• Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
    443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329820]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.[/QUOTE] I think his point was more along the lines of the comment that Muslims are inferior because they aren't Christian that seems to bother him. This whole thing seems, in my opinion, to be Sanders saying that if your beliefs are getting in the way of doing your job in a more-or-less objective way and you start to judge people based on beliefs that you hold and they don't, you are on the path to moving backwards. We have seen this happen many times with things like gay rights, abortion, and so forth where suddenly the religious are comfortable with applying their religion to a law that governs millions who don't even follow the same one, or one at all, so I would agree with it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52329851]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?[/QUOTE] Are you reading what I'm saying? He didn't just not explicitly say that he wouldn't base policy off of it. He said that it has nothing to do with him not treating specific groups with respect. Can you clarify what policy would flow from the belief that forgiveness is only found in Christ and why we should think that this man would carry through with those policies? [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Xion21;52329859]I think his point was more along the lines of the comment that Muslims are inferior because they aren't Christian that seems to bother him. This whole thing seems, in my opinion, to be Sanders saying that if your beliefs are getting in the way of doing your job in a more-or-less objective way and you start to judge people based on beliefs that you hold and they don't, you are on the path to moving backwards. We have seen this happen many times with things like gay rights, abortion, and so forth where suddenly the religious are comfortable with applying their religion to a law that governs millions who don't even follow the same one, or one at all, so I would agree with it.[/QUOTE] Can you point to where he said Muslims are inferior? He said that forgiveness is found in Christ and all those, specifically Muslims because of the context of his original statement, outside of Christ are condemned in their sin.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329860]Are you reading what I'm saying? He didn't just not explicitly say that he wouldn't base policy off of it. He said that it has nothing to do with him not treating specific groups with respect. Can you clarify what policy would flow from the belief that forgiveness is only found in Christ and why we should think that this man would carry through with those policies?[/QUOTE] why are you finding it so difficult to answer these very simple questions :v
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52329866]why are you finding it so difficult to answer these very simple questions :v[/QUOTE] Because it's a dishonest question that doesn't apply to the situation at hand?
To some extent, skepticism of religion is inherent in the foundations of our political system. There's a reason we have the separation of church and state, among other things. I don't find Sanders' position particularly problematic here. It's in line with Thomas Paine's writings on religion in politics, and the general sentiment shared by the Deist and Christian-Deist founders*. If your religion is going to interfere with how you view or interact with the people you represent, then perhaps that position isn't right for you. That doesn't mean Christians can't or shouldn't be politicians, but that their duty should be to country before church. What they do personally is up to them, but their political actions should be secular in nature. [I]*I know I'm invoking the founders here, and I know that's touchy, considering the founder-worship that's become so widespread. On the subject of religion, however, they were quite progressive for their time, and some of their ideas are even progressive today.[/I]
Hopefully, Bernie would ask that question rigorously to anyone, regardless of the religious affiliation. Though I personally doubt that, and also find the question generally inappropriate, considering I don't expect a Muslim to view other believers as having salvation since it would defeat the point of practicing your religion to ensure your going to whatever conceptual promise-land guaranteed by faith. I'm sorry Bernie, but a great deal many of Americans have led great careers thinking their religion was the only one guaranteed for salvation, and it didn't factor into their other achievements.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329868]Because it's a dishonest question that doesn't apply to the situation at hand?[/QUOTE] how is it dishonest? It's an extremely simple question about your beliefs in regard to the relationship between political positions and religious beliefs, which is what we're talking about right now. yet for some reason you just can't bring yourself to answer yes or no
[QUOTE=El Periodista;52329879]To some extent, skepticism of religion is inherent in the foundations of our political system. There's a reason we have the separation of church and state, among other things. I don't find Sanders' position particularly problematic here. It's in line with Thomas Paine's writings on religion in politics, and the general sentiment shared by the Deist and Christian-Deist founders*. If your religion is going to interfere with how you view or interact with the people you represent, then perhaps that position isn't right for you. That doesn't mean Christians can't or shouldn't be politicians, but that their duty should be to country before church. What they do personally is up to them, but their political actions should be secular in nature. [I]*I know I'm invoking the founders here, and I know that's touchy, considering the founder-worship that's become so widespread. On the subject of religion, however, they were quite progressive for their time, and some of their ideas are even progressive today.[/I][/QUOTE] No founder would have had a problem with a political leader holding the position stated by the man being interviewed. Not a single one. How do I know? Because the vast majority of people, including the majority of the founders, would have agreed with it. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52329887]how is it dishonest? It's an extremely simple question about your beliefs in regard to the relationship between political positions and religious beliefs, which is what we're talking about right now. yet for some reason you just can't bring yourself to answer yes or no[/QUOTE] It's dishonest because it's not what is happening here. You're trying to establish a situation by giving false analogies and misleading questions instead of addressing the real issue at hand, and I have no intention to fall for it.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52329886]Hopefully, Bernie would ask that question rigorously to anyone, regardless of the religious affiliation. Though I personally doubt that, and also find the question generally inappropriate, considering I don't expect a Muslim to view other believers as having salvation since it would defeat the point of practicing your religion to ensure your going to whatever conceptual promise-land guaranteed by belief. I'm sorry Bernie, but a great deal many of Americans have led great careers thinking their religion was the right one, and it didn't factor into their other achievements.[/QUOTE] The obvious difference here is between simply holding the beliefs in your personal life, and letting them outwardly affect your legislation and create some warped agenda in your lawmaking. One of those is fine, wonderful even, the other is something we need a lot less of and I don't blame Bernie for asking questions like these, he said it correctly: "This country, since its inception, has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms … we must not go backwards."
