Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CyclonatorZ;52337382]I'm afraid that contradiction is baked into the pie. Remember, the basis of Christanity is one text written thousands of years ago by goat herders that says God loves his chosen people so much he needs them to cleanse the holy land of the infidels... whoops, I mean Caananites. Then a couple thousands of years later other people retcon this with this Jesus guy that say "syke, God loves everyone now!" And then finally one guy exiled to a Roman prison island has some weird acid trip where this same Jesus guy forgets the whole "love" message and slaughters all the unbelievers while horseback riding, and then sends every unbeliever in history to eternal damnation.
Source: I grew up in this tradition. I also had my doubts from a young age, and it was ultimately the inability to reconcile these very different interpretations of god within the same "holy" scriptures that drove me away. I mean, I always liked this Jesus fellow to some extent, but I never understood why his father in heaven had to be such a cosmic asshole. That's why so many Evangelicals can compartmentalize voting for turds like Trump: they learn to compartmentalize things from a very young age, and if they make it through the first thirty years of life without becoming an apostate, they're usually set for life. There's a word for this: its called apologetics.[/QUOTE]
pretty much spot on.
i grew up christian as well and thankfully managed to get out of that mind sink
[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;52337385]Unlike the sorry excuse of a rotten tangerine you call a president, Bernie doesn't act to stroke his own ego and appease fringe fanatics, so yeah I am sure that if the occasion ever arose Bernie would tear this hypothetical muslim representative a new one.[/QUOTE]
Lol, except he has to placate to fringe fanatics like BLM/SJWs and other regressive left elements he tries not to piss off, even though they literally steal his mic/platform, and basically put through him a constant litmus test to see if he isn't racist. Him saying white people don't know what it is like to be poor is a load of shit for a ton of people and just a shit social justice statement.
Bernie working with Linda Sarsour (who wants sharia for America) is just a final confirmation to show that he does indeed have politically extreme elements he has to placate to.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52337367]He should just ask Keith Ellison who he partners up with the same test. Keith Ellison is religious and has said, “only Allah knows who is going to win." Which already heavily implies a certain level of salvation he believes in.
But I'm sure Bernie hasn't put him to the test. Plus Ellison already has views on Israel and from his past that people should ask more about to see how he has changed for the better or not really at all.
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
It still isn't the right call. Bernie is actually the bigot here ironically cause he can't seem to understand that religious people have served public office with similar views throughout all of US History without infringing rights of others. Democrat and Republican alike.[/QUOTE]
Wait, so all those times where rights did get infringed didn't happen, or happened by people who you can retroactively disown?
God damn it must be nice to live in your head
[QUOTE=Tudd;52337426]Lol, except he has to placate to fringe fanatics like BLM/SJWs and other regressive left elements he tries not to piss off, even though they literally steal his mic/platform, and basically put through him a constant litmus test to see if he isn't racist.[/QUOTE]
I don't think two radical BLM activists represent the whole of black people lol...
[QUOTE=Tudd;52337426]Lol, except he has to placate to fringe fanatics like BLM/SJWs and other regressive left elements he tries not to piss off, even though they literally steal his mic/platform, and basically put through him a constant litmus test to see if he isn't racist. Him saying white people don't know what it is like to be poor is a load of shit for a ton of people and just a shit social justice statement.
Bernie working with Linda Sarsour (who wants sharia for America) is just a final confirmation to show that he does indeed have politically extreme elements he has to placate to.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and columnist Candice Malcolm have criticized Sarsour for her comments on sharia law, the status of women in Saudi Arabia, and some female public figures.[21][22] The terrorism analyst Steven Emerson has argued that Sarsour has not worked to oppose religious groups that subjugate women and minorities.[23] An op-ed by Emma-Kate Symons in The New York Times described Sarsour as "a religiously conservative veiled Muslim woman" and criticized the inconsistency of her role in ordering pro-life women out of the 2017 Women's March despite what Symons alleged to be Sarsour's association with an illiberal ideology connected to her "fundamentalist worldview" over female body coverings.[24] An op-ed by Daniel Pipes in The Jerusalem Post was critical of Sarsour's comments on Saudi Arabia, among other issues, and called her "the new, seemingly ubiquitous symbol of the hard Left-radical Islam alliance".[25] An op-ed by political scientist Mira Sucharov in the Canadian Jewish News characterized Sarsour's comments on sharia that prompted criticism as "tongue-in-cheek". Sucharov found no evidence that Sarsour supported Hamas or anti-Semitism, concluding that she "[smells] a toxic brew of Islamophobia and misogyny" in these accusations.[26] Along with other activists in her movement, Sarsour opposes attempts to ban sharia religious law, having expressed such concerns on The Rachel Maddow Show and elsewhere.[27][/QUOTE]
Less than 5 minutes to debunk your obviously false fucking bullshit Tudd.
