• Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
    443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mingebox;52331781]Because they must implicitly also believe it is just and right.[/QUOTE] If you think the Christian worldview is true, then it IS just and right whether you think so or not. It holds to an objective moral system that exists outside of any human opinion.
[QUOTE=srobins;52331791]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?[/QUOTE]That's the very nature of it because ultimately religious beliefs are just creations of people and are not intrinsic. You do not begin life with a religious belief and it is not a development that occurs naturally like the rest of a person's views. They exist as a layer over the top of other views. Someone quoting scripture about the abomination of homosexuality is a homophobic person, but the homophobia is the actual base view, and the homophobia exists without the scripture. [QUOTE]Do you disagree that there is a difference between biblical judgement and condemnation of non-believers, and someone personally condemning and hating them?[/QUOTE]The difference is only superficial.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52330221]What policy implications flow from the idea that forgiveness is only found in Christ?[/QUOTE] Easy. Misplaced altruism that leads to imposing Christian standards on the general population, to attempts at promoting Christianity so that more people can be "saved". If, like he claims, he has empathy for people regardless of their religion, and genuinely believes that those who don't subscribe to his will burn in hell then it logically follows that he'll make great efforts to prevent them from suffering this fate. If you think that believing you know what's good for others better than them is a healthy and balanced mindset for a politician to have, I'd say you're intentionally not looking at a blatant issue. [QUOTE]When answering, remember that essentially every US politician in it's history would have agreed with that statement.[/QUOTE] Which would explain why the US is among the most socially reactionary developped countries, and why religion permeates its politics so much. After all, any step towards a secular approach to politics would amount to condemning thousands of Americans to eternal damnation, and representatives only want what's best for their constituents.
[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] If you believe there is a God it's not like you can just decide to change his rules when you disagree with them. Maybe it's shitty but what if that's the way it is? And who are you to judge your God anyway? I think that to base your beliefs on how you think things should be, and also to not let them affect your decisions, you have to be at a point where on some level you're aware that they're not real.
Let's not even get into how much of an utter asshole an allegedly all-loving God would have to be to condemn people to eternal suffering simply because they didn't have the chance to bump into Christians in their life. God must simply really hate Bushmen.
Him saying that he's going to treat all people with equality and respect doesn't change the uncomfortable feeling of having an elected official who thinks his way is right and others will literally burn in hell for not going his way. It's not the sort of belief you want from a person who is supposed to be a worker for the benefit of everybody. I don't get why bringing up that he's saying he would treat others with respect is even relevant. Of course he would say that, unless he's an actual retard who landed into politics by complete accident.
[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. [B]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.[/B] 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] You're drawing a pretty arbitrary line here, considering the US just had their president try to ban people of particular faith from entering the country. Considering that fact, shouldn't it be fairly important to establish whether a politician thinks that those people will burn in hell because they don't subscribe to his religion?
[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] the fact that you expect people to argue with you with even a modicum of respect for your position while making posts like this, absolutely fucking baffles.
[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] Yeah, that's pretty fucked up. I don't want my representatives to have such a horrid mindset. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] It's really strange how so many Christians seem to think they're being [i]"persecuted:[/i]. I was a Christian for 16 years (rather, I was indoctrinated into being a Christian and decided otherwise at age 16). Everyone was always going on about how Christians are "being persecuted". And they would always say it like "they hate us because of our love" or some bullshit like that. As if us non-Christians are savages who just can't stand to see "[i]good, righteous people[/i]". The idea that Christianity could be a negative force in the world and people dislike it because of that never even enters their heads. Christians aren't fucking persecuted in America. 99% of all politicians have claimed to be Christians. Every President has claimed to be a Christian. We have "In God We Trust" on our coins and "One nation, under God" in our pledge of allegiance. How the fuck is that persecution? Christians are [i]massively and horrendously over-represented[/i] in our government. If you see persecution, it's probably because people are trying to set things to the way they should be. That necessitates that maybe Christians will lose the vicegrip they have on this country. That's not persecution, that's adhering to the fundamentals of what our nation should be.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329715]Sanders seems to believe that [B]anyone who holds traditional beliefs about exclusive Christianity is unfit for office.[/B][/QUOTE] Uh, I completely agree with that statement and completely agreed with Sanders' concerns in that video. Condemning groups of people because your religion demands it should absolutely make you unfit for office, regardless of whether or not that's a 'traditional' belief of your religion.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52332257]Easy. Misplaced altruism that leads to imposing Christian standards on the general population, to attempts at promoting Christianity so that more people can be "saved". If, like he claims, he has empathy for people regardless of their religion, and genuinely believes that those who don't subscribe to his will burn in hell then it logically follows that he'll make great efforts to prevent them from suffering this fate. If you think that believing you know what's good for others better than them is a healthy and balanced mindset for a politician to have, I'd say you're intentionally not looking at a blatant issue.[/QUOTE] Can you specify an actual policy?
