• Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
    443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=srobins;52338905]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?[/QUOTE] Okay maybe I'm stupid and you're not but I didn't see that as an undeniable demonstration just because you said it. Plurality exists you know. Multiple options and interpretations exist. I'm sure that you KNOW I know nothing about religion but your false implication doesn't mean that's true either. You said something, you didn't demonstrate something in an undeniable fashion I just don't believe you're really following me here
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52338913]Okay maybe I'm stupid and you're not but I didn't see that as an undeniable demonstration just because you said it. Plurality exists you know. Multiple options and interpretations exist. I'm sure that you KNOW I know nothing about religion but your false implication doesn't mean that's true either. You said something, you didn't demonstrate something in an undeniable fashion I just don't believe you're really following me here[/QUOTE] Sure, that's fair. That's why I'm asking you to respond and explain to me specifically why you disagree with the idea that [B]there is a difference between believing someone is condemned by God, as according to scripture, and believing that somebody is inferior or inherently bad as a result[/B]. Is it possible that the first belief could lead to or influence the second belief? Definitely! Just like it's possible that the belief that men and women are biologically different could lead to or influence the belief that one sex is inferior/superior to the other. But does that mean that will always be the case? Absolutely not. [B]It is entirely possible and logically sound to believe that someone may be condemned by God without personally believing they are an inferior or evil person[/B].
Possible, I'll concede that. I don't find it likely but I understand my skepticism is based in my own negative experiences with the religious in my neighbourhoods.
[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] You're the one totally missing the point dude. [B]For the umpteenth time,[/B] it's precisely because they have empathy for non-believers that they impose their religion on them. Never have I claimed that belief in religious condemnation of non-believers means seeing them as subhumans or worthy of hate. What it does mean is that this belief, which is transparently designed to assert the dominance of the religion in question, can lead to forcing religious standards on those who don't follow said religion, "for their own good". [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] Good thing I haven't said any of that and you're putting words in my mouth as usual.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52338936]You're the one totally missing the point dude. [B]For the umpteenth time,[/B] it's precisely because they have empathy for non-believers that they impose their religion on them. Never have I claimed that belief in religious condemnation of non-believers means seeing them as subhumans or worthy of hate. What it does mean is that this belief, which is transparently designed to assert the dominance of the religion in question, can lead to forcing religious standards on those who don't follow said religion, "for their own good". Good thing I haven't said any of that and you're putting words in my mouth as usual.[/QUOTE] Sorry, maybe I'm losing track of where everyone in this discussion is at. I don't disagree that empathy for the non-believer [B]can[/B] lead to imposing one's religion on the non-believer, but I have two issues with that statement: 1. [B]Can[/B] is the operative word. A bit of caution and skepticism around religious public figures is perfectly healthy, but the simple fact that they [B]can[/B] be influenced to impose their religion on the public doesn't mean that they [B]will[/B]. In this case I would say you should let the man serve and if he actually tries to do something bad or religiously motivated, then feel free to complain and kick him out! Just like not every atheist is on a personal crusade to destroy religion, not every religious person is out to impose religious law on an unwitting public. 2. This isn't what Sanders articulated, so I still disagree with Sanders line of questioning which seems to imply that if you think other religions are invalid (the basis of almost every monotheistic religion on Earth) you are not fit to serve public office.
[QUOTE=srobins;52338958]Sorry, maybe I'm losing track of where everyone in this discussion is at. I don't disagree that empathy for the non-believer [B]can[/B] lead to imposing one's religion on the non-believer, but I have two issues with that statement: 1. [B]Can[/B] is the operative word. A bit of caution and skepticism around religious public figures is perfectly healthy, but the simple fact that they [B]can[/B] be influenced to impose their religion on the public doesn't mean that they [B]will[/B]. In this case I would say you should let the man serve and if he actually tries to do something bad or religiously motivated, then feel free to complain and kick him out! Just like not every atheist is on a personal crusade to destroy religion, not every religious person is out to impose religious law on an unwitting public. 2. This isn't what Sanders articulated, so I still disagree with Sanders line of questioning which seems to imply that if you think other religions are invalid (the basis of almost every monotheistic religion on Earth) you are not fit to serve public office.[/QUOTE] It's still a factor of concern, though. Just because it isn't guaranteed to happen doesn't mean there's no risk. Just like an ex-con is not guaranteed to commit crimes again, that doesn't mean I won't hesitate when it comes to hiring him for my company. Likewise, religious people who strongly affirm their beliefs that all non-believers are condemned are less likely to get my vote than religious people who have more sensible views or non-religious people.
