• Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
    443 replies, posted
If I'm elected to public office and say that all jews in the US should be killed, should I get off scot-free in the court of public opinion if I declare myself a Hitlerfarian? If you take this to its logical conclusion it quickly falls apart.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;52330437]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.[/QUOTE] It was a religious test as soon as Bernie asked this in regards to an evangelical belief: [QUOTE]Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?[/QUOTE] Sure, he boiled it down a hell of a lot but he was asking Vought to confirm his religious beliefs (which as far as I know are correct to the evangelical teachings) and denied him based on it. Case closed, Bernie is a idealogical hack who uses religion to advance his partisan feuds when he has no substantial arguments. I wish we had some consistency because I really dont see you guys being happy if Trump said a Muslim wasn't "someone who is what this country is supposed to be about" yet you will defend this to the hilt. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52330452] 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[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52330595]It was a religious test as soon as Bernie asked this in regards to an evangelical belief: Sure, he boiled it down a hell of a lot but he was asking Vought to confirm his religious beliefs (which as far as I know are correct to the evangelical teachings) and denied him based on it. Case closed, Bernie is a idealogical hack who uses religion to advance his partisan feuds when he has no substantial arguments. I wish we had some consistency because I really dont see you guys being happy if Trump said a Muslim wasn't "someone who is what this country is supposed to be about" yet you will defend this to the hilt.[/QUOTE] Okay so he says stuff about dignity and respect Cool I guess saying dignity and respect [B]is[/B] dignity and respect? Denying them their right or opportunity to marry? to visit a loved one on their death bed? to have the same legal rights as a couple? Denying them that surely isn't denying them dignity and respect, right? That's what you're saying [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] Fuck actions all we need is words in Trumps world.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52329730]That's not a religious test, that's saying, "I'm not going to support someone who condemns people for not being Christian."[/QUOTE] That's a really blatant misinterpretation of what the guy is saying. There's a massive contextual difference between "I condemn anybody who isn't Christian" and "According to my religion, those who do not believe in Jesus Christ will be condemned in the afterlife". One is a statement of personal judgement and distaste for a group of people, the other is one of the most basic tenants of the majority religion of the United States. This was a disappointing show by Sanders, I'm vehemently against religion influencing policy but his line of questioning is just ignorant, almost intentionally so. I'm pretty sure literally every practicing Christian believes that those outside of the Christian faith are condemned by God.. It's kind of the entire basis of salvation and acceptance of Jesus Christ. So for Sanders to imply that the guy is personally condemning everyone that isn't Christian is just plain stupid and I think Sanders must recognize that internally but just wants a nice video clip of him standing up against religion in politics at the most inopportune time possible. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52329768]I'm sure you would just as outraged if someone disapproved of a Muslim appointee because of their beliefs on apostates or women's rights.[/QUOTE] I'm disappointed in you guys, wtf? You're smart people I would hope that you would recognize the difference between religious condemnation [I]by God[/I] and someone personally condemning certain demographics. They're not even remotely the same and you guys are being totally ridiculous by trying to imply they are.
[QUOTE=srobins;52330656]That's a really blatant misinterpretation of what the guy is saying. . . .[/QUOTE] You have a point. Also, is there not aaaanything else Bernie is going off of? I feel like there [I]must[/I] be more than just [I]one fucking quote[/I]. At the same time, everyone in this thread is generalizing religion as a whole in modern society when it the article provides a single instance that Bernie brings up. Is it possible there's more to it??
[QUOTE=LNKFAN;52330704]You have a point. Also, is there not aaaanything else Bernie is going off of? I feel like there [I]must[/I] be more than just [I]one fucking quote[/I]. At the same time, everyone in this thread is generalizing religion as a whole in modern society when it the article provides a single instance that Bernie brings up. Is it possible there's more to it??[/QUOTE] The guy's quote is definitely.. I don't know what the right word is. Ignorant isn't really what I'm looking for, it's more just one of those things where, look, I understand that's a core tenant of your religion.. But putting it in writing and explicitly calling out Muslims as being the ones that don't know God and are condemned makes it much more negative than just broadly stating "those who do not follow Jesus Christ are condemned". Judging from that quote alone, I don't have a positive opinion of the guy, but I have a serious issue with Sanders' line of questioning and the people backing him up on it. He could have made his point much stronger by simply asking why he felt it necessary to single out Muslims as a condemned peoples.
