Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jcw87;52333813]A religious test would be akin to saying "ur christian lol gtfo". [QUOTE]
That's basically what Sanders said.
[QUOTE] That's not what Sanders is doing.[/QUOTE]
Factually wrong.
[QUOTE] Sanders is concerned that this guy is not going to uphold the separation of church and state. Two completely different things.[/QUOTE]
You could say that about any politician with a religion, including Sanders. Should we get rid of everybody in politics because of the chance they would fail to uphold this?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52329796]You, and Sanders, are equating the holding of a theologically exclusive belief system as equivalent to discrimination. That clearly isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it should be. Whether or not one is religious, the belief in religious exclusivity is indicative of an intellectual deficiency, and those who have such beliefs have no place holding public office in a secular democracy, where people of many faiths and cultural background require equal representation. The statement Sanders called attention to on the part of Vaught disqualifies him, if not legally, then in principle. It was well within Sanders' rights to vote against a politician, purportedly a representative of the people, who had displayed a clear negative bias towards a certain religious group. But your outrage at Sanders calling the man out says much about your own politics. I am not in the least surprised.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52333875]
That's basically what Sanders said.
[/quote]
Sanders has an issue with this quote:
[quote]
Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.
[/quote]
Disagreeing with something that someone said is NOT the same thing as disagreeing with someone because they are Christian. You can be a Christian without spouting this kind of shit.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52333875]
Factually wrong.
[/quote]
You seem to have a fact deficiency.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52333875]
You could say that about any politician with a religion, including Sanders. Should we get rid of everybody in politics because of the chance they would fail to uphold this?[/QUOTE]
No actually, because again, you can be religious without shouting to the world that people of another religion are bad. What's so hard to understand about this?
[QUOTE=archangel125;52333901]Actually, it should be. Whether or not one is religious,[B] the belief in religious exclusivity is indicative of an intellectual deficiency[/B][/QUOTE]
What? I don't even know how to respond to a line like that. It's so far out of left field.
[editline]9th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jcw87;52333930]Disagreeing with something that someone said is NOT the same thing as disagreeing with someone because they are Christian. You can be a Christian without spouting this kind of shit.[/QUOTE]
His statement was a basic tenet of Christianity. It would be like me saying, "I don't care if you're atheist, but I'm not going to stand for anyone who thinks God doesn't exist."
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333163]To clarify, Christians shouldn't be worried about a growing sentiment that they are unfit for holding any political office for being Christian?[/QUOTE]
Christians shouldn't be concerned that [i]ideally[/i], it will [i]no longer be necessary that you be a Christian in order to win an election.[/i]
Well, you should be concerned with that, assuming your interests lie in propping up the effective theocracy that is American politics.
[QUOTE=geel9;52333947]Christians shouldn't be concerned that [I]ideally[/I], it will [I]no longer be necessary that you be a Christian in order to win an election.[/I]
Well, you should be concerned with that, assuming your interests lie in propping up the effective theocracy that is American politics.[/QUOTE]
You're dodging the question. Based on Sander's position, and the position of many in this thread, Christians are not fit to serve in office. This is a growing position, especially with the next generations. Why shouldn't Christians worry about that development?
Never once did I say that atheists, muslims, etc. shouldn't be allowed to serve. I would have no problem voting for an atheist.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333956]You're dodging the question. Based on Sander's position, and the position of many in this thread, Christians are not fit to serve in office. This is a growing position, especially with the next generations. Why shouldn't Christians worry about that development?
Never once did I say that atheists, muslims, etc. shouldn't be allowed to serve. I would have no problem voting for an atheist.[/QUOTE]
Christians who base their policies on their religion or use their religion as an excuse to condemn a large group of people are unfit to serve, yes.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333938]What? I don't even know how to respond to a line like that. It's so far out of left field.
[editline]9th June 2017[/editline]
His statement was a basic tenet of Christianity. [B]It would be like me saying, "I don't care if you're atheist, but I'm not going to stand for anyone who thinks God doesn't exist."[/B][/QUOTE]
This is exactly the issue. Your religion has inclined you to that belief, and this influences your governing. Therefore, you are unfit to govern if this is your stance.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333938]
His statement was a basic tenet of Christianity. It would be like me saying, "I don't care if you're atheist, but I'm not going to stand for anyone who thinks God doesn't exist."[/QUOTE]
There's tons of stuff about Christianity that people selectively ignore, because they have the basic sense to realize that those things are terrible (such as stoning unruly children). Vought chose to embrace something that presents a clear problem with separation of church and state, and state it quite publicly.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333956]You're dodging the question. Based on Sander's position, and the position of many in this thread, Christians are not fit to serve in office. This is a growing position, especially with the next generations. Why shouldn't Christians worry about that development?
