Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
443 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” On Wednesday, Senator Bernie Sanders flirted with the boundaries of this rule during a confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.
...
Vought tried to clarify how he thinks people of other traditions should be treated, referring to a doctrine known as imago dei. “As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect, regardless of their religious beliefs,” Vought said. “I believe that as a Christian, that’s how I should treat all individuals—”
Sanders interrupted again. “And do you think your statement that you put in that publication, ‘They do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ the son, and they stand condemned,’ do you think that’s respectful of other religions?” Vought replied that he wrote the post as a Christian alumnus of Wheaton, which “has a statement of faith that speaks clearly with regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.”
...
[B]After a long exchange on tax cuts for the wealthy and other issues directly relevant to Vought’s proposed role in government, this issue—Vought’s beliefs about the exclusivity of his religion—seemed to be the reason why Sanders saw him as an unacceptable candidate for office.[/B] “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about,” Sanders said. “I will vote no.”[/QUOTE]
Source: [URL]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/bernie-sanders-chris-van-hollen-russell-vought/529614/[/URL]
Video of the exchange: [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjQSwYV5Qzs[/URL]
Sanders seems to believe that anyone who holds traditional beliefs about exclusive Christianity is unfit for office.
That's not a religious test, that's saying, "I'm not going to support someone who condemns people for not being Christian."
Being religious while in office is fine. It's when you start forcing your beliefs on the people and treat other religions as lesser beings is when you become unfit for office.
Like trying to ban gay marriage because the bible says its wrong.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52329730]That's not a religious test, that's saying, "I'm not going to support someone who condemns people for not being Christian."[/QUOTE]
Every Christian holding a basic traditional belief thinks that all people not putting their hope in Christ stand condemned before him. This also stands for every traditional Muslim about non-Muslims.
Viewing those with religions other than Christianity as lesser beings earning themselves eternal damnation is indeed something that makes you unfit for an office under a government supposedly upholding the belief of religious equality.
Would you want someone going on about "infidels" in office?
[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52329732]Being religious while in office is fine. It's when you start forcing your beliefs on the people is when you become unfit for office.
Like trying to ban gay marriage because the bible says its wrong.[/QUOTE]
Sander's disagreement wasn't about the man's policy positions, but about his belief in exclusive Christianity. In fact, the man specifically said that he intends to treat all people with respect.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329733]Every Christian holding a basic traditional belief thinks that all people not putting their hope in Christ stand condemned before him.[/QUOTE]
Your point?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52329743]Your point?[/QUOTE]
If that's not a religious test, then I don't know what is. It's about theology that one holds, not policy that one supports.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329747]If that's not a religious test, then I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]
Clearly.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52329750]Clearly.[/QUOTE]
Clearly what? Religious tests are illegal.
The main thing to notice is that it's not based on any policy differences that the man holds. It's based on what Sanders considers bad theology.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329754]Clearly what? Religious tests are illegal.[/QUOTE]
Clear, you do not know what a religious test is.
As said, this is not a religious test.
I'm sure you would just as outraged if someone disapproved of a Muslim appointee because of their beliefs on apostates or women's rights.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52329768]I'm sure you would just as outraged if someone disapproved of a Muslim appointee because of their beliefs on apostates or women's rights.[/QUOTE]
Were they advocating for the killing of apostates or that women should have their rights taken away? If so, then yeah, it would matter because those are policy positions.
This man in question did not advocate for any policy based on that theological position. In fact, he clarified that standing condemned before God does not mean that a Christian should treat that person any less than anyone else.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329715]Source: [URL]
Sanders seems to believe that anyone who holds traditional beliefs about exclusive Christianity is unfit for office.[/QUOTE]
I would tend to agree. Reading the whole article, this bit stands out as context for that statement:
[quote=The actual article]During the hearing, Sanders repeatedly quoted one passage that he found particularly objectionable:
Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.
“In my view, the statement made by Mr. Vought is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world,” Sanders told the committee during his introductory remarks. “This country, since its inception, has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms … we must not go backwards.”[/quote]
That seems reasonable to me. Religion already has WAY too much sway over our politics and our politicians in this country, and it's always one particular religion: Christianity. I don't care, personally, what you are if you want to hold an office, whatever religion you bear, it shouldn't prohibit you by default. But it's this insistence on shoehorning your religion into laws that doesn't stand, it's always causing problems for everyone that ISN'T in that club, and it doesn't really benefit the ones in it either, it just makes them feel good about themselves. If your views are so clouded by your religion that you make statements and judgements like this, and can't keep it to yourself, or keep from saying something about Jesus every sentence to justify everything you do, then I don't believe you are fit either.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329754]Clearly what? Religious tests are illegal.
The main thing to notice is that it's not based on any policy differences that the man holds. It's based on what Sanders considers bad theology.[/QUOTE]
It's not a religious test, it's a "are you a fucking dickhead about other people's beliefs" test.
[QUOTE=Xion21;52329784]I would tend to agree. Reading the whole article, this bit stands out as context for that statement:
That seems reasonable to me. Religion already has WAY too much sway over our politics and our politicians in this country, and it's always one particular religion: Christianity. I don't care, personally, what you are if you want to hold an office, whatever religion you bear, it shouldn't prohibit you by default. But it's this insistence on shoehorning your religion into laws that doesn't stand, it's always causing problems for everyone that ISN'T in that club, and it doesn't really benefit the ones in it either, it just makes them feel good about themselves. If your views are so clouded by your religion that you make statements and judgements like this, and can't keep it to yourself, or keep from saying something about Jesus every sentence to justify everything you do, then I don't believe you are fit either.[/QUOTE]
You, and Sanders, are equating the holding of a theologically exclusive belief system as equivalent to discrimination. That clearly isn't the case.