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329733]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.[/QUOTE] Do they have to follow every single rule?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329891]No founder would have had a problem with a political leader holding the position stated by the man being interviewed. Not a single one. How do I know? Because the vast majority of people, including the majority of the founders, would have agreed with it. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] It's dishonest because it's not what is happening here. You're trying to establish a situation by giving false analogies and misleading questions instead of addressing the real issue at hand, and I have no intention to fall for it.[/QUOTE] okay so since you won't clarify I'm just going to do a little speculation I'm just gonna assume that you don't want to say that religious beliefs are beyond scrutiny when judging someone's eligibility for office because there are a shit ton of religious beliefs that would affect your judgement of a candidates eligibility. Which makes sense, because religious beliefs affect what people do. You probably wouldn't want a devout scientologist in a position of power, regardless of how often they say they won't let their burning hatred for the subhuman psychiatrists affect their decision making. but the problem is that if you accept that religious beliefs CAN be scrutinized, this just becomes "Bernie makes judgement I don't agree with" and not "Bernie crosses moral rubicon".
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52329940]okay so since you won't clarify I'm just going to do a little speculation I'm just gonna assume that you don't want to say that religious beliefs are beyond scrutiny when judging someone's eligibility for office because there are a shit ton of religious beliefs that would affect your judgement of a candidates eligibility. Which makes sense, because religious beliefs affect what people do. You probably wouldn't want a devout scientologist in a position of power, regardless of how often they say they won't let their burning hatred for the subhuman psychiatrists affect their decision making. but the problem is that if you accept that religious beliefs CAN be scrutinized, this just becomes "Bernie makes judgement I don't agree with" and not "Bernie crosses moral rubicon".[/QUOTE] I actually don't think you're reading my posts. As I said before, the statement, "Religious beliefs can affect policy" is not equivalent to, "Every religious belief must affect policy." Establishing that there are some religious beliefs that can justifiably effect one's fitness for office does not establish that Sanders, in this specific case, is justified. I ignored your questions because this is the false assumption that you're working under. It's simply fallacious logic. Are there some religious beliefs that matter? Sure, for example, if I said that I think black people are subhuman, then that would would have clear policy implications, but that isn't what happened here. There are no clear policy consequences from thinking that all people outside Christ are condemned in front of God for their sin. This doesn't mean I'm going to treat them differently. It doesn't mean I think they deserve punishment in this world. Etc. The man in question made this clarification when he said that all people deserve respect. In THIS case, Sanders is disagreeing with the theology, not any policy implications. Sanders did NOT say, "I don't think he's fit because I'm afraid of X or Y policy." He said that he doesn't like his theological position on it's face because exclusive claims are inherently "discriminatory."