[QUOTE=Paramud;52330339]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.[/QUOTE] Actually yes, the protestant practice of Christianity kind of led way for people to figure out to stop persecuting each by religious affiliation. And the more critical interpretations of "Treat thy neighbor as thy self" and other values found in Christianity really helped christian-dominated countries be the forefront of human rights throughout all of history. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;52330728]The guy's quote is definitely.. I don't know what the right word is. Ignorant isn't really what I'm looking for, it's more just one of those things where, look, I understand that's a core tenant of your religion.. But putting it in writing and explicitly calling out Muslims as being the ones that don't know God and are condemned makes it much more negative than just broadly stating "those who do not follow Jesus Christ are condemned". Judging from that quote alone, I don't have a positive opinion of the guy, but I have a serious issue with Sanders' line of questioning and the people backing him up on it. He could have made his point much stronger by simply asking why he felt it necessary to single out Muslims as a condemned peoples.[/QUOTE] It really is Bernie Sanders asking a horrible question that alot of religious people would answer in a way that would piss off others.
[QUOTE=srobins;52330728]The guy's quote is definitely.. I don't know what the right word is. Ignorant isn't really what I'm looking for, it's more just one of those things where, look, I understand that's a core tenant of your religion.. But putting it in writing and explicitly calling out Muslims as being the ones that don't know God and are condemned makes it much more negative than just broadly stating "those who do not follow Jesus Christ are condemned". Judging from that quote alone, I don't have a positive opinion of the guy, but I have a serious issue with Sanders' line of questioning and the people backing him up on it. He could have made his point much stronger by simply asking why he felt it necessary to single out Muslims as a condemned peoples.[/QUOTE] His original statement was in a very specific context that centered around a professor at a Christian university who said that Muslims are fine in their belief. It wasn't just randomly out of the blue condemning Muslims. He was specifically addressing how the Christian belief in forgiveness through Christ applies to Muslims based on that professor's position. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Propane Addict;52330261]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] Religious tests can be both positive or negative in nature. [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52330452]oh thanks pal yeah, atheism is totally equatable with flat eartherism.[/QUOTE] Oh please, take the analogy for what it was. I obviously wasn't equating the two. I used a super obvious example to make it easy. [QUOTE]No Laughable, but no Try harder.[/QUOTE] He condemned a fundamental belief of any recognizable Christianity. So, yes. [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[/QUOTE] It's a good thing he didn't say any of that, then! Did you even read the article and the thread? You're basically just shitposting at this point.
[QUOTE=srobins;52330656]That's a really blatant misinterpretation of what the guy is saying. There's a massive contextual difference between "I condemn anybody who isn't Christian" and "According to my religion, those who do not believe in Jesus Christ will be condemned in the afterlife". One is a statement of personal judgement and distaste for a group of people, the other is one of the most basic tenants of the majority religion of the United States. This was a disappointing show by Sanders, I'm vehemently against religion influencing policy but his line of questioning is just ignorant, almost intentionally so. I'm pretty sure literally every practicing Christian believes that those outside of the Christian faith are condemned by God.. It's kind of the entire basis of salvation and acceptance of Jesus Christ. So for Sanders to imply that the guy is personally condemning everyone that isn't Christian is just plain stupid and I think Sanders must recognize that internally but just wants a nice video clip of him standing up against religion in politics at the most inopportune time possible. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] I'm disappointed in you guys, wtf? You're smart people I would hope that you would recognize the difference between religious condemnation [I]by God[/I] and someone personally condemning certain demographics. They're not even remotely the same and you guys are being totally ridiculous by trying to imply they are.[/QUOTE] No, that is what he is saying, he's just using a biblical reference as the excuse. The religion is informed by the person, not the other way around. People pick and choose their religious beliefs at every moment, selecting what scriptures and traditions and practices to follow and which to ignore. This is how we get churches that support gay marriage and why people wear two different types of material in their clothing. The religion is used to justify the beliefs and to try convince others that you're right by portraying it as more important than simply ones own views. "Its not me, it's [I]GOD[/I] who says this, and as such is must be revered." He uses such a quote because it justifies his own views. And that is where the issue is, anyone who knows better can see right through to the core.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52331005]No, that is what he is saying, he's just using a biblical reference as the excuse. The religion is informed by the person, not the other way around. People pick and choose their religious beliefs at every moment, selecting what scriptures and traditions and practices to follow and which to ignore. This is how we get churches that support gay marriage and why people wear two different types of material in their clothing. The religion is used to justify the beliefs and to try convince others that you're right by portraying it as more important than simply ones own views. "Its not me, it's [I]GOD[/I] who says this, and as such is must be revered." He uses such a quote because it justifies his own views. And that is where the issue is, anyone who knows better can see right through to the core.[/QUOTE] I can't tell what your actual point is beyond saying, "I'm an atheist and all religious people are deceptive idiots."
