Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tudd;52342974]So who are the arbitrators and what standards should be in place to implement your idea without infringing the constitution?[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure the arbitrators in question are the voters who choose not to vote for people they think wouldn't make great representatives, which is constitutional.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52343014]I'm pretty sure the arbitrators in question are the voters who choose not to vote for people they think wouldn't make great representatives, which is constitutional.[/QUOTE]
In this case, the arbitrator is an elected official acting as part of the government. The constitution is very clear about government discrimination based on religion. It's an open and shut case that's a breach of the constitution.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52343100]In this case, the arbitrator is an elected official acting as part of the government. The constitution is very clear about government discrimination based on religion. It's an open and shut case that's a breach of the constitution.[/QUOTE]
It's more cut and dry than you think, Bernie's objection boils down to only opposing religious exclusivism (and that is assuming it wasn't just an anti-Christian rant by the old timer) which is something already [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education"]covered[/URL] by the SCOTUS:
[QUOTE]The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. [B]Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.[/B] Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or [B]force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.[/B][/QUOTE]
Letting Bernie get his way means only members of religions without exclusivism can hold political office, all exclusivist believers are barred and as such a major breech of the constitution is born.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52342974]So who are the arbitrators and what standards should be in place to implement your idea without infringing the constitution?[/QUOTE]
me
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52343100]In this case, the arbitrator is an elected official acting as part of the government. The constitution is very clear about government discrimination based on religion. It's an open and shut case that's a breach of the constitution.[/QUOTE]
FFS Bernie is acting in the interest of preventing discrimination based on religion.
Would you be okay with having a Muslim in your government who said the following?
[quote]Christians do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Muhammad as the prophet, and they stand condemned.[/quote]
Wouldn't you be worried that this guy might not be fair to Christians?
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52343190]It's more cut and dry than you think, Bernie's objection boils down to only opposing religious exclusivism (and that is assuming it wasn't just an anti-Christian rant by the old timer) which is something already [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education"]covered[/URL] by the SCOTUS:
Letting Bernie get his way means only members of religions without exclusivism can hold political office, all exclusivist believers are barred and as such a major breech of the constitution is born.[/QUOTE]
By this rationale, it would be unconstitutional for Bernie not to vote for someone whose religion demanded that all followers must murder black people.
If he voted against that person, would you say "but he's voting against his religion!"? I think not.
People [i]must[/i] be held accountable for the consequences of their religion and the actions that religion demands they take. People decide [i]on their own[/i] what actions they will perform, and we should judge them accordingly.
[QUOTE=Jcw87;52343372]FFS Bernie is acting in the interest of preventing discrimination based on religion.
Would you be okay with having a Muslim in your government who said the following?
Wouldn't you be worried that this guy might not be fair to Christians?[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course I would let them in government because it's the normative Muslims position. I don't know of any Muslim groups who don't believe the Shahada is necessary to gain Allah's forgiveness, and I know a whole lot of Muslims that would work to protect all rights equally, even though they agree with that position.
Much of this disagreement seems to be based on the abject religious ignorance of people who simply aren't familiar with actual Christian theology.
[QUOTE=geel9;52343431]By this rationale, it would be unconstitutional for Bernie not to vote for someone whose religion demanded that all followers must murder black people.
If he voted against that person, would you say "but he's voting against his religion!"? I think not.
People [i]must[/i] be held accountable for the consequences of their religion and the actions that religion demands they take. People decide [i]on their own[/i] what actions they will perform, and we should judge them accordingly.[/QUOTE]
Not comparable, unless you can prove hell exists or prove blacks cannot be killed you are comparing a situation, that if true, no law can stop and has no legislation opposing it (I'm not sure who has jurisdiction over hell, maybe the ATF?) to a situation already against the law.
EDIT: Really the point you bring up is dismissed by the murder's motivation being religious, which is directly and openly imposing religion onto someone. There is also the whole intent part, these Christians are not the ones passing judgement afaik, that is up to God as far as they are concerned.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52343452]
Much of this disagreement seems to be based on the abject religious ignorance of people who simply aren't familiar with actual Christian theology.[/QUOTE]
The actual theology involved doesn't fucking matter. The fact that you think it does only shows your ignorance to how such a flawed idea would easily be exploited.
By your logic, I can create a religion that demands that its followers be racist, and deflect any attempts to keep its followers out of government with "oh that's the normative position, you are discriminating against my religion".
Shitty behavior is shitty behavior. I don't fucking care what any scripture says on the matter.
