• Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
    443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52333443]quite the claim[/QUOTE] Idk what point you mean to make other than just being snarky. Yes, you've caught me. There are people on the planet who do condemn non-believers on a personal level. That doesn't mean every Christian is this way, so what is your point?
[QUOTE=srobins;52333448]Idk what point you mean to make other than just being snarky. Yes, you've caught me. There are people on the planet who do condemn non-believers on a personal level. That doesn't mean every Christian is this way, so what is your point?[/QUOTE] I don't think every Christian believe non-Christians will burn in hell either.
[QUOTE=Paramud;52333437]Are you saying that religious freedom is exclusively a protestant religious ideal[/QUOTE] The concept of it as we know it and have had it implemented in our civilization is rooted from it That doesn't make it exclusive, but that is the reality for our culture.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52333456]I don't think every Christian believe non-Christians will burn in hell either.[/QUOTE] Sure, it's not 100%. There are modern Christians who pick and choose to believe certain aspects of their religion as they see fit for a modern lifestyle. That doesn't change the fact that salvation through Christ is largely the basis for the religion and a significant portion of Christians do believe in that concept, I'd wager to say a majority even. Regardless, nobody is even attempting to acknowledge the difference between the belief that God will condemn non-believers in the afterlife, and somebody personally condemning and hating non-believers. This is so incredibly simple it's blowing my mind that you guys are missing the mark so bad.
[QUOTE=srobins;52333448]Idk what point you mean to make other than just being snarky. Yes, you've caught me. There are people on the planet who do condemn non-believers on a personal level. That doesn't mean every Christian is this way, so what is your point?[/QUOTE] you can have a society with widespread stigmatization of non-christians where that excuse still works. doesn't mean there's not a problem
[QUOTE=srobins;52333467]Sure, it's not 100%. There are modern Christians who pick and choose to believe certain aspects of their religion as they see fit for a modern lifestyle. That doesn't change the fact that salvation through Christ is largely the basis for the religion and a significant portion of Christians do believe in that concept, I'd wager to say a majority even. Regardless, nobody is even attempting to acknowledge the difference between the belief that God will condemn non-believers in the afterlife, and somebody personally condemning and hating non-believers. This is so incredibly simple it's blowing my mind that you guys are missing the mark so bad.[/QUOTE] I never said anything like that.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52333469]you can have a society with widespread stigmatization of non-christians where that excuse still works. doesn't mean there's not a problem[/QUOTE] Can you word that differently? I don't really understand what you mean. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52333470]I never said anything like that.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, I don't see why you felt it necessary to respond to me then, though.
[QUOTE=srobins;52333476]Can you word that differently? I don't really understand what you mean.[/QUOTE] The US is a christian nation, by and large. It caters to christians. It has a shit ton of christians in government, it has ONLY EVER had christian leaders in the Presidency. How can you actually believe, in any way, that christains are persecuted? I've been fucking beaten for my sexuality, but christians hear mean words and that's true persecution! [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;52333467]Sure, it's not 100%. There are modern Christians who pick and choose to believe certain aspects of their religion as they see fit for a modern lifestyle. That doesn't change the fact that salvation through Christ is largely the basis for the religion and a significant portion of Christians do believe in that concept, I'd wager to say a majority even. Regardless, nobody is even attempting to acknowledge the difference between the belief that God will condemn non-believers in the afterlife, and somebody personally condemning and hating non-believers. This is so incredibly simple it's blowing my mind that you guys are missing the mark so bad.[/QUOTE] I've met enough people of all walks of life to believe that most people are bad people and use their own personal beliefs as weapons
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52333487]The US is a christian nation, by and large. It caters to christians. It has a shit ton of christians in government, it has ONLY EVER had christian leaders in the Presidency. How can you actually believe, in any way, that christains are persecuted? I've been fucking beaten for my sexuality, but christians hear mean words and that's true persecution![/QUOTE] What? Lol I never said or implied that Christians are prosecuted whatsoever. You need to calm down and read before you go on the attack.
[QUOTE=srobins;52333494]What? Lol I never said or implied that Christians are prosecuted whatsoever. You need to calm down and read before you go on the attack.[/QUOTE] that was what axel was getting at This isn't an attack. it's a statement.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52333500]that was what axel was getting at This isn't an attack. it's a statement.[/QUOTE] I think you're confused, I'm discussing the difference between personal condemnation and the religious concept of condemnation for non-believers in the afterlife. I never said anything about Christians being persecuted.
