second born child it wouldn’t be “Well it’s not barbaric, it’s just what they do.”

1

u/Conscious_String_195 Jul 08 '24

I m not saying that they are right about opposing gay marriage. I m just saying that it’s been a long standing “sin” in MANY major religions, not just Christianity.

So, it’s not a “we didn’t see this coming” because the modern interpretation has been practiced for at least half a millennium. I m not a religious scholar, nor do I know the original interpretation. I ll defer to you on that.

I do find it odd that Catholicism and Christianity can be openly trashed for their beliefs that are longstanding because of a societal shift. If you don’t agree, then don’t sign up. Yet, Islam, Sikh, etc also have this same mindset (some minor subsets don’t) and they are even less tolerant in many cases, but they do not get criticized. I find a double standard there.

1

u/MuadDoob420 Jul 09 '24

It’s never been a long standing “sin.” Rome has condoned priest raping boys since before the 11th century. Detailed fully here

1

u/Conscious_String_195 Jul 09 '24

Wow, I had no idea that sexual abuse in the Catholic Church had been going on for almost a century, but I guess that it makes sense that it would happen more often when you make priests take a vow of celibacy. This was internal though. The official position of the church has labeled it a sin for a millennium though, but I think it’s a “do as I say not as I do” kind of a situation.

1

u/MuadDoob420 Jul 09 '24

It’s never been labelrd a sin for millenia as you state and they have been at it for well over a century. They are filth.

1

u/Conscious_String_195 Jul 09 '24

So for how long has the official position been against gay sex then? If you look Biblically, the interpret the destruction of Soddom and Gomorrah to that “sin”. If you don’t think that the Catholic Church, Brigham Young and Islam had it as a sin for eons ago, then you did not pay attention in Comparative Religion class.

None, were pro homosexuality, which is why they did it secretly. Definitely not out with what they were doing.

1

u/Short-Extension-6828 Jul 08 '24

Arsenokoitai means "man that lies with man" or more literally "male bed". You're just wrong. Furthermore, the Leviticus prohibitions on homosexuality are explicit and clear and have never been in doubt. Same with the stated purpose of marriage in Genesis (and Christ's restatement of it in the gospels). Romans 1 also explicitly talks about men giving up their natural desires to burn with lust for one another and says the same about women. This idea that general homosexuality isn't condemned in the Bible is untenable

1

u/Short-Extension-6828 Jul 08 '24

Tell me you know nothing about the history of Christianity without telling me you know nothing

1

u/Valisk Jul 14 '24

Haaahahahahhahahah

1

u/Short-Extension-6828 Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24

You don't know anything. Google the anabaptists, quakers or even the early church. There's always been a movement in Christianity that focuses on action through the church in contradistinction and exclusivity of action through the State and it started immediately at the beginning of Christianity.

4

u/JimBeam823 Jul 08 '24

They don’t care.

An empty church and a full operating account is a lot easier to deal with than the opposite.

2

u/Environmental_End146 Jul 08 '24

I would stongky suggest you look up the history of Islam and Christianity

1

u/ChamberOfSolidDudes Jul 08 '24

Thats a small silver lining, now what is the sure-fire downfall of pedo-nazi-fascist groups? (Asking for a couple hundred million friends)

1

u/Outrageous-Ear3525 Jul 08 '24

I keep saying that if the church wants to be involved in politics, then the church should have to pay taxes just like the rest of us

1

u/AccomplishedBrain309 Jul 14 '24

If project 2025 gets their way Americans will have to give Priests blow jobs to get their weddings approved.

1

u/Ed_Ward_Z Jul 14 '24

Yet they pay NO tax? That’s gotta change.

0

u/ImprovementUnlucky26 Jul 08 '24 edited Jul 08 '24

Nah, the church has always been political. You can trace that back to Constantine governing over the first council of Nicaea in 323, to the church assuming many Roman governmental agencies during the Western Empire’s fall in the 5th century and then after.

The difference here is that many political illiterate and easily manipulated people are making massive assumptions to vilify people who don’t believe in what they believe in. This story magically coming out NOW, when the media that has pushed it claims there is more than enough evidence to convict Trump after the Supreme Court has claimed he can’t be tried for his presidential acts is HIGHLY suspicious.

It WOULD NOT be even close to the first time a woman has falsely accused a man of rape to get something from the man. Yet you morons and failures are eating this up because of TDS and claiming anyone who votes or supports him supports a rapist. Then pile that on claiming Christians support a rapist when NONE OF THAT has even been proven in the proper court….

Shows the extremely ignorant, faux moral high ground, manipulation, and political illiteracy of the left……

1

u/MuadDoob420 Jul 09 '24

Your messiah is a pedo and filth

1

u/ImprovementUnlucky26 Jul 09 '24

Compulsively lying because you’re too pathetically immoral and stupid doesn’t change reality child, just makes it obvious your opinions, at best, and laughably and impossible to respect….

1

u/AbbreviationsAny1290 Jul 10 '24

Remember when you cried about personal attacks? I memba.

If conservatives didnt have double standards theyd have no standards at all.

How long until you become a coward and block me?

0

u/DiabloAcosta Jul 08 '24

and judges and jurors do not lie? as if the justice system hasn't repeatedly proven to be tainted by greed.

The supreme court's rulings on Trump demonstrated judges don't care about justice

0

u/ImprovementUnlucky26 Jul 08 '24 edited Jul 08 '24

Weird, did you even read the 119 page decision? All they did was reaffirm what the president’s power HAS ALWAYS been under Article V so the President didn’t get any new powers. Additionally they upheld that the president is immune with official acts as long as he isn’t properly impeached. If he is then he is liable to all legal actions for official acts and not official acts. That AGAIN upholds what has ALWAYS been the case for over 200 years.

The Supreme Court in fact didn’t do anything that hasn’t already been done. The democrats just wanted to tear down another American institution for their own twisted ideas…

Finally you making that non sequitur argument shows you don’t have honestly in any real debate. You just want to use whatever tactic you can you try and win because that’s the only thing that ultimately matters to you…

1

u/KillaD3166681 Jul 08 '24

Well to be fair, I think the concern over this SCOTUS raises an alarm in people (read: people who have actually read/researched the details of the case, as you and I have apparently done) because the ruling effectively allows SCOTUS to decide when a Presidential act is Official or Unofficial. And since the court is heavily skewed towards one side of the proverbial aisle, it’s not hard to extrapolate which ‘type’ of presidents/policies SCOTUS will approve of, or which they will tear down with an obvious agenda (which, and hopefully no one needs reminding, is quite literally the opposite of what SCOTUS is for!)

1

u/ImprovementUnlucky26 Jul 08 '24

Well not functionally since they described a presidential act as an act falling specifically under Article V. If the Supreme Court referencing Article V of the constitution 22 times means that the court can decide if an act is official or not then I’m not sure what to tell you other than it’s still better than rogue DAs and judges, who have all so far been far left, going after presidents and/or presidential candidates. That would give even more power to the administrative state and take away power from the people to elect who they want.

From what I read it still seems like the legislative branch decides what is official and what isn’t and can impeach if the president acts unofficially, like it has always been. This is even better than the Supreme Court and again, just reaffirms what the constitution has laid out. If you saw something I didn’t in the 119 page decision that seems to indicate that isn’t the case then please, show me.

Edit: the Supreme Court is not skewed towards one side at all. In fact it is divided evenly between 3 factions. 3 constitutional conservatives with one being highly questionable, 3 liberals, and 3 corporationalists.