Less than a minute actually. You're so transparent it literally hurts.
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
All you are is a propagandist
[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;52337393]This is NOT a religious test, it's at worst a bias test. Ignore for a second why the dude said what he said, and focus on what he said, which came down to "People who disagree with me deserve to be painfully tortured for all of eternity". It doesn't matter if he said it because of his religion or not, he said it, and thus her is unfit from office.[/QUOTE]
So how was the country ran by people who believed in Salvation of their own religion before if you imply this belief is worth denying a position to?
This government and the ones before it didn't exist through nothing but atheists, agnostics, and liberally religious people.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52337450]So how was the country ran by people who believed in Salvation of their own religion before if you imply this belief is worth denying a position to?
This government and the ones before it didn't exist through nothing but atheists, agnostics, and liberally religious people.[/QUOTE]
And those governments weren't flawless as you seem to be implying
tons of horrible shit happened
you're in history how do you not know this
[QUOTE=Tudd;52337450]So how was the country ran by people who believed in Salvation of their own religion before if you imply this belief is worth denying a position to?
This government and the ones before it didn't exist through nothing but atheists, agnostics, and liberally religious people.[/QUOTE]
Our country is kind of full of christian fundamentalists that need to be booted if you haven't noticed.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52337450]So how was the country ran by people who believed in Salvation of their own religion before if you imply this belief is worth denying a position to?
This government and the ones before it didn't exist through nothing but atheists, agnostics, and liberally religious people.[/QUOTE]
Jeez I dunno, why don't you try asking the natives?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52337455]And those governments weren't flawless as you seem to be implying
tons of horrible shit happened
you're in history how do you not know this[/QUOTE]
If you knew history, you would also know that it was totally possible for a religious person with devout views to rule a country even though they believed in salvation of only their own religion.
Jefferson, Teddy, Lincoln, or pick whichever progressive president ou liked and you will probably find quotes that shows they really preferred their Christian faith, but their actions were to the constitution.
Also imma respond to that Sarsour post once I'm home and can properly navigate sources.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52337476][B]If you knew history, you would also know that it was totally possible for a religious person with devout views to rule a country even though they believed in salvation of only their own religion.
[/B]
Jefferson, Teddy, Lincoln, or pick whichever progressive president ou liked and you will probably find quotes that shows they really preferred their Christian faith, but their actions were to the constitution.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't, at any point, in any way, saying that though Tudd. All you're doing is creating yet another strawman. I never argued that the bolded statement was true.
You're the one saying Christians have ruled "US History without infringing rights of others." which isn't actually true. There's tons of instances of infringing the rights of others.
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
And as far as Sarsour is concerned, I don't have any opinions about her, but I can tell instantly based on what you're basing your opinions on that it's fucking "he said-she said" tabloid level bullshit that you've entirely bought into.
[QUOTE=Aztec;52337459]Our country is kind of full of christian fundamentalists that need to be booted if you haven't noticed.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you can advocate for that, but luckily the law doesnt persecute based on religious belief.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52337498]I'm sure you can advocate for that, but luckily the law does persecute based on religious belief.[/QUOTE]
is this just a freudian slip
:thisthread:
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52337493]I wasn't, at any point, in any way, saying that though Tudd. All you're doing is creating yet another strawman. I never argued that the bolded statement was true.
You're the one saying Christians have ruled "US History without infringing rights of others." which isn't actually true. There's tons of instances of infringing the rights of others.
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
And as far as Sarsour is concerned, I don't have any opinions about her, but I can tell instantly based on what you're basing your opinions on that it's fucking "he said-she said" tabloid level bullshit that you've entirely bought into.[/QUOTE]
I never implied religious people haven't persecuted based on religion either. That is you saying that.