[QUOTE=Tudd;52330846]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.[/QUOTE] This is a fascinating bit of historical revisionism
[QUOTE=geel9;52332458]Yeah, that's pretty fucked up. I don't want my representatives to have such a horrid mindset. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] It's really strange how so many Christians seem to think they're being [i]"persecuted:[/i]. I was a Christian for 16 years (rather, I was indoctrinated into being a Christian and decided otherwise at age 16). Everyone was always going on about how Christians are "being persecuted". And they would always say it like "they hate us because of our love" or some bullshit like that. As if us non-Christians are savages who just can't stand to see "[i]good, righteous people[/i]". The idea that Christianity could be a negative force in the world and people dislike it because of that never even enters their heads. Christians aren't fucking persecuted in America. 99% of all politicians have claimed to be Christians. Every President has claimed to be a Christian. We have "In God We Trust" on our coins and "One nation, under God" in our pledge of allegiance. How the fuck is that persecution? Christians are [i]massively and horrendously over-represented[/i] in our government. If you see persecution, it's probably because people are trying to set things to the way they should be. That necessitates that maybe Christians will lose the vicegrip they have on this country. That's not persecution, that's adhering to the fundamentals of what our nation should be.[/QUOTE] To clarify, Christians shouldn't be worried about a growing sentiment that they are unfit for holding any political office for being Christian?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52332950]Uh, I completely agree with that statement and completely agreed with Sanders' concerns in that video. Condemning groups of people because your religion demands it should absolutely make you unfit for office, regardless of whether or not that's a 'traditional' belief of your religion.[/QUOTE] So you will take a spiritual condemnation (not even made by the candidate being discussed but by Christ according to the evangelical teachings) and despite not believing in it and there being no attempt at the condemnation being put into policy (in fact statements to the contrary) you will use it to justify making a group of people second class citizens because you think they will beat you to it? Here are the facts, Bernie asked about an evangelical Christian belief, when he received confirmation of that belief he proceeded to deny the candidate based on his answer. Vought was put into a position of condemning his religion, lying or being denied a position based on his beliefs, how is this not a religious test again? Still the hilarity of Bernie taking issue with someone's morales apparently making them unfit whilst he himself declared political and moral war on an arbitrarily defined group of US citizens brings a smile to my face.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52332008]That's the very nature of it because ultimately religious beliefs are just creations of people and are not intrinsic. You do not begin life with a religious belief and it is not a development that occurs naturally like the rest of a person's views. They exist as a layer over the top of other views. Someone quoting scripture about the abomination of homosexuality is a homophobic person, but the homophobia is the actual base view, and the homophobia exists without the scripture. The difference is only superficial.[/QUOTE] That's a really shallow response. How is the difference superficial? You don't think somebody can believe that God will condemn someone in the afterlife while still respecting and caring for them as a human being? I think you must be being dense on purpose. My own grandmother is Christian and by that token believes that yes, I will go to hell as an atheist. You think my own grandmother secretly hates me?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333092]Can you specify an actual policy?[/QUOTE] I don't know, every religion-related bullshit policy that's been pushed by the US religious right? From resistance to gay marriage legalization to allowing discrimination based on religious grounds, or attempts at allowing churches to engage in political activities despite being tax exempt? When the salvation of millions of citizens is at stake, you don't want the only institution that can save people from eternal suffering to lose any ground, thus you want the church to maintain its power and object to anything that might challenge its position. If you seriously don't see an issue with this sort of extremist belief - because that's what it is - then I don't know what to tell you except maybe to question the integrity of an allegedly all-powerful, all-loving god who is somehow cruel to the point of endlessly torturing people who failed to convert to the proper religion. But you certainly can't claim that this mentality has no hold on your country's inner workings when your government - which is supposed to be separated from the church - has so much religious shit permeating it.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52333206]I don't know, every religion-related bullshit policy that's been pushed by the US religious right? From resistance to gay marriage legalization to allowing discrimination based on religious grounds, or attempts at allowing churches to engage in political activities despite being tax exempt? When the salvation of millions of citizens is at stake, you don't want the only institution that can save people from eternal suffering to lose any ground, thus you want the church to maintain its power and object to anything that might challenge its position. If you seriously don't see an issue with this sort of extremist belief - because that's what it is - then I don't know what to tell you except maybe to question the integrity of an allegedly all-powerful, all-loving god who is somehow cruel to the point of endlessly torturing people who failed to convert to the proper religion. But you certainly can't claim that this mentality has no hold on your country's inner workings when your government - which is supposed to be separated from the church - has so much religious shit permeating it.