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329981]I actually don't think you're reading my posts. As I said before, the statement, "Religious beliefs can affect policy" is not equivalent to, "Every religious belief must affect policy." Establishing that there are some religious beliefs that can justifiably effect one's fitness for office does not establish that Sanders, in this specific case, is justified. I ignored your questions because this is the false assumption that you're working under. It's simply fallacious logic. Are there some religious beliefs that matter? Sure, for example, if I said that I think black people are subhuman, then that would would have clear policy implications, but that isn't what happened here. There are no clear policy consequences from thinking that all people outside Christ are condemned in front of God for their sin. This doesn't mean I'm going to treat them differently. It doesn't mean I think they deserve punishment in this world. Etc. The man in question made this clarification when he said that all people deserve respect. In THIS case, Sanders is disagreeing with the theology, not any policy implications. Sanders did NOT say, "I don't think he's fit because I'm afraid of X or Y policy." He said that he doesn't like his theological position on it's face because exclusive claims are inherently "discriminatory."[/QUOTE] so your complaint here isn't that bernie sanders is using a "religious test", because you think religious beliefs affect the viability of candidates too you just disagree with his judgement of this specific person
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52329940]okay so since you won't clarify I'm just going to do a little speculation I'm just gonna assume that you don't want to say that religious beliefs are beyond scrutiny when judging someone's eligibility for office because there are a shit ton of religious beliefs that would affect your judgement of a candidates eligibility. Which makes sense, because religious beliefs affect what people do. You probably wouldn't want a devout scientologist in a position of power, regardless of how often they say they won't let their burning hatred for the subhuman psychiatrists affect their decision making. but the problem is that if you accept that religious beliefs CAN be scrutinized, this just becomes "Bernie makes judgement I don't agree with" and not "Bernie crosses moral rubicon".[/QUOTE] Aside from pre-emptively assuming certain religious groups will breach their oaths to uphold the constitution you are directly saying a multitude of religions are incompatible with holding political office. All it takes is asking someone how their religion feels about non-believers and you put someone between condemning their religion in order to satisfy an unfair accusation and using their constitutional freedom of religion and being denied office due to it. As an aside I can see this line of thinking kicking a whole bunch of people to the curb. Lets start with anyone who has said anything derogatory about the certain groups like say "Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders", well that is a pretty damning quote, how can the person saying that ever be expected to treat billionaire American citizens fairly?
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52330026]Aside from pre-emptively assuming certain religious groups will breach their oaths to uphold the constitution you are directly saying a multitude of religions are incompatible with holding political office. All it takes is asking someone how their religion feels about non-believers and you put someone between condemning their religion in order to satisfy an unfair accusation and using their constitutional freedom of religion and being denied office due to it. As an aside I can see this line of thinking kicking a whole bunch of people to the curb. Lets start with anyone who has said anything derogatory about the certain groups like say "Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders", well that is a pretty damning quote, how can the person saying that ever be expected to treat billionaire American citizens fairly?[/QUOTE] We aren't talking about candidates being refused office on the basis of their religion. We're talking about the religion of candidates affecting whether or not people choose to support them. Do you understand what the difference is?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52330045]We aren't talking about candidates being refused office on the basis of their religion. We're talking about the religion of candidates affecting whether or not people choose to support them. Do you understand what the difference is?[/QUOTE] Bernie not supporting someone due to their religious beliefs is exactly refusing someone based on religion. What is hard to grasp about that?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52330016]so your complaint here isn't that bernie sanders is using a "religious test", because you think religious beliefs affect the viability of candidates too you just disagree with his judgement of this specific person[/QUOTE] The difference between something being a religious test and not being a religious test is whether you're concerned with specific policy or character flaws, whether founded on a religious belief or not, or whether you're just disagreeing with a theological doctrine because you find it unnacceptable. In this case, Sanders is doing the latter. He does not find anyone who thinks that there is only one way to find divine forgiveness is fit for office. That is a theological disagreement, not a policy or character flaw.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52330098]Bernie not supporting someone due to their religious beliefs is exactly refusing someone based on religion. What is hard to grasp about that?[/QUOTE] I'm really not sure about what the situation is legally in this instance, but when we're just talking about things in a moral sense, there's a big difference between the two. Having official bans on specific religious groups holding political office is bad because you're disenfranchising that group of people from the political process. You're forbidding them from even attempting to represent themselves, which goes completely against the principles of any democratic society. However, just because a particular religious ideology isn't banned, doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to ignore it when deciding who to support and who not to support. If someone holding a belief for a non religious reason would make you unwilling to support them, it would be silly to continue to support them if they held that same belief for a religious reason. Like I said, I really don't know what the situation is here legally. I just can't listen to people whine about religious persecution when they do the exact same fucking shit all the time.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52330156]However, just because a particular religious ideology isn't banned, doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to ignore it when deciding who to support and who not to support. [B]If someone holding a belief for a non religious reason would make you unwilling to support them, it would be silly to continue to support them if they held that same belief for a religious reason.[/B][/QUOTE] Literally no one is saying this, though. I've even specifically given examples of religious beliefs that would justifiably lead to one being unfit for office.