The point I'm making is that we have had people who believe the same way this guy does about his own religion and been great public servants. And thus to deny a person a position in government on their religious belief being "too" religious with nothing to go on to show he goes against the constitution is awful and against what this country is for.
I also recommend you look at first hand on Linda Sarsour and the controversial content that people have flagged for yourself.
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52337505]is this just a freudian slip[/QUOTE]
Nope, just spellcheck on a phone.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52337512]I never implied religious people haven't persecuted based on religion either. That is you saying that.
The point I'm making is that we have had people who believe the same way this guy does about his own religion and been great public servants. And thus to deny a person a position in government on their religious belief being "too" religious with nothing to go on to show he goes against the constitution is awful and against what this country is for.
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
Nope, just spellcheck on a phone.[/QUOTE]
What's your metric for "Great public servants"? What does that mean? For who? For which constituents? Have all of those people represented all of their constituents well or have they maybe not? Are you sure you should speak in such wide ranging, strongly worded generalities that you really have no way of verifying?
If you believe muslims are going to hell, gay people are sinners driven by satan himself, then how exactly are you going to represent those people? And why do you get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to representing those people?
I know you've said Trump is pro LGBT more times than I can count, but that isn't true, and by the same mentality you've managed to convince yourself that these people would never act against the interests of a group [B]they have publicly professed is damned[/B]
[QUOTE=Tudd;52337321]First Bernie wouldn't ask a Muslim such a question because it would kill his Sjw/Muslim support. His support doesn't come from devout christians so why care even care to understand why people think this way.[/QUOTE]
I'm just gonna ask it now: What's with you making all these assumptions and set-in-stone ideas about any politician yet when it happens to be Trump, you can just as easily turn a blind eye or find a way to praise it regardless? Where the hell is all this criticism for Trump? It just sucks to see you not even try to hide how critical and willing you are to shit out projections and negatives of someone yet it'd fucking kill you to even reflect on what you support. At least try and pretend, dude.
Apparently, only liberals can be slapped around with labels, implications, and all the assumptions YOU regularly fucking make
but if someone assumes a Christians stated belief that everyone is going to be damned for being themselves and not believing in the same god as them will actually act as they've said, then no we're crazy and off the marker
despite the fact that said state christian conservatives are the people who have opposed gay marriage and the like tooth and nail for tenuous as fuck reasons
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=WhichStrider;52337536]I'm just gonna ask it now: What's with you making all these assumptions and set-in-stone ideas about any politician yet when it happens to be Trump, you can just as easily turn a blind eye or find a way to praise it regardless? Where the hell is all this criticism for Trump? It just sucks to see you not even try to hide how critical and willing you are to shit out projections and negatives of someone yet it'd fucking kill you to even reflect on what you support. At least try and pretend, dude.[/QUOTE]
No you see, he's fine to make flat out assumptions about Bernie based on just a few statements, but if anyone else here applied [B]his identical line of logic[/B] towards the other side, you'll have officially triggered him.
[QUOTE=WhichStrider;52337536]I'm just gonna ask it now: What's with you making all these assumptions and set-in-stone ideas about any politician yet when it happens to be Trump, you can just as easily turn a blind eye or find a way to praise it regardless? Where the hell is all this criticism for Trump? It just sucks to see you not even try to hide how critical and willing you are to shit out projections and negatives of someone yet it'd fucking kill you to even reflect on what you support. At least try and pretend, dude.[/QUOTE]
My belief is that Tudd doesn't really support Trump, just the idea of Trump.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52337538]No you see, he's fine to make flat out assumptions about Bernie based on just a few statements.[/QUOTE]
There's really not any assumptions about Bernie. He voted no on Vought based on his religious beliefs without evidence that his policies would negatively affect those who disagree. In fact Vought made statements against that very notion.
[B]Edit:[/B]Quoted because new page
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52337602]There's really not any assumptions about Bernie. He voted no on Vought based on his religious beliefs without evidence that his policies would negatively affect those who disagree. In fact Vought made statements against that very notion.
[B]Edit:[/B]Quoted because new page[/QUOTE]
Are you sure you're following the conversation fully?