[/QUOTE] You're defining a foundational and extremely common believe for possibly over 1 billion people in the world as "extremist?" I'm sorry, but you seem to be the one with a skewed outlook.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333221]You're defining a foundational and extremely common believe as "extremist?" I'm sorry, but you seem to be the one with a skewed outlook.[/QUOTE] You're very well aware of what I mean. If the entirety of a religion consisted in committing murder suicides I would label this practice as extremist despite it being the foundation of that religion. By "extremist" I mean dangerous, mentally unbalanced.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52333230]You're very well aware of what I mean. If the entirety of a religion consisted in committing murder suicides I would label this practice as extremist despite it being the foundation of that religion. By "extremist" I mean dangerous, mentally unbalanced.[/QUOTE] I know exactly what you mean. You see religion, as a whole, as extremist. You have no place for that in your ideal society. Sorry if I find it a bit worrying that wanting to exclude massive groups of people from any sort of public service is perfectly acceptable to some people.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52333136]This is a fascinating bit of historical revisionism[/QUOTE] Which part am I wrong on or revising? Do you not believe that protestants escaping religious persecution and the wars in Europe didn't lead to religious freedom? Or that there are specific fundamental Christian teachings that people started applying more and more to their views on the tolerance of others? Certain parts of the Bible are emphasized more throughout history or reinterpreted and even alot atheists take for granted that their western values are rooted to a progression of values from Christians of the past. These same self-professed Christians also believed in salvation/condemnation, but understood the importance of Religious Freedom and not infringing it. There is a fantastic [url=https://www.amazon.com/America-Founded-Christian-Nation-Revised-ebook/dp/B01MDK8HX1/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497023763&sr=8-1&keywords=was+america+founded+as+a+christian+nation]book[/url] (I know the title will give you a tizzy, but as an Atheist it is scholarly and very objective) that tackles these issues, but anyone who reads first hand sources on the founding fathers knows that Christianity had an impact on the values that got us to religious freedom. I mean quite simply, you just throwing out historical revisionism like that just indicates you probably haven't made a serious inquiry on this part of history.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333250]I know exactly what you mean. You see religion, as a whole, as extremist. You have no place for that in your ideal society. Sorry if I find it a bit worrying that wanting to exclude massive groups of people from any sort of public service is perfectly acceptable to some people.[/QUOTE] Do you have any objection to my reasoning above? If people who have empathy for others also believe they have to adhere to their religion not to suffer for eternity then undoubtedly this will affect their actions and the policies they implement. Does this really not concern you? I don't see how I'm seeing religion at large as extremist, considering not every religion claims people of other faith will be doomed for eternity and among the followers of those who do, not everyone consider that aspect as something they legitimately believe.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52333291]Do you have any objection to my reasoning above? If people who have empathy for others also believe they have to adhere to their religion not to suffer for eternity then undoubtedly this will affect their actions and the policies they implement. Does this really not concern you? I don't see how I'm seeing religion at large as extremist, considering not every religion claims people of other faith will be doomed for eternity and among the followers of those who do, not everyone consider that aspect as something they legitimately believe.[/QUOTE] Yes, of course I reject your reasoning. We have tens of thousands of people in office, today, who believe exactly what that man wrote, and are faithfully serving their community. We have a centuries long history, inseparable from Christianity, that created the most free societies on the planet. Etc. Yet you have the gall to come along and essentially say that atheism, along with the tiny number of religions that don't want to convert people, are the only people fit for office. The only society I can think of with that sort of ideology is the USSR or Communist China.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333250]I know exactly what you mean. You see religion, as a whole, as extremist. You have no place for that in your ideal society.[/QUOTE] stop projecting so hard dude [QUOTE=sgman91;52333320]We have a centuries long history, inseparable from Christianity, that created the most free societies on the planet. Etc. Yet you have the gall to come along and essentially say that atheism, along with the tiny number of religions that don't want to convert people, are the only people fit for office.[/QUOTE]
