this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
74 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26681 readers
2285 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The effort to bring federal charges has been met with resistance by some career prosecutors who argue the crime doesn’t appear to fall under any federal statutes.

Three months after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the Justice Department is weighing how to bring federal charges against the shooter, including under a novel legal theory that it was an anti-Christian hate crime, according to three people familiar with the investigation.

The suspect, Tyler Robinson, is already facing multiple state charges, including an aggravated murder count, and Utah prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty. Robinson’s partner is trans, and authorities have produced text messages from the suspect to his partner saying he was motivated to kill Kirk because he had “enough of his hatred.”

It’s not uncommon for defendants to face both state and federal charges, including for drug-related crimes and domestic terrorist attacks, among other offenses. But the effort to bring federal charges in the Kirk case has been met with resistance by some career prosecutors who have argued that the crime doesn’t appear to fall under any federal statutes, the three people said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Mormons not believing in the Trinity is a pretty solid argument that, at the very least, they're not Christians in the way nearly all other Christians are Christians.

That puts them in the same bucket as Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, Iglesia ni Cristo, and Christadelphians.

... thats why most Christians don't think Mormons are really Christians, that they are instead more like heretics.

Not that I personally have a dog in this fight between the finer points of varying forms of mass shared delusions based on a corpus of hundreds of different texts that have been edited and translated and added to and subtracted from, tens or hundreds of thousands of times, over approximately 2500 years...

... but the idea of the Trinity is a pretty big deal, going back through the entire history of Christianity.

Whole lots of nontrinitarians have been called, and killed for being heretics by whole lots of trinitarians, for... what, roughly... 1750 years?

Yeah that's a pretty solid historical precedent.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Mormons call everyone else, including other xtians, "Gentiles".

It's amusing how all this works, since LDS members tend to think that they form the real xtianity. Hey, it's not really any more arrogant than the Jewish heresy called xtianity (maybe more appropriately called Paulianity) that now seems to turn around and claim that the OG religion got so many things wrong, but the heretical sect has it right. But, oh yeah, they'll use the old text and claim that is what gives the new heretical sect and its writing its legitimacy, LOL.

Hey, if it's all just made up, who's to say? Remember: the Nicean Creed was voted on, nearly 300 years after the character of Jesus is said to have died.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Wait, Mormons appropriated the term Gentiles, from... Jews?

That's incredible.

I'll be frank: Mormonism is based on the fan fiction of an easily provable, known at the time to be a serial con artist and fraudster.

... Who then went on to lead a cult of what we would now call domestic terrorists.

He specifically tried to destroy any press outlets that were critical of him.

Like, with violent armed force.

Every element of the origin story of Mormonism collapses under any serious scrutiny from anyone who isn't a Mormon, its laughable.

He also just appropriated a bunch of Masonic poses and hand signs and such, like, verbatim, without modification in a good deal of cases, and invented rituals to go make use of them.

The uh, what is it, the papyrus he picked up off of a travelling antiquities merchant, that he then declared was "The Book of Abraham"?

He was just bullshitting around his total inability to read actual hieroglyphs... the knowledge deriving from the discovery of the Rosetta Stone was quite rare at the time, so he felt comfortable making up a nonsense 'translation'.

Then, some decades later, actual Egyptologists get around to reading the original text and the "translation" and uh... welp, long story short, its a copy of a fairly common Egyptian funerary rites text, instructions on how to breathe properly when in the underworld. Has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham, bears no relationship to Smith's fabricated translated story.

Mormonism is literally a fraud.

But!

That hasn't stopped other cults and religions from... making it big time.