[QUOTE=sgman91;52331039]I can't tell what your actual point is beyond saying, "I'm an atheist and all religious people are deceptive idiots."[/QUOTE]Not deceptive idiots, just that the religion isn't especially important, it doesn't actually tell you your views and you are by no means bound to them. Everyone chooses the beliefs they follow, what scriptures they adhere to. The person's underlying views can change, and that will reflect in their religious beliefs. If someone once hated gay people and justified it with scripture, then stops hating gay people, then the scripture was obviously not actually the source of their hatred.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52331093]Not deceptive idiots, just that the religion isn't especially important, it doesn't actually tell you your views and you are by no means bound to them. Everyone chooses the beliefs they follow, what scriptures they adhere to. The person's underlying views can change, and that will reflect in their religious beliefs. If someone once hated gay people and justified it with scripture, then stops hating gay people, then the scripture was obviously not actually the source of their hatred.[/QUOTE] I mean, that's just factually wrong. There are tons of people who change their opinion because they are convinced that the scripture says something different than what they previously believed. Are there people who do what you said? Yes, of course. Does everyone do that? No, of course not.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52331146]I mean, that's just factually wrong. There are tons of people who change their opinion because they are convinced that the scripture says something different than what they previously believed.[/QUOTE]Not really, they're finding a new interpretation that fits a changed view. They're people who were already transitional in their view, and the reinterpretation gives it validity. Hence why there are so many different branches and variants. If just being told that scripture says something different changed people's views, the Catholic church would not exist at all these days and Protestantism would be dominant, or rather whatever the most recent reinterpretation is.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52331185]Not really, they're finding a new interpretation that fits a changed view. They're people who were already transitional in their view, and the reinterpretation gives it validity. Hence why there are so many different branches and variants. If just being told that scripture says something different changed people's views, the Catholic church would not exist at all these days and Protestantism would be dominant, or rather whatever the most recent reinterpretation is.[/QUOTE] Honestly, you seem to just be doing some armchair psychology. It goes against my own experience and the experience of a whole lot of people I know. I can't really refute it because you're not presenting facts with which to refute. On the one hand, yeah, there are different groups, but on the other hand many many Christians all believe basically the same thing and can trace those belief back for over 1,000 years.
Imagine thinking it's unreasonable for thinking a person who discriminates against non Christians is a bad fit for public office.
[QUOTE=Aztec;52331312]Imagine thinking it's unreasonable for thinking a person who discriminates against non Christians is a bad fit for public office.[/QUOTE] Can you point to where he discriminated against non-Christians or said he would discriminate against non-Christian?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52331317]Can you point to where he discriminated against non-Christians or said he would discriminate against non-Christian?[/QUOTE] Im not going to argue Semantics with you cause it's pretty fucking obvious lmao. The guy sees non Christians as subhuman. If that's a typical Christian belief then I don't think Christians are fit for office.
[QUOTE=Aztec;52331401]Im not going to argue Semantics with you cause it's pretty fucking obvious lmao. The guy sees non Christians as subhuman. If that's a typical Christian belief then I don't think Christians are fit for office.[/QUOTE] Asking you to actually point to where he did what you're saying he did isn't semantics. The guy specifically said that he sees all people as image bearers of God who deserve dignity and respect. Yeah, sounds just like calling them subhuman. I really don't understand how this much dishonesty can come from anything other than blindness by hatred for Christianity.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52331422]Asking you to actually point to where he did what you're saying he did isn't semantics.[/QUOTE] Yeah it is. It doesn't matter if its in the scope of his religious beliefs. He thinks some people are damned to hell so he's a shitty person. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52331422] I really don't understand how this much dishonesty can come from anything other than blindness by hatred for Christianity.[/QUOTE] Lol whatever fits your narrative.
[QUOTE=Aztec;52331401]Im not going to argue Semantics with you cause it's pretty fucking obvious lmao. The guy sees non Christians as subhuman. If that's a typical Christian belief then I don't think Christians are fit for office.[/QUOTE] He literally said every human is deserving of respect no matter their religious beliefs. [QUOTE=Aztec;52331428]He thinks some people are damned to hell so he's a shitty person.[/QUOTE] So you're saying almost every religious person of just about any religion is a shitty person?
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52331469]He literally said every human is deserving of respect no matter their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] But also believes some are condemned to hell for not believing in his beliefs.