Tudd is making assumptions about Sanders beyond the stated "no" he gave vought.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52336100]That's nice, but there are religious parents who do terrible things to their children precisely because of the mechanism I described earlier. They believe they know better than them and because they love them, they do what they think is best for their salvation. Parents who tried to "cure" their child's homosexuality, for instance, didn't hate their child. It's just that their fucked up beliefs led them to hurt a person they love.
I really don't get how it's a hard concept to understand that a belief [I]that is specifically designed to entice followers to impose their faith to people they love[/I] can lead to religious people doing just that. You people talking about hate are beside the point, it's the exact opposite that happens.[/QUOTE]
Way to totally miss the point. Yeah, religious families do fucked up things to each other in the name of religion. That has literally nothing to do with your guy's ridiculous assertion that belief in the religious condemnation of non-believers in the afterlife somehow means religious people secretly hate non-believers and think they're inferior lol
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;52336261]I'm sorry, but what the hell does that have to do with my point? Where have I said we should ban religious people?
People keep insisting believing non-believers go to hell has no incidence on how they treat said persons. I disagree and show why that isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
It has everything to do with your point because that concept is the core of virtually every monotheistic religion, meaning if you want to say the guy in OP hates non-believers because of his belief in that core tenant of his religion, that argument then extends to everyone that believes in those religions and thus you're essentially barring all religious people from office based on those criteria.
[QUOTE=srobins;52338802]Way to totally miss the point. Yeah, religious families do fucked up things to each other in the name of religion. That has literally nothing to do with your guy's ridiculous assertion that belief in the religious condemnation of non-believers in the afterlife somehow means religious people secretly hate non-believers and think they're inferior lol[/QUOTE]
I treat everyone I meet with respect, doesn't matter who. That's who I am in real life. If you meet me on the street, you get a friendly hello, how can I help you, that's just who I am as divorced from that personality as my online persona may be.
That doesn't mean that I like every person that I meet, even if I give that impression. There's people who I fucking despise, I still deal with them with a smile on my face because, again, that's who I am.
I bring this up because I don't see how this is any different than what christians are saying in a much larger and more generalized form, that they just keep private, and fine, they have that right. Christians like the one in this story may very well do as I do, and treat people with respect in their interactions with one another, that's just how I was raised, maybe that's how he was as well. Cool. That doesn't deal with the deeper problem, that this guy may very well turn away from saying "Hello" to an atheist and think "What a horrible person" and no one can ever know because they're concealing it for the sake of politeness.
If you apply this level of interaction on a wider scale, say, to anyone and everyone who doesn't have the same faith as you, I see why that's something to oppose. Treating people in interactions well is one thing, how you dictate their lives via legislation is a different thing all together.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52338822]I treat everyone I meet with respect, doesn't matter who. That's who I am in real life. If you meet me on the street, you get a friendly hello, how can I help you, that's just who I am as divorced from that personality as my online persona may be.
That doesn't mean that I like every person that I meet, even if I give that impression. There's people who I fucking despise, I still deal with them with a smile on my face because, again, that's who I am.
I bring this up because I don't see how this is any different than what christians are saying in a much larger and more generalized form, that they just keep private, and fine, they have that right. Christians like the one in this story may very well do as I do, and treat people with respect in their interactions with one another, that's just how I was raised, maybe that's how he was as well. Cool. That doesn't deal with the deeper problem, that this guy may very well turn away from saying "Hello" to an atheist and think "What a horrible person" and no one can ever know because they're concealing it for the sake of politeness.
If you apply this level of interaction on a wider scale, say, to anyone and everyone who doesn't have the same faith as you, I see why that's something to oppose. Treating people in interactions well is one thing, how you dictate their lives via legislation is a different thing all together.[/QUOTE]
Okay, again though, that doesn't really do anything to address anything I've been saying throughout this thread.
[B]The belief that non-believers are condemned by God is a basic principle of most monotheistic religions.
If you claim that anyone (like the man in OP) who believes in this principle hates non-believers and is unfit for office, that extends to the majority of people who follow monotheistic religions (aside from being completely absurd). You can believe that somebody will go to hell without personally hating them.[/B]
I don't see how you could. They're evil by definition as sinners and wilful sinners.
Just as sgman forced a generalization of "the majority of the left thinks the right is evil" and has argued that's a correct generalization of the left, I consider it to be accurate to describe at least a portion of the believers of this level of thought to make judgements based upon that.