[QUOTE=Jcw87;52343510]The actual theology involved doesn't fucking matter. The fact that you think it does only shows your ignorance to how such a flawed idea would easily be exploited.
By your logic, I can create a religion that demands that its followers be racist, and deflect any attempts to keep its followers out of government with "oh that's the normative position, you are discriminating against my religion".
Shitty behavior is shitty behavior. I don't fucking care what any scripture says on the matter.[/QUOTE]
It's relevant because Sanders's argument is theological in nature. He's assuming theological conclusions, that are false by the way, from theological premises. If that theology is incorrect, then the entire argument falls apart.
[QUOTE=Jcw87;52343510]The actual theology involved doesn't fucking matter. The fact that you think it does only shows your ignorance to how such a flawed idea would easily be exploited.
By your logic, I can create a religion that demands that its followers be racist, and deflect any attempts to keep its followers out of government with "oh that's the normative position, you are discriminating against my religion".
Shitty behavior is shitty behavior. I don't fucking care what any scripture says on the matter.[/QUOTE]
What dont you get, you cannot block someone from office for their beliefs but they cant use those beliefs to defend actual actions or intent to commit actions. As soon as someone from that religion abused their position to impose the racist religious belief onto others they would be punished accordingly, that is the whole "freedom from religion" thing. This is why every serial killer doesn't pull the Aztec priest card.
If Bernie had pulled out some policy that Vought had proposed that showed he intended to implement that religious bigotry then I would be right along with him.
Meanwhile in seven states Atheists legally cannot run for office, and are more or less de-facto barred from office regardless due to the ridiculous unpopularity of the position with the electorate.
But I'm sure that Bernie not liking the cut of someone's gib is a massive threat to the ability of Christians to get elected in the United States and is totally important.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52343544]It matters because what you are all saying is Sanders argument is theological in nature. You're saying that the belief that non-Christians are going to hell will make him treat non-Christians as lesser than Christians. That's an argument making theological conclusions.
So you're allowed to come here and make theological conclusions for the Christian, that are false by the way, but the Christian isn't allowed to provide the actual theology in question?[/QUOTE]
I made it pretty explicit that each Christian has their own views on what their religion is. The parts of it they choose to embrace the most is very telling of that persons character. The fact that this guy went and called out another religion by name and declared them as condemned doesn't give me any confidence that he will remain impartial and fair to people of that religion. Now, if he had said something like "God loves all of his people equally", I wouldn't find that to be objectionable.
What the scripture says is irrelevant, because the individual followers ultimately pick and choose what they like.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329733]Every Christian holding a basic traditional belief thinks that all people not putting their hope in Christ stand condemned before him. [B]This also stands for every traditional Muslim about non-Muslims.[/B][/QUOTE]
[url]https://quran.com/109[/url]
:thinking:
[QUOTE=froztshock;52343622]Meanwhile in seven states Atheists legally cannot run for office, and are more or less de-facto barred from office regardless due to the ridiculous unpopularity of the position with the electorate.
But I'm sure that Bernie not liking the cut of someone's gib is a massive threat to the ability of Christians to get elected in the United States and is totally important.[/QUOTE]
Why bring this up? No one here is saying that's a good thing. I sure know I'm not.
[editline]11th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=KingOfScience;52343657][URL]https://quran.com/109[/URL]
:thinking:[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I would rather believe the huge majority, if not all, recognized Muslims scholars over some non-Muslim guy on the internet. If you have knowledge of Islam, then you are required to recite the Shahada to be forgiven by Allah.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52343663]Sorry, I would rather believe the huge majority, if not all, recognized Muslims scholars over some non-Muslim guy on the internet. If you have knowledge of Islam, then you are required to recite the Shahada to be forgiven by Allah.[/QUOTE]
i literally posted a quote from the quran saying that it's okay to not be muslim, if you're not going to accept that then you're delusional tbh
[QUOTE=sgman91;52343663]Why bring this up? No one here is saying that's a good thing. I sure know I'm not.
[editline]11th June 2017[/editline]
Sorry, I would rather believe the huge majority, if not all, recognized Muslims scholars over some non-Muslim guy on the internet. If you have knowledge of Islam, then you are required to recite the Shahada to be forgiven by Allah.[/QUOTE]
I can't run for office at all without lying. If I so much as say "I believe that all people are entitled to their own beliefs, but I personally do not believe in a supreme being or the supernatural of any kind", I will more likely than not lose the race for whatever seat I'm running for.