[QUOTE=Xion21;52329927]The obvious difference here is between simply holding the beliefs in your personal life, and letting them outwardly affect your legislation and create some warped agenda in your lawmaking. One of those is fine, wonderful even, the other is something we need a lot less of and I don't blame Bernie for asking questions like these, he said it correctly: "This country, since its inception, has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms … we must not go backwards."[/QUOTE] Except this country was literally founded by people who let religion guide their decisions in a magnitude of ways. Just go read up on Thomas Jefferson. They just wanted to make sure that others had the same opportunities. As far as I am concerned, the belief that group isn't getting the same salvation of you is not a conflict of church and state if the person still practices religious freedom in implementing policies, because quite simply there are other religions who wouldn't believe in salvation of others either. Essentially, Bernie Sanders is prejudging this guy despite other religious people who hold the same exact view and are in positions of government. Like Muslims that Sanders mentions specifically hold the same concept of salvation.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52330148]The difference between something being a religious test and not being a religious test is whether you're concerned with specific policy or character flaws, whether founded on a religious belief or not, or whether you're just disagreeing with a theological doctrine because you find it unnacceptable. In this case, Sanders is doing the latter. He does not find anyone who thinks that there is only one way to find divine forgiveness is fit for office. That is a theological disagreement, not a policy or character flaw.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure he would make the argument that this person would treat people he sees as being condemned by God differently, regardless of what his stated position is. Whether you agree or disagree with his opinion, I don't see how that's any different from not approving of a candidate who believes women should be subservient to men because you think they would end up discriminating against women as a result of their beliefs.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52330189]I'm pretty sure he would make the argument that this person would treat people he sees as being condemned by God differently, regardless of what his stated position is. Whether you agree or disagree with his opinion, I don't see how that's any different from not approving of a candidate who believes women should be subservient to men because you think they would end up discriminating against women as a result of their beliefs.[/QUOTE] Except he didn't make that argument and when asked, the guy specifically said that he intends to respect all people. The difference is that that belief has CLEAR policy implications. I asked you before, but you didn't want to answer; So I'll ask you again: What policy implications flow from the idea that forgiveness is only found in Christ? When answering, remember that essentially every US politician in it's history would have agreed with that statement.
just stop being christian, problem solved
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52330233]just stop being christian, problem solved[/QUOTE] That seems to be Sanders's conclusion, yes.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52330243]That seems to be Sanders's conclusion, yes.[/QUOTE] not really but it shouldve been
[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 a test in the slightest way. A religious test would be Sanders telling Vought to prove he is a Christian man, not telling him that his beliefs are offensive. Stop acting persecuted simply because someone is telling you something you don't want to hear about your religion.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52330185]Except this country was literally founded by people who let religion guide their decisions in a magnitude of ways.[/QUOTE] Really shows in that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" bit of the constitution. Just screams Christian supremacy.
Interepreting this as a religious test is really just grasping at straws, which can be demonstrated if you were to make the exact same statement about someone who wasn't religious. It would be a religious test if he had to agree with Sanders before being allowed to hold office. Calling someone out for being a dick does not suddenly become a religious test if the dick in question happens to be Christian, and being Christian does not exempt you from being held accountable for pushing horrifying shit.
[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] oh thanks pal yeah, atheism is totally equatable with flat eartherism. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] if you wonder why people reply to you with such incredulity it's probably because you demand respect while failing to give it out [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52330243]That seems to be Sanders's conclusion, yes.[/QUOTE] No Laughable, but no Try harder. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52330185]Except this country was literally founded by people who let religion guide their decisions in a magnitude of ways. Just go read up on Thomas Jefferson. They just wanted to make sure that others had the same opportunities. As far as I am concerned, the belief that group isn't getting the same salvation of you is not a conflict of church and state if the person still practices religious freedom in implementing policies, because quite simply there are other religions who wouldn't believe in salvation of others either. Essentially, Bernie Sanders is prejudging this guy despite other religious people who hold the same exact view and are in positions of government. Like Muslims that Sanders mentions specifically hold the same concept of salvation.[/QUOTE] anyone who uses their faith to dismiss the needs, rights, or requirements of other groups that have every right to exist probably shouldn't hold office this guy was making it abundantly clear that certain people deserve less than others on little than ideological grounds that are pretty fucking tenuous to begin with
If you're going to hold "Strong, traditional" Christian beliefs and also not believe in the idea that you should stone people for X thing publically then you aren't a traditional Christian
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.