[QUOTE=srobins;52338928]That's why I'm asking you to respond and explain to me specifically why you disagree with the idea that [B]there is a difference between believing someone is condemned by God, as according to scripture, and believing that somebody is inferior or inherently bad as a result[/B].[/QUOTE] Why would someone follow a god that condemns innocent, equal people? For this to hold up logically, the believer in question would either have to support eternal torture of the innocent, or be opposed to the god they believe in.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52338983]It's still a factor of concern, though. Just because it isn't guaranteed to happen doesn't mean there's no risk. Just like an ex-con is not guaranteed to commit crimes again, that doesn't mean I won't hesitate when it comes to hiring him for my company. Likewise, religious people who strongly affirm their beliefs that all non-believers are condemned are less likely to get my vote than religious people who have more sensible views or non-religious people.[/QUOTE] I mean, sure, I probably wouldn't vote for this guy either. Like I've said a few times though, I just heavily disagree with Sanders' line of questioning because it's based on a principle that could exclude almost all religious people from holding public office. I definitely wouldn't disagree with your reasoning when applied to just you, individually choosing not to vote for him though! [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52339011]Why would someone follow a god that condemns innocent, equal people? For this to hold up logically, the believer in question would either have to support eternal torture of the innocent, or be opposed to the god they believe in.[/QUOTE] Once again, I'm not here for a debate about the ethics of religion in general. I agree with what you're saying in principle but I don't think it's reasonable to disallow religious people from holding public office, as much as I personally detest religion as a whole.
[QUOTE=srobins;52339087]I mean, sure, I probably wouldn't vote for this guy either. Like I've said a few times though, I just heavily disagree with Sanders' line of questioning because it's based on a principle that could exclude almost all religious people from holding public office. I definitely wouldn't disagree with your reasoning when applied to just you, individually choosing not to vote for him though![/quote] I don't really get why Sanders not voting for him for the same reason I wouldn't is different from me doing the same thing. [editline]11th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;52339087]Once again, I'm not here for a debate about the ethics of religion in general. I agree with what you're saying in principle but I don't think it's reasonable to disallow religious people from holding public office, as much as I personally detest religion as a whole.[/QUOTE] I think his point is that religious people who believe non-believers are condemned either think they deserve it or hate the god they believe in for being unjustly cruel. I doubt a lot of devout Christians fall into the latter category.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52339104]I don't really get why Sanders not voting for him for the same reason I wouldn't is different from me doing the same thing.[/QUOTE] Because I think it's inappropriate for another elected official to reject a potential candidate for public office based on what I think is a largely personal negative view of religion. You can choose not to vote for somebody if the wind blows the wrong way and it's your business, I don't think it's right for Sanders to deny this guy a chance based on such a weak premise that amounts to "well.. MAYBE he'll do something I don't like!". [editline]11th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52339104]I think his point is that religious people who believe non-believers are condemned either think they deserve it or hate the god they believe in for being unjustly cruel. I doubt a lot of devout Christians fall into the latter category.[/QUOTE] That sounds a lot like you just inserting your own viewpoint into Sanders' mouth. What he actually expressed is that if you think non-believers are condemned, you have a personal issue or bias against them. I don't think that's the case, especially given that that principle would apply to, again, almost every religious person in the country.
[QUOTE=srobins;52339115]Because I think it's inappropriate for another elected official to reject a potential candidate for public office based on what I think is a largely personal negative view of religion. You can choose not to vote for somebody if the wind blows the wrong way and it's your business, I don't think it's right for Sanders to deny this guy a chance based on such a weak premise that amounts to "well.. MAYBE he'll do something I don't like!".[/QUOTE] I'm under the impression you're repeating your previous argument. If he believes the associated risk is too great then he's justified in voting against him, just because there isn't 100% certainty something bad will happen doesn't mean risks should be disregarded.
To be specific, the third option in your "they either think they deserve it or hate their own God", that nobody seems to be willing to acknowledge, is that they hope and pray that non-believers will at some point in their lives see the light and convert, and feel pity for those that do not. They're not sitting around thinking about how much they deserve to burn in hell, and even though I agree that the Christian God is unnecessarily cruel, you're being a bit daft if you seriously expect people who are often indoctrinated into an illogical belief structure from birth to question the ethics of literal God. [editline]11th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52339132]I'm under the impression you're repeating your previous argument. If he believes the associated risk is too great then he's justified in voting against him, just because there isn't 100% certainty something bad will happen doesn't mean risks should be disregarded.[/QUOTE] Well I disagree with his belief that the associated risk is too great, I think his reasoning is weak and stands on incredibly shaky and presumptuous grounds and he's being unreasonable and unfair by making the assumption that simply believing in the most basic of Christian ideas makes you hateful of non-Christians.