Meanwhile this guy gets to call an entire religion 'deficient' and gets called out by like one senator who can't on his own stop the appointment anyways and we've had like a ten page thread arguing about whether this is a horrible bad nogood religious test.
Religious tests already exist in this country, you're just not subject to them if you believe in Christ.
[QUOTE=froztshock;52343702]I can't run for office at all without lying. If I so much as say "I believe that all people are entitled to their own beliefs, but I personally do not believe in a supreme being or the supernatural of any kind", I will more likely than not lose the race for whatever seat I'm running for.
Meanwhile this guy gets to call an entire religion 'deficient' and gets called out by like one senator who can't on his own stop the appointment anyways and we've had like a ten page thread arguing about whether this is a horrible bad nogood religious test.
Religious tests already exist in this country, you're just not subject to them if you believe in Christ.[/QUOTE]
One wrong doesn't excuse another. You should sue them to the high heavens in that case, because it is unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52343729]One wrong doesn't excuse another. You should sue them to the high heavens in that case, because it is unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Can't sue an electorate for not voting for you, even if you can get around the laws.
[editline]11th June 2017[/editline]
It's actually interesting, the laws would be the easiest part to get around, but the fact that only something like 40% of americans say they'd be willing to vote for an atheist candidate for public office because they distrust them is the real de-facto test that's basically impossible to overcome.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52343452]Much of this disagreement seems to be based on the abject religious ignorance of people who simply aren't familiar with actual Christian theology.[/QUOTE]
many of us grew up christian
[QUOTE=froztshock;52343622]Meanwhile in seven states Atheists legally cannot run for office, and are more or less de-facto barred from office regardless due to the ridiculous unpopularity of the position with the electorate.
But I'm sure that Bernie not liking the cut of someone's gib is a massive threat to the ability of Christians to get elected in the United States and is totally important.[/QUOTE]
You know it's possible for two things to be bad, simultaneously, right?
[QUOTE=srobins;52343787]You know it's possible for two things to be bad, simultaneously, right?[/QUOTE]
Oh certainly. And perhaps Sanders stepped over the line a bit here, and perhaps he didn't. Doesn't change the fact that Christians are never going to have any real issue getting into office in this country regardless of what Mr. Sanders happens to believe makes up a reasonable candidate.
I do find it interesting, however, that the article which Sanders references when he brings up Vought's statement about Islam being a 'deficient religion' is an article where Vought supports the firing of a tenured theology professor who argued that Islam and Christianity share the same god.
Apparently the Evangelical Protestan Wheaton College didn't really like her saying that all that much... To the point where she deserved to lose her job over it I guess, according to Mr. Vought.
[editline]11th June 2017[/editline]
Here's the [url=http://theresurgent.com/wheaton-college-and-the-preservation-of-theological-clarity/]article[/url], by the way.
Seems Russ Vought isn't a stranger to religious tests in and of himself :thinking:
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52343590]What dont you get, you cannot block someone from office for their beliefs but they cant use those beliefs to defend actual actions or intent to commit actions. As soon as someone from that religion abused their position to impose the racist religious belief onto others they would be punished accordingly, that is the whole "freedom from religion" thing. This is why every serial killer doesn't pull the Aztec priest card.
If Bernie had pulled out some policy that Vought had proposed that showed he intended to implement that religious bigotry then I would be right along with him.[/QUOTE]
This is the very essence of that "just give him a chance!" nonsense. You have to be selective about who you give a chance to, or they can cause real lasting damage. You make these selections primarily based on actions, and when there are no actions to make a decision on, you base it on their stated views. This guy's stated views tell me he may be biased against another religion. Do you know of any actions that suggest otherwise?
What punishments are you refering to? Many times Republicans have tried to justify some action or law with religion. I would [i]love[/i] to see those fucksticks punished. All that happens is the supreme court tells them no, so they instead focus on coming up with alternative excuses to push the same shitty ideas that they tried to push with religion. Oh, and they have 'safe seats' and never go away. Oh, and they are trying to fill the supreme court with people who give zero fucks about separation of church and state, so they can go right back to justifying their shit with religion. I'm not seeing the punishment here, just the slow subversion of the checks and balances of our country.
[editline]Edited:[/editline]
[QUOTE=froztshock;52343834]Oh certainly. And perhaps Sanders stepped over the line a bit here, and perhaps he didn't. Doesn't change the fact that Christians are never going to have any real issue getting into office in this country regardless of what Mr. Sanders happens to believe makes up a reasonable candidate.