I don't get how you can say "a foundational piece of someone's moral fibre won't be used to judge other people"
Have you met people before
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52338861]I don't see how you could. They're evil by definition as sinners and wilful sinners.
Just as sgman forced a generalization of "the majority of the left thinks the right is evil" and has argued that's a correct generalization of the left, I consider it to be accurate to describe at least a portion of the believers of this level of thought to make judgements based upon that.
I don't get how you can say "a foundational piece of someone's moral fibre won't be used to judge other people"
Have you met people before[/QUOTE]
I like how no matter how many times I post it you and everyone else refuses to just address what I'm actually saying and instead go for these little side tangents where you extrapolate an incredible amount of detail about people's psyches based on your own kindergarten-tier understanding of religion. Religious people don't think sinners are evil, I don't know about other religions but Christianity specifically is based on the notion that all humans are sinners, including faithful Christians. So to imply that just because they believe someone is a sinner means they believe they're evil is wrong out of the gate. Feel free to actually reply to what I put in bold instead of just sidestepping it so you can show everyone how little you know about religion.
[QUOTE=srobins;52338834][B][U]The belief that non-believers are condemned by God is a basic principle of most monotheistic religions.
If you claim that anyone (like the man in OP) who believes in this principle hates non-believers and is unfit for office, that extends to the majority of people who follow monotheistic religions (aside from being completely absurd). You can believe that somebody will go to hell without personally hating them.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
I didn't side step it. You just say I did.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52336758]How is this anything less than true bigotry against religion? I'm generally very cautious at making accusations like that, but I can't think of any alternatives. To think that any person who publicly speaks about the entire category of religion ought to be disqualified is simply bigotry and intolerance towards a view that you don't understand. It's like a Christian person saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to show affection in public.
It has no rational basis.[/QUOTE]
Just a few pages earlier you argued that many Christians do in fact mold their views to fit religious scripture, rather than picking their beliefs regardless of religion and then perhaps trying to justify it through their own interpretations.
For the exact same reason that the law against religious tests exists in the first place, that particular type of person should not hold office. The separation of church and state is an essential part of not only America, but any country.
Holding views that are in alignment with those of your religion is not a problem for this. Specifically holding your views because of your religion is blurring that essential line of separation in a dangerous way. Same reason why priests holding office is discouraged.
Simply put, religion and religious beliefs have absolutely place in government. Having religious beliefs obviously shouldn't bar you from office. Forming your opinions based off of your religious beliefs should.
Just to be clear. sgman has made the argument that "the left thinks the right is evil", as a generalization of the left predicated upon the false implication that all left positions are based in "moral" reasonings.
The Christian belief is a moral belief based upon a piece of theology. It's widely open to interpretation like anything else, and is often drawn on as a foundational moral fibre by Christians advocating for the religion. Yes, everyone is a sinner until they accept Christ into their hearts, this can differ from sect to sect in small ways.
How is it okay to say "the left sees these people as evil", but it's not okay to flip that based upon the identical moral reasoning?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52338891]I didn't side step it. You just say I did.[/QUOTE]
I just explained to you why you're demonstrably wrong in saying that "sinners = evil", you said nothing that demonstrates belief in religious condemnation is equal to personal condemnation, and earlier in the thread you attacked me for believing that Christians were persecuted even though I don't believe that and never said it. Maybe you should consider that you're just not doing a very good job of reading/communicating right now?
[editline]11th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52338901]Just to be clear. sgman has made the argument that "the left thinks the right is evil", as a generalization of the left predicated upon the false implication that all left positions are based in "moral" reasonings.
The Christian belief is a moral belief based upon a piece of theology. It's widely open to interpretation like anything else, and is often drawn on as a foundational moral fibre by Christians advocating for the religion. Yes, everyone is a sinner until they accept Christ into their hearts, this can differ from sect to sect in small ways.
How is it okay to say "the left sees these people as evil", but it's not okay to flip that based upon the identical moral reasoning?[/QUOTE]
A. I never took the position that the left thinks the right is evil
B. It's not identical reasoning, only in the most general sense that they are both ideological
C. The idea that Christians think only non-believers are sinners is factually incorrect and shows me that you don't even understand the most basic concepts that constitute Christian ideology.
D. Nothing you're saying has anything to do with what I'm saying. I bolded part of my post for a reason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.