Summary
Donald Trump’s transition team has bypassed standard FBI background checks for key cabinet nominees, relying instead on private investigators, as reported by CNN.
This breaks decades-old norms meant to vet candidates for criminal history and conflicts of interest.
Controversial appointees include Matt Gaetz (attorney general), Tulsi Gabbard (director of national intelligence), and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (health secretary), all facing scrutiny for past investigations, pro-Russian views, or personal admissions.
Critics argue Trump seeks to undermine traditional vetting, with potential security risks tied to bypassing these checks.
So more dishonesty and strawmen. Forget your daughter; Would your suggestion to queer people be different if Gabbard was not part of the Trump administration ? Flee if Gabbard is in, don’t if it’s just the good Christians?
So Fuck you it is.
Christianity’s message still condemns queer people as sinners. I suppose part of the people who convert to Christianity also believe that.
Again, I reject your “things can’t be better or worse than the bad they already are” argument. It is awful without Gabbard. It is worse with Gabbard.
Actually, and I know this because I’ve read the New Testament, Christ said nothing about queer people whatsoever.
Who he did condemn was divorced people.
Even Paul, who did condemn queer people, spent more time condemning women as a whole. And Paul was not the Christian god incarnate.
If you wish to include the Old Testament, there are so many things I could give you examples of that people do today on the regular that it talks about being worthy of death much more often than being queer. Leviticus spends far more time on what you should and shouldn’t eat than the two short lines about men having sex with each other. By the way- sex with a woman where you pull out before you finish? Also worthy of death.
The Bible is quite an interesting, if quite flawed, series of books. I suggest you read it since your understanding of Christianity is clearly quite poor and you become far more informed about the last 2000 years if you understand why people in the West were motivated by said quite flawed books to do the things they did.
Rofl. I suggest your realize that even the Protestants don’t actually care about what the Bible says, despite it being the basis of their attack on the Catholic Church (whose origins alongside the Orthodox predate the Bible and have consistently been against a Bible only interpretation of Christianity). In practice Christian churches have been railing against queer people since forever.
Thus it is you who should look at the history of Christianity in the last 2000 millennia and not just the read the Bible.
I 've read the fucking bible, it’s morally reprehensible and indefensible if you have a shred of decency. It’s understandable since it was written by people with completely different morals to us with an agenda to push.
Trump’s base, his defense secretary, identify (strongly) as Christians, most people consider them Christians. A no true Scotman objection by you is meaningless pedantry. Even if we deny them the title of Christian they are still more dangerous than Gabbard’s little and more mainstream. Actually them being more mainstream is the reason they are more dangerous than Gabbard’s cult.
Are you really an atheist? If you are a Christian remember lying is a sin!
Yes, I am an atheist. If you do a search on r/atheism before June of 2023, you will see I was an extremely active member of that subreddit.
But I’m guessing you’re going to keep saying I’m lying.
FYI: You don’t need to be a Christian to read the Bible, you can just be interested in history, mythology and folklore.
Edit: Not only am I an atheist, but I am a Jesus mythicist, albeit a non-traditional one.
Plus, I’m ethnically Jewish, which is why I’m a mod in c/Jewish.
Nice try though.
I am not doubting that you are an atheist because you 've read the bible (after all I wrote in my last post that I 've also read it) but because of your Christianity apologia.
As usual you answering a strawman and not me.