447
Trump reveals executive order requiring Pam Bondi to prosecute ‘anti-Christian bias'
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
447 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19865 readers
3815 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have offered a source with multiple linked sources that explains why this consensus exists. If you choose to ignore that consensus of experts you are choosing to not accept what people who have spent decades working on this question which is your right but IMO is rarely the wise choice when you are uneducated on the subject.
What’s the proof fir this amalgamation idea you are claiming and how of you explain thousands of people all across that part of the world having the same beliefs and names for Jesus within 3-4 decades of his death and please remember this is 2000 years ago so news travelled slowly.
It doesn't exist, though. And, if it did, it's consensus without basis.
In reality, any consensus that may exists, does so purely due to environment. Why are we trying to even prove the existence of such a person? Because it's the dominant religious belief in this country. I'm sure just as much consensus around the existence of Mythras the man exists, too.
Because that's how cults start? Shit, have you seen how quickly Scientology has grown? Does Xenu actually exist?
News in the Roman empire took... well, as long as it took to walk from city to city. And the cultists were adamant about spreading the word. 100 years after the guy lived, of course.
The basis fir the consensus was explained. You clearly did not understand that.
So you have nothing to substantiate your counter claim to the one presented by historians and you think your claim has validity? That isnt how any of this works.
Yes, I get it. The basis for consensus was "It's the dominant religion, so it must be fact".
By the same basis, Hercules existed.
It's not my job to prove someone's conclusions. The onus for the evidence of existence lays with the person making the claim. And it's very clearly stated: There is no evidence. The best we got are some documents written by biased sources, half a century after the fact.