[QUOTE=srobins;52339115]That sounds a lot like you just inserting your own viewpoint into Sanders' mouth. What he actually expressed is that if you think non-believers are condemned, you have a personal issue or bias against them. I don't think that's the case, especially given that that principle would apply to, again, almost every religious person in the country.[/QUOTE] Not talking about Sanders' but Sherow's point. Wouldn't you say that believing someone deserve eternal suffering be a form of bias against them? [editline]11th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;52339135]Well I disagree with his belief that the associated risk is too great, I think his reasoning is weak and stands on incredibly shaky and presumptuous grounds and he's being unreasonable and unfair by making the assumption that simply believing in the most basic of Christian ideas makes you hateful of non-Christians.[/QUOTE] So you would disagree with my decision not to vote for him as well.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52339140]Not talking about Sanders' but Sherow's point. Wouldn't you say that [B]believing someone deserve eternal suffering[/B] be a form of bias against them?[/QUOTE] Oh my bad. RE: Bolded, this is the assumption you keep making that I fundamentally disagree with. Every Christian I've met and discussed this with in real life has come from either a place of neutrality or pity. They either don't concern themselves with the spirituality of others (as most reasonable people do), or they hope and pray that the non-believer will find Christ someday and be saved. Neither of those are remotely as nefarious as you seem to imply.
[QUOTE=srobins;52339135]To be specific, the third option in your "they either think they deserve it or hate their own God", that nobody seems to be willing to acknowledge, is that they hope and pray that non-believers will at some point in their lives see the light and convert, and feel pity for those that do not. They're not sitting around thinking about how much they deserve to burn in hell, and even though I agree that the Christian God is unnecessarily cruel, you're being a bit daft if you seriously expect people who are often indoctrinated into an illogical belief structure from birth to question the ethics of literal God.[/QUOTE] If they don't question their God utterly disregarding the principles he demands his followers respect, then that's a lack of critical thinking I wouldn't want my representative to have.
I've never met somebody that believes non-believers [I]deserve[/I] eternal suffering.. It's just in the context of their religion, that's what those people will receive.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52339140]So you would disagree with my decision not to vote for him as well.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say that, it's more that I hold Sanders' vote to a higher standard. I can see the reasoning behind your decision, though I think it's a little.. Not extreme, but just a bit too much. Like, a bit too assuming, but at the same time, I'm pretty anti-religion myself so I kind of agree with a "fuck it" attitude. I think Sanders should have a much more solid foundation for the reason behind his vote, because of his position and the weight his vote carries compared to a normal citizen, if that makes sense.
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52339160]I've never met somebody that believes non-believers [I]deserve[/I] eternal suffering.. It's just in the context of their religion, that's what those people will receive.[/QUOTE] And those Christians see absolutely​ nothing wrong with their all-loving omnipotent god being a cruel asshole?
[QUOTE=_Axel;52339157]If they don't question their God utterly disregarding the principles he demands his followers respect, then that's a lack of critical thinking I wouldn't want my representative to have.[/QUOTE] Again, fair point, but given that this argument extends to pretty much all religious people in the United States and elsewhere, I don't think it's reasonable to say that religious people aren't allowed to hold public office because they hold a belief that you and I consider illogical. As long as they can keep their beliefs from influencing policy, like many religious public servants do without issue, they deserve the chance to serve just like anybody else.
[QUOTE=srobins;52339167]Again, fair point, but given that this argument extends to pretty much all religious people in the United States and elsewhere, I don't think it's reasonable to say that religious people aren't allowed to hold public office because they hold a belief that you and I consider illogical. As long as they can keep their beliefs from influencing policy, like many religious public servants do without issue, they deserve the chance to serve just like anybody else.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between banning religious people from taking office and not voting for them because you don't think they'd make good representatives.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52339163]And those Christians see absolutely​ nothing wrong with their all-loving omnipotent god being a cruel asshole?[/QUOTE] I think once you believe the story of Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve, you wouldn't put much past your God. But you're rigging this toward Christians, when that's literally the case with any religion that believes in damnation (read: most of today's religions)
[QUOTE=_Axel;52339172]There's a difference between banning religious people from taking office and not voting for them because you don't think they'd make good representatives.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but the criteria on which you're deciding that they wouldn't make a good representative applies to virtually every religious person in America, so it's pretty much the same thing. Maybe some uber-progressive "modern religious" types will pass your litmus test, but I think it's incredibly harsh.