Bernie's perfectly in the right by choosing not to vote for someone who condemns non-Christians to Hell. No matter what he says, there's a real chance that a judgement that harsh could manifest in his biases, whether consciously or not.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52333171]So you will take a spiritual condemnation (not even made by the candidate being discussed but by Christ according to the evangelical teachings) and despite not believing in it and there being no attempt at the condemnation being put into policy (in fact statements to the contrary) you will use it to justify making a group of people second class citizens because you think they will beat you to it?[/QUOTE] It's really difficult to not make this a discussion about religion itself, but here's my reasoning: Believers of eternal suffering for non-believers have two options. They can either try to solve this massive, global, terrible crisis of non-belief, or they can be apathetic toward non-believers' suffering. How can I possibly trust such a person not to involve their religion in policy? I get that religious government is kind of an America thing, and although I fundamentally disagree with that and generally hope that religion ceases to be so permeating asap, I can see that it at least kind of works. What makes it different in this instance is that he clearly expressed his condemnation of Muslims in a publication, which you cannot claim the majority of religious people do. I don't think that's okay. [QUOTE=sgman91;52333320]Yet you have the gall to come along and essentially say that atheism, along with the tiny number of religions that don't want to convert people, are the only people fit for office. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=srobins;52331791]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.[/QUOTE] I can't personally find any numbers on this, but I think these claims need to be substantiated. I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people who readily condemn non-believers.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333320]Yes, of course I reject your reasoning. We have tens of thousands of people in office, today, who believe exactly what that man wrote, and are faithfully serving their community. We have a centuries long history, inseparable from Christianity, that created the most free societies on the planet. Etc. Yet you have the gall to come along and essentially say that atheism, along with the tiny number of religions that don't want to convert people, are the only people fit for office.[/QUOTE] I was asking if you had an actual objection, not whether you were rejecting my reasoning on an ideological basis. You're not providing any counter-argument. Your post is nothing but an appeal to pathos, representatives can faithfully serve their community (which is not the case of a lot of self-serving representatives), yet still fall into the process I describe precisely [I]because[/I] they are faithful to their community and they're only doing what they believe is best for them. That Christianism is inseparable from our development as western civilization doesn't mean it is mandatory for free societies to exist. Faith only brings good to the world when the morals it promulgates provide a positive contribution to society, which is not the case of the traditions the religious right are clinging onto. You imply that Christianism is what drives a society forwards yet your country is the one with the most dire social retardation despite lacking quite a bit in secularity. I also don't buy that the majority of religious people legitimately believe that their non-believer neighbors are in for an eternity of suffering. If that is indeed the case, perhaps they should consider how out-of-character that would be for their god and adopt more consistent beliefs. Religions can also be willing to convert people without this burning in hell nonsense, in which case the stakes are low enough that this belief would not necessarily interfere with a representative's duty. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52333369]It's really difficult to not make this a discussion about religion itself, but here's my reasoning: Believers of eternal suffering for non-believers have two options. They can either try to solve this massive, global, terrible crisis of non-belief, or they can be apathetic toward non-believers' suffering. How can I possibly trust such a person not to involve their religion in policy?[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. By believing this, representatives are basically putting themselves in a catch 22.
[QUOTE=Derpalicious;52333356]Bernie's perfectly in the right by choosing not to vote for someone who condemns non-Christians to Hell. No matter what he says, there's a real chance that a judgement that harsh could manifest in his biases, whether consciously or not.[/QUOTE] Then you have to apply that to every religious person, including Muslims. And that is alot of people who would answer in a similar way. Although you could understand as a non-religious person that the concept of salvation/condemnation doesn't mean they can't be a upstanding public servant. What matters more is actions quite simply. So let's judge this guy on that.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52333253]Do you not believe that protestants escaping religious persecution and the wars in Europe didn't lead to religious freedom?[/QUOTE] Are you saying that religious freedom is exclusively a protestant religious ideal
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52333369]I can't personally find any numbers on this, but I think these claims need to be substantiated. I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people who readily condemn non-believers.[/QUOTE] Are you trolling? Nobody is personally condemning non-believers. They believe that those who do not accept Christ will be condemned by God in the afterlife. It's almost the entire basis of the Christian faith, salvation through acceptance of Christ. Have you guys not heard of Christianity before??
[QUOTE=srobins;52333438]Nobody is personally condemning non-believers.[/QUOTE] quite the claim
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.