I was raised Christian and still hold some mild Christian morals I think but I'm definitely not a supporter of people using said ideologies in tandem with their legislation. Mostly because I know exactly what a lot of Christians believe and have seen firsthand how it can effect the people around them. I mean I learned to hate myself and my body because I wasn't taught anything related to sex or sexual function until I was like 16 and had my own access to the internet. And that's because of conservative law and regulation that doesn't support sexual education in Texas schools. There is a danger in allowing religious ideologies to shape our country's laws and it happens all the time. Does that mean someone who is religious can't serve in public office? No, it shouldn't mean that, but I think the second someone whips out religious text as supportive evidence to make an act of legislation, that's when we need to take a step back and question their ability.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52333404]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] Obviously it applies to everyone including muslims. Some of us aren't partisan on things like human rights. The concept of condemning your constituents to hell does make you a bad public servants no matter how many times you say it has no implication. If there was no implication then the US would not have problems with Christians constantly overstepping their authority in our government.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52333487]I've met enough people of all walks of life to believe that most people are bad people and use their own personal beliefs as weapons[/QUOTE] Wow man, that's deep. Doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about, but still, deep stuff man.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjQSwYV5Qzs[/media] For clarity, here's a video of the religious "test." [url=http://theresurgent.com/wheaton-college-and-the-preservation-of-theological-clarity/]Here's the article he was quoting from.[/url] [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52333463]The concept of it as we know it and have had it implemented in our civilization is rooted from it That doesn't make it exclusive, but that is the reality for our culture.[/QUOTE] It is not a christian value if it is not innately christian.
[QUOTE=srobins;52333520]Wow man, that's deep. Doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about, but still, deep stuff man.[/QUOTE] Good just ignore it then who gives a toss. You'll use your anecdotes to confirm what you want and ignore anecdotes that dont. That's fine.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52333537]Good just ignore it then who gives a toss. You'll use your anecdotes to confirm what you want and ignore anecdotes that dont. That's fine.[/QUOTE] You can't seriously get upset with me for not taking your random anecdotes seriously when you clearly don't even understand the conversation you're inserting yourself into.
[QUOTE=srobins;52333438]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] They think God will condemn them forever in the afterlife, yet follow this God. If I had used the word 'personally', sure, I'd take it back, but they're still praising a God who will condemn the majority of people on Earth to hell forever. I think that's both crazy and morally reprehensible, and I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that they condemn non-believers at least by proxy. Even if I believed, I would be opposed to God, and I think everyone should be. The guy in OP openly repeated the condemning treatment of non-believers, so that's a personal condemnation. And also, I'm pretty sure I live in a mainly Christian country myself, and I'm also pretty sure that most religious people here are more lenient than this; I imagine a large amount of them believe that if you live life as a good person, you'll go to heaven, regardless of what name you give to God.
[QUOTE=srobins;52333544]You can't seriously get upset with me for not taking your random anecdotes seriously when you clearly don't even understand the conversation you're inserting yourself into.[/QUOTE] To be honest the entire defense of this guy is nothing but anecdotes. The made up distinction between types of condemnations in this thread is laughably based on nothing. Meanwhile we have plenty of real examples of "scholarly Christians" in the US government trying to "do what's right" by allowing their personal religious beliefs influence the way they act as public servants. That's just the reality.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52333557]They think God will condemn them forever in the afterlife, yet follow this God. If I had used the word 'personally', sure, I'd take it back, but they're still praising a God who will condemn the majority of people on Earth to hell forever. I think that's both crazy and morally reprehensible, and I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that they condemn non-believers at least by proxy. Even if I believed, I would be opposed to God, and I think everyone should be. The guy in OP openly repeated the condemning treatment of non-believers, so that's a personal condemnation. And also, I'm pretty sure I live in a mainly Christian country myself, and I'm also pretty sure that most religious people here are more lenient than this; I imagine a large amount of them believe that if you live life as a good person, you'll go to heaven, regardless of what name you give to God.[/QUOTE] I'm not here to argue about the extended ethics of Christianity, I'm simply saying that believing in one of the most basic concepts of the Christian religion doesn't mean you hate non-believers and doesn't mean you cannot act without bias as a public servant, and for those reasons I feel Sanders line of questioning was misguided and a bit rude.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52333404]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] I have no problem applying my statement universally. If a Muslim running for office said they condemn all non-Muslims to Hell, I would have the same reaction.