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52339173]I think once you believe the story of Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve, you wouldn't put much past your God. But you're rigging this toward Christians, when that's literally the case with any religion that believes in damnation (read: most of today's religions)[/QUOTE] I'm mentioning Christians because of the threads topic but my reasoning would apply to other similar religions, of course. The concept of worshipping a cruel being comes off as an unhealthy state of mind to me. Somewhat like some form of Stockholm syndrome. That seems like a really archaic aspect of monotheistic religions that people would be better off doing away with. People have enough actual problems as it is without worrying about an all-powerful being being unjustly cruel to them. [editline]11th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;52339183]Yeah, but the criteria on which you're deciding that they wouldn't make a good representative applies to virtually every religious person in America, so it's pretty much the same thing. Maybe some uber-progressive "modern religious" types will pass your litmus test, but I think it's incredibly harsh.[/QUOTE] There's still a difference between a single senator denying a vote on those grounds and them being outright banned from office.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52339195]There's still a difference between a single senator denying a vote on those grounds and them being outright banned from office.[/QUOTE] Definitely, I'm only saying the principle he denied him on extends to an unreasonably large demographic and for that reason I think Sanders' criteria is far too weak. I understand that this move by Sanders isn't going to usher in a new secular political revolution or something, but I still disagree with this individual action (and the fact that it's being praised as a competent religious litmus test).
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52339160]I've never met somebody that believes non-believers [I]deserve[/I] eternal suffering.. It's just in the context of their religion, that's what those people will receive.[/QUOTE] I have. [editline]10th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=KingofBeast;52339173]I think once you believe the story of Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve, you wouldn't put much past your God. But you're rigging this toward Christians, when that's literally the case with any religion that believes in damnation (read: most of today's religions)[/QUOTE] Depending on who you ask those are allegories or metaphors. Anyone who believes those literally shouldn't hold office.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52339011]Why would someone follow a god that condemns innocent, equal people? For this to hold up logically, the believer in question would either have to support eternal torture of the innocent, or be opposed to the god they believe in. [QUOTE=srobins;52339087]Once again, I'm not here for a debate about the ethics of religion in general. I agree with what you're saying in principle but I don't think it's reasonable to disallow religious people from holding public office, as much as I personally detest religion as a whole.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] But what I said directly contradicts what you said. I don't think it's possible to have this debate without going into the faith itself. It is logically impossible to support this exclusive Christian god [I]and[/I] think that non-believers aren't evil and inferior. Therefore anyone who expresses devotion to such a religion must either support eternal torture of the innocent or be unable to think logically, both of which should render you unfit for office. And I just want to re-iterate that not every religious person, not even every Christian, believes that all non-believers go to hell. Not every Christian will dig out bible verses to make arguments about why exactly their interpretation and only their interpretation will save you from eternal hell. Not every Christian takes issue with the implication that good people can go to heaven in other ways than accepting Jesus, to the point of writing a bible thumping article that makes it clear that non-believers will suffer forever. I don't know if this is the norm in American politics, but I personally think that's extremist levels of religion.
[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] You know exactly what statements in particular I'm referring to, sgman. Are you so desperate at this point that you'd pretend I'm making a weaker argument? Hell, you still haven't properly addressed the core points I've been making this whole time. I'd like to remind you of a similar incident in Facepunch history. Do the words "Gas the kikes doesn't objectively mean kill the Jews" ring any bells? Your arguments sound every bit as stupid, since you're genuinely arguing that a man who makes a public statement about a Muslim minority with "They stand condemned" doesn't really have any personal bias against them, and is totally fit to represent them in government. To see anyone actually defending this degeneracy is disgusting.
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52339160]I've never met somebody that believes non-believers [I]deserve[/I] eternal suffering.. It's just in the context of their religion, that's what those people will receive.[/QUOTE] I can't stand this argument to be honest. "Oh I don't [I]personally[/I] believe you deserve eternal torture but I'm still happily following the religion that says you do." Is there really a functional difference there? Clearly they don't have a problem with it, else they wouldn't be followers.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52341131]I can't stand this argument to be honest. "Oh I don't [I]personally[/I] believe you deserve eternal torture but I'm still happily following the religion that says you do." Is there really a functional difference there? Clearly they don't have a problem with it, else they wouldn't be followers.[/QUOTE] yep, cant think logically shouldnt be in office end of story
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52342758]yep, cant think logically shouldnt be in office end of story[/QUOTE] So who are the arbitrators and what standards should be in place to implement your idea without infringing the constitution?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.