I do find it interesting, however, that the article which Sanders references when he brings up Vought's statement about Islam being a 'deficient religion' is an article where Vought supports the firing of a tenured theology professor who argued that Islam and Christianity share the same god.
Apparently the Evangelical Protestan Wheaton College didn't really like her saying that all that much... To the point where she deserved to lose her job over it I guess, according to Mr. Vought.
[editline]11th June 2017[/editline]
Here's the [url=http://theresurgent.com/wheaton-college-and-the-preservation-of-theological-clarity/]article[/url], by the way.
Seems Russ Vought isn't a stranger to religious tests in and of himself :thinking:[/QUOTE]
Oh, would you look at that? An action that supports the idea that Vought may be biased against other religious beliefs. Who would have guessed that?
[QUOTE=KingOfScience;52343673]i literally posted a quote from the quran saying that it's okay to not be muslim, if you're not going to accept that then you're delusional tbh[/QUOTE]
... and? They still believe you're damned to hell, and that's the topic of discussion. The Bible also doesn't call for any sort of forceful conversion. So I'm not seeing how your point is relevant.
[editline]11th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52343745]many of us grew up christian[/QUOTE]
You say that as if it matters at all. The vast majority of Christians don't even read the Bible or go to church, let alone do personal serious study.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52344192]You say that as if it matters at all. The vast majority of Christians don't even read the Bible or go to church, let alone do personal serious study.[/QUOTE]
presumptuous
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52343461]Not comparable, unless you can prove hell exists or prove blacks cannot be killed you are comparing a situation, that if true, no law can stop and has no legislation opposing it (I'm not sure who has jurisdiction over hell, maybe the ATF?) to a situation already against the law.
EDIT: Really the point you bring up is dismissed by the murder's motivation being religious, which is directly and openly imposing religion onto someone. There is also the whole intent part, these Christians are not the ones passing judgement afaik, that is up to God as far as they are concerned.[/QUOTE]
...yes, and the argument is that because he views muslims as being condemned he would be biased against them in his actions as a representative. The fact that that bias is informed by his religion affords him no protection.
This guy already supported a professor being fired for not holding the right religious views. That's demonstrable evidence that not only does he have bias, he has [i]already taken actions affected by his bias.[/i]
Sanders was 100% in the right.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52344369]presumptuous[/QUOTE]
How is stating a fact presumptuous?
[editline]11th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=geel9;52344687]...yes, and the argument is that because he views muslims as being condemned he would be biased against them in his actions as a representative. The fact that that bias is informed by his religion affords him no protection.
This guy already supported a professor being fired for not holding the right religious views. That's demonstrable evidence that not only does he have bias, he has [I]already taken actions affected by his bias.[/I]
Sanders was 100% in the right.[/QUOTE]
Keeping that professor would be like keeping a professor of environmental biology who denies evolution at Harvard.
The guy was a professor at an explicitly Christian school while also denying the statement of faith of the school. Trying to draw some connection to this and how a government employee would act is just plain crazy.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52345100]How is stating a fact presumptuous?
[/QUOTE]
Not that I disagree or agree, though I have looked it up, but I believe they said that because you claimed it to be truth without posting a statistic/citation to back it up. The way you brought it up came across as something that was an opinion rather than a fact.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52345100]
The guy was a professor at an explicitly Christian school while also denying the statement of faith of the school. Trying to draw some connection to this and how a government employee would act is just plain crazy.[/QUOTE]
Stating that the god in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the same god isn't exactly a controversial statement. Christianity and Islam both derive from Judaism, with their primary disagreement being who the prophet is.
Trying to deny the common roots of these religions sounds like historical revisionism to me.
[QUOTE=Jcw87;52345324]Stating that the god in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the same god isn't exactly a controversial statement. Christianity and Islam both derive from Judaism, with their primary disagreement being who the prophet is.
[B]Trying to deny the common roots of these religions sounds like historical revisionism to me[/B].[/QUOTE]
I feel like you guys keep making these ridiculous statements that anybody would agree is totally fucking absurd if they were said aloud in a group of people rather than on an internet forum. While the concept of the Muslim and Christian gods being the same entity isn't far fetched or controversial, there are still plenty of religious people who believe their god is exclusive to their religion and that other religions were following a false or separate god. Calling that historical revisionism is absolutely ridiculous.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.