It's not a test at all. It's his vote as determined by what he sees as dangerous beliefs he expects to reflect in public policy of the potential official. A test would be a consensus by the ruling party to mandate one set of answers to a list of questions, regardless of the opinions of voting senators.
[QUOTE=Propane Addict;52329790]It's not a religious test, it's a "are you a fucking dickhead about other people's beliefs" test.[/QUOTE]
Let's imagine for a second that a physicist is up for office and a flat earther asks whether he thinks flat earthers are wrong and ignorant. The physicist, as he should, says yes, they are.
The flat earther then concludes that this is a discriminatory belief and that he is unfit for office.
Can you clarify how my hypothetical is different from this situation with Sanders beyond you agreeing with one and disagreeing with the other on the facts?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329805]Let's imagine for a second that a physicist is up for office and a flat earther asks whether he thinks flat earthers are wrong and ignorant. The physicist, as he should, says yes, they are.
The flat earther then concludes that this is a discriminatory belief and that he is unfit for office.
Can you clarify how my hypothetical is different from this situation with Sanders beyond you agreeing with one and disagreeing with the other on the facts?[/QUOTE]
It's not different. That's not a test either. That's a flat-earther forming their opinion on the physicist and using it as grounds for their personal vote.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329780]Were they advocating for the killing of apostates or that women should have their rights taken away? If so, then yeah, it would matter because those are policy positions.
This man in question did not advocate for any policy based on that theological position. In fact, he clarified that standing condemned before God does not mean that a Christian should treat that person any less than anyone else.[/QUOTE]
so it's out of turn to disapprove of this appointee on the basis of his religious beliefs because religious beliefs not directly related to policy should be beyond scrutiny
so you would not be in any way bothered by a political representative speaking publicly about how apostates are the lowest form of human being and that a woman's place is at the feet of her husband
that would not at all affect how fit for their position you believe that person to be, because you believe religious beliefs not directly related to policy should be beyond scrutiny, correct?
[QUOTE=bitches;52329807]It's not different. That's not a test either. That's a flat-earther forming their opinion on the physicist and using it as grounds for their personal vote.[/QUOTE]
You seem to believe that there is no such thing as a religious test, then.
With statements like that, he's kinda parading himself as better-than-thou because he's Christian. If he's regurgitating text like that, then surely by some degree he is insisting you [I]should [/I]be Christian if you [I]don't want to be condemned (by the god I believe in)[/I]. Kinda egotistical really, which is what Sander's doesn't like
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329796]You, and Sanders, are equating the holding of a theologically exclusive belief system as equivalent to discrimination. That clearly isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
You're massively grasping at straws here
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52329812]so it's out of turn to disapprove of this appointee on the basis of his religious beliefs because religious beliefs not directly related to policy should be beyond scrutiny
so you would not be in any way bothered by a political representative speaking publicly about how apostates are the lowest form of human being and that a woman's place is at the feet of her husband
that would not at all affect how fit for their position you believe that person to be, because you believe religious beliefs not related to policy should be beyond scrutiny, correct?[/QUOTE]
You're making a false analogy. The man in this situation clearly clarified that he thinks all people should be held with respect as bearers of the image of God. He specifically said that this is not a basis for policy differences.
Sanders's disagreement is about the man's belief that forgiveness is found in Christ. That's it.
[editline]8th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=killerteacup;52329818]You're massively grasping at straws here[/QUOTE]
That's what he did. He said that the fact that he believes that Christianity has an exclusive path to forgiveness, then he is being discriminatory. That's not even a stretching of his words.
-maybe I misinterpreted this-
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329820]You're making a false analogy. The man in this situation clearly clarified that he thinks all people should be held with respect as bearers of the image of God. He specifically said that this is not a basis for policy differences.[/QUOTE]
is your premise that religious beliefs not directly related to policy should be beyond scrutiny or not?
Because what he said about who should be respected or what he would do is completely irrelevant to that question. Either you think it's wrong to scrutinize someone's religious beliefs or you don't. So which is it?
[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52329732]Being religious while in office is fine. It's when you start forcing your beliefs on the people and treat other religions as lesser beings is when you become unfit for office.
Like trying to ban gay marriage because the bible says its wrong.[/QUOTE]
There was a gay couple in the bible though
[QUOTE=lolo;52329833]Wow, I don't know what the writer's thoughts are, but that's a really awful way of interpreting what Sander's actually had in mind. How about we see what The Associated Press has to say?
source: [URL]http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_NOMINEE_MUSLIMS?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT[/URL]
I don't know, it seems to be aimed at making Muslims feel bad for being well...Muslim of course.[/QUOTE]
I don't see any difference between what you posted and The Atlantic article. The context of the man's statement was in a theological discussion about Christian exclusivity as a theological doctrine. It's a single line out of an entire piece.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52329834]is your premise that religious beliefs not directly related to policy should be beyond scrutiny or not?
Because what he said about who should be respected or what he would do is completely irrelevant to that question. Either you think it's wrong to scrutinize someone's religious beliefs or you don't. So which is it?[/QUOTE]
The statement, "Religious beliefs can result in policy" is not equivalent to, "Every religious belief must result in policy." Sanders did not make an argument about policy. He made an argument about this specific claim of Christian exclusivism.
In THIS situation the man specified that it is not a basis for policy and that he intends to treat all people with respect.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329846]The statement, "Religious beliefs can result in policy" is not equivalent to, "Every religious belief must result in policy."
In THIS situation the man specified that it is not a basis for policy and that he intends to treat all people with respect.[/QUOTE]
So if he didn't explicitly say that he wouldn't base policy off of his beliefs, then it would be entirely acceptable to disapprove of him as a candidate because of them?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.