[QUOTE=Aztec;52333564]To be honest the entire defense of this guy is nothing but anecdotes. The made up distinction between types of condemnations in this thread is laughably based on nothing. Meanwhile we have plenty of real examples of "scholarly Christians" in the US government trying to "do what's right" by allowing their personal religious beliefs influence the way they act as public servants. That's just the reality.[/QUOTE] Accidental star. Do you want to explain why the difference is based on nothing or did you think merely saying it would be enough?
[QUOTE=Tudd;52333253]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] I do not think Christian dominated countries were at the forefront of human rights throughout all of history
[QUOTE=Pascall;52333515]I was raised Christian and still hold some mild Christian morals I think but I'm definitely not a supporter of people using said ideologies in tandem with their legislation. Mostly because I know exactly what a lot of Christians believe and have seen firsthand how it can effect the people around them. I mean I learned to hate myself and my body because I wasn't taught anything related to sex or sexual function until I was like 16 and had my own access to the internet. And that's because of conservative law and regulation that doesn't support sexual education in Texas schools. There is a danger in allowing religious ideologies to shape our country's laws and it happens all the time. Does that mean someone who is religious can't serve in public office? No, it shouldn't mean that, but I think the second someone whips out religious text as supportive evidence to make an act of legislation, that's when we need to take a step back and question their ability.[/QUOTE] I don't have any problem with this point of view, but that's clearly not what Sanders was argueing. His problem was the theology itself. He made no argument about how this guy was going to make policy based on the Bible.
[QUOTE=Paramud;52333526][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjQSwYV5Qzs[/media] For clarity, here's a video of the religious "test." [url=http://theresurgent.com/wheaton-college-and-the-preservation-of-theological-clarity/]Here's the article he was quoting from.[/url] [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] It is not a christian value if it is not innately christian.[/QUOTE] Again, when Bernie asked: [QUOTE] Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. [B]Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned?[/B] Is that your view?[/QUOTE] What were the options open to Vought? As far as I can tell he could either condemn an important part of his religion, lie or confirm his beliefs (which is backed up by the quotes in his article). Bernie rejected him based on confirming his religious views, how was that [B]not[/B] a religious test?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52333591]I do not think Christian dominated countries were at the forefront of human rights throughout all of history[/QUOTE] Quite a lot of it, and actually I be more impressed by what you name on the contrary. Because there can be certainly specific policies in different countries with different religions that stand out, but overall Christianity replaced primitive cultures and was part of pushing the forefront for hundreds of years of western civilization, which was and is objectively the most free/human rights friendly society that exists. And that wasn't a coincidence when other religions have existed for far longer. We're there regressive Christian countries with terrible human right violations? Ofcourse, but they did progress out of it and that is a testament to reinterpretation and the ability for Christianity to reform/splinter with intellectual inquiry many times compared to other religions. Not sayin other religions can't do this, but this was very prominent in Christianity.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52333652]What were the options open to Vought? As far as I can tell he could either condemn an important part of his religion, lie or confirm his beliefs (which is backed up by the quotes in his article). Bernie rejected him based on confirming his religious views, how was that [B]not[/B] a religious test?[/QUOTE] Because some people think if it doesn't have fill in the blank or multiple choice, it doesn't count as a test.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52333652]Again, when Bernie asked: What were the options open to Vought? As far as I can tell he could either condemn an important part of his religion, lie or confirm his beliefs (which is backed up by the quotes in his article). Bernie rejected him based on confirming his religious views, how was that [B]not[/B] a religious test?[/QUOTE] As far as I can tell, people in this thread don't think it's not a test. They're just perfectly fine with religious tests.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333698]As far as I can tell, people in this thread don't think it's not a test. They're just perfectly fine with religious tests.[/QUOTE] I guess I don't really get the concept of a religious test, could you explain exactly what it implies? Would it also be a religious test if he asked him whether homosexuality is wrong?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333698]As far as I can tell, people in this thread don't think it's not a test. They're just perfectly fine with religious tests.[/QUOTE] A religious test would be akin to saying "ur christian lol gtfo". That's not what Sanders is doing. Sanders is concerned that this guy is not going to uphold the separation of church and state. Two completely different things. Conservatives are just really desperate to have anything against Sanders because of his squeaky clean record.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.