[QUOTE=Aztec;52331479]But also believes some are condemned to hell for not believing in his beliefs.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=KingofBeast;52331469]So you're saying almost every religious person of just about any religion is a shitty person?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52331489][/QUOTE] I wouldn't use "almost every" because that's anecdotal and i would say that a lot of people on earth are not fit for public office for one reason or another. Having discriminatory religious beliefs sticks out as one of them.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52331499]It [I]is[/I] pretty shitty if you think someone is going to suffer eternally just for believing differently. A bit egotistical, too.[/QUOTE] Infinite punishment for a finite or non-existent wrong is infinitely evil.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52331499]It [I]is[/I] pretty shitty if you think someone is going to suffer eternally just for believing differently. A bit egotistical, too.[/QUOTE] As a non-religious person I will agree that it's overly harsh, however the way you think somebody will be treated in the afterlife should-there-be-one doesn't inherently relate to how you'll treat that person in life. This guy said he would treat others with dignity and respect regardless of their personal beliefs. When you have people that actually disrespect those that don't agree with them religiously, then yes, they're shitty people. But that's not the case here.
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52331526]As a non-religious person I will agree that it's overly harsh, however the way you think somebody will be treated in the afterlife should-there-be-one doesn't inherently relate to how you'll treat that person in life. This guy said he would treat others with dignity and respect regardless of their personal beliefs. When you have people that actually disrespect those that don't agree with them religiously, then yes, they're shitty people. But that's not the case here.[/QUOTE] I disagree. I think holding the belief that some people are following the wrong path is inherently a problem for someone expected to represent those people. This isn't a far fetched idea. We see American Christian politicians invoking god all the time.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52331499]It [I]is[/I] pretty shitty if you think someone is going to suffer eternally just for believing differently. A bit egotistical, too.[/QUOTE] Believing something because they think it's true makes them a shitty person? I guess you could say it's a shitty belief, but how can they possibly be a shitty person just for taking what they think to be truth seriously?
[QUOTE=Aztec;52331542]I disagree. I think holding the belief that some people are following the wrong path is inherently a problem for someone expected to represent those people. This isn't a far fetched idea. We see American Christian politicians invoking god all the time.[/QUOTE] I think in these cases we need to reinforce the importance of separation between church and state to those people, because that is a problem, but that's not to say that we need to eliminate people that believe in religions that are subject to the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell]Problem of Hell[/url]. It's just their personal belief system and any respectable person wouldn't allow issues derived from that to affect their view of the content of other people's character. And that's essentially how Vought was saying he felt.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52331567]Believing something because they think it's true makes them a shitty person? I guess you could say it's a shitty belief, but how can they possibly be a shitty person just for taking what they think to be truth seriously?[/QUOTE] Because they must implicitly also believe it is just and right.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52330869]His original statement was in a very specific context that centered around a professor at a Christian university who said that Muslims are fine in their belief. It wasn't just randomly out of the blue condemning Muslims. He was specifically addressing how the Christian belief in forgiveness through Christ applies to Muslims based on that professor's position.[/QUOTE] Ah okay, that context helps a ton. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52331005]No, that is what he is saying, he's just using a biblical reference as the excuse. The religion is informed by the person, not the other way around. People pick and choose their religious beliefs at every moment, selecting what scriptures and traditions and practices to follow and which to ignore. This is how we get churches that support gay marriage and why people wear two different types of material in their clothing. The religion is used to justify the beliefs and to try convince others that you're right by portraying it as more important than simply ones own views. "Its not me, it's [I]GOD[/I] who says this, and as such is must be revered." He uses such a quote because it justifies his own views. And that is where the issue is, anyone who knows better can see right through to the core.[/QUOTE] Zedacon I typically respect your opinion and feel like you're really agreeable and reasonable but this is honestly just absurd to me. What exactly leads you to believe that he's just using the biblical concept of condemnation for non-believers as an [I]excuse[/I] for his own personal hatred and condemnation? I mean, would you like to address what's wrong with what I've said? Because you're kind of just ranting and reiterating your own interpretation of this which I think is completely off-base, for reasons I've explained above. Do you disagree that there is a difference between biblical judgement and condemnation of non-believers, and someone personally condemning and hating them? [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Aztec;52331479]But also believes some are condemned to hell for not believing in his beliefs.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because that's literally what the Christian religion teaches. You find salvation in Jesus Christ, or you go to hell. It's silly to try and misconstrue such a simple concept into "this guy hates everyone else!", I mean, have you never met or spoken to a Christian before? This is really, [I]really[/I] simple stuff. I'm generally a Sanders supporter but I feel very confidently that if it weren't for the fact that Bernie Sanders said this, nobody would be bending over backwards like this to try and defend his flawed line of questioning. You can just admit he's wrong once in a while and still like him, I do it and it works fine for me. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52331499]It [I]is[/I] pretty shitty if you think someone is going to suffer eternally just for believing differently. A bit egotistical, too.[/QUOTE] You could make that argument, but it would apply to like 99% of religious people so it's a bit unfair to arbitrarily bring the hammer down on this particular Christian just because he put it in writing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.