Religion on Ukraine, more than sixty billion dollars in assistance, loudly, there was, following

[GoldfishLord]

Did Mike Johnson Just Get Religion on Ukraine?​

It turns out that, eight years into the Trump takeover of the Republican Party, there are still a few surprises left. On Wednesday morning, Mike Johnson, the accidental Speaker of the House, finally made the choice that he had spent months evading and released the text of long-stalled legislation to send more than sixty billion dollars in assistance to Ukraine, among other national-security priorities. He promised a vote this weekend. The threat was real that, if he proceeded, a small faction of the most extreme Trumpists in the House—a loudly pro-Russia lot—would soon force him out of the post that he would not have got in the first place without Donald Trump’s support.

And yet, by Wednesday afternoon, there was Johnson, speaking to the cameras in the Capitol’s ornate Statuary Hall. His words were unexpectedly passionate, his delivery crisp. Invoking this “critical” moment in the world, Johnson said, “I can make a selfish decision”—namely, keeping his job by not moving forward on the aid for Ukraine and, once again, caving to the sort of angry nihilists who have bullied the past three Republican Speakers out of the House. “But I’m doing here what I believe to be the right thing.” He talked about why aid for Ukraine was “critically important,” adding, “I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we’ve gotten.” This was yet another heresy for many Republicans, who, following Trump, have spent years tearing down the truthfulness and reliability of America’s intelligence agencies.

Source: Did Mike Johnson Just Get Religion on Ukraine?

---

1. Is "Religion on Ukraine" a noun phrase and the object of "Get"?
2. Is "more than sixty billion dollars in assistance" a noun phrase and the object of "send"?
3. Does "loudly" mean "expressing ideas or opinions in a very open and forceful way"? If not, what exactly does it mean?
4. Is "there was" existential or is it locative.
5. Is "following" a preposition meaning "after"?

 

[Tarheel]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Locative. ("There he was" - that's where he was.)
5. See "following Trump" as short for "following (or after) Trump's takeover of the Republican party"

 

[probus]

"Get religion" is an American idiom. To me it has always meant to become fanatical about something, but also see what the Cambridge dictionary says:

get religion

1. to become very religious: 2. to start doing something in a serious and…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[svetlana14]

"Get religion" is an American idiom. To me it has always meant to become fanatical about something, but also see what the Cambridge dictionary says:

get religion

1. to become very religious: 2. to start doing something in a serious and…

dictionary.cambridge.org

The Collins Dictionary says: If you say that someone has got religion, you are referring in a mocking way to the fact that they have suddenly decided to follow a particular religion. I would put an emphasis, which fits (at least to me) the context of the article cited in the original post, on two features in a mocking way and suddenly.

 

[Tarheel]

This usage is not about somebody following any particular religion.

 

[svetlana14]

This usage is not about somebody following any particular religion.

Sure. So, in this context, “get religion” is used metaphorically to indicate a serious and committed approach to the issue at hand. But it seems to me that the article's author refers to Jonson's commitment in a mocking way, emphasizing a U-turn on his previous position.

 

[Tarheel]

There are only 24 hours in a day.

 

[PeterCW]

Sure. So, in this context, “get religion” is used metaphorically to indicate a serious and committed approach to the issue at hand. But it seems to me that the article's author refers to Jonson's commitment in a mocking way, emphasizing a U-turn on his previous position.

Remember that headlines are written by an editor not by the author. They are intended to catch the potential reader's attention and are not always an accurate reflection of the article's content.

 

[svetlana14]

Remember that headlines are written by an editor not by the author. They are intended to catch the potential reader's attention and are not always an accurate reflection of the article's content.

The same is true for news splashed across news headlines posted on YouTube. But is it the case for the cited article and its title? I have briefly reviewed the contents of the article and it appears the title is in line with the text and the background of the situation itself.