Never once did I say that atheists, muslims, etc. shouldn't be allowed to serve. I would have no problem voting for an atheist.[/QUOTE]
As long as he shared views with you that would be tantamount to those of some christian positions so I don't see how that's really relevant
[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]
It's his vote, as long as he's not getting a fat paycheck from someone for it he can base it on whatever he wants. If he has concerns about whether or not this person would use their religious view to judge people unfairly, which I personally think is a fair concern based on the article, he is completely justified in not voting for him.
[editline]9th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;52333661]overall Christianity replaced primitive cultures[/QUOTE]
Typically using a sword.
[QUOTE=geel9;52333970]Christians who base their policies on their religion or use their religion as an excuse to condemn a large group of people are unfit to serve, yes.[/QUOTE]
That isn't the argument being given by Sanders. He disagreed with the theology on it's face. He did not point to this man having put policies into place based on that theology. He did not argue that he might make policies based on that theology. He said that the theology, itself, was unacceptable.
You keep trying to spin what actually happened.
[editline]9th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jcw87;52333974]There's tons of stuff about Christianity that people selectively ignore, because they have the basic sense to realize that those things are terrible (such as stoning unruly children). Vought chose to embrace something that presents a clear problem with separation of church and state, and state it quite publicly.[/QUOTE]
Please at least attempt to learn a modicum of actual Christian doctrine before pretending to be knowledgable (And no, Dawkins isn't a good source). No Christian society, ever, has stoned disobedient children as a policy. That's never been a thing. So what's more likely? Every Christian society since the time of Jesus wrongfully ignored that part of the Bible or you don't really understand the Bible? I would say the latter.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334057]That isn't the argument being given by Sanders. He disagreed with the theology on it's face. He did not point to this man having put policies into place based on that theology. He did not argue that he might make policies based on that theology. He said that the theology, itself, was unacceptable.
You keep trying to spin what actually happened.[/QUOTE]
He objected to a man condemning an entire religion because his religion dictates that he has to. That is someone who is unfit for public office.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52333956]You're dodging the question. Based on Sander's position, and the position of many in this thread, Christians are not fit to serve in office. This is a growing position, especially with the next generations. Why shouldn't Christians worry about that development?
Never once did I say that atheists, muslims, etc. shouldn't be allowed to serve. I would have no problem voting for an atheist.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand the position of geel9, or the positions of anyone in this thread arguing against you. Allow me to explain. Nobody is claiming that Christians are unfit to serve in public office. We're arguing that people who, regardless of their faith, hold beliefs of religious exclusivity, are unfit to serve. "We live in a world of many belief systems, but only mine is truly the right one! Only the people who follow my faith are God's chosen people."
It's retarded. When I said it was indicative of an intellectual deficiency, I was referring to integrative complexity, or the ability of an individual to understand the perspectives of others outside of their own, and how they relate. While every religion out there may demand unquestioning loyalty, anyone who is unquestioningly loyal is a fool, and unfit to represent a diverse population in a secular democracy.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334070]I don't think you understand the position of geel9, or the positions of anyone in this thread arguing against you. Allow me to explain. Nobody is claiming that Christians are unfit to serve in public office. We're arguing that people who, regardless of their faith, hold beliefs of religious exclusivity, are unfit to serve. "We live in a world of many belief systems, but only mine is truly the right one! Only the people who follow my faith are God's chosen people."
It's retarded. When I said it was indicative of an intellectual deficiency, I was referring to integrative complexity, or the ability of an individual to understand the perspectives of others outside of their own. While every religion out there may demand unquestioning loyalty, anyone who is unquestioningly loyal is a fool, and unfit to represent a diverse population in a secular democracy.[/QUOTE]
EVERYONE believes in an exclusive system of truth. Do you think that gay marriage is correct? Then guess what? You have an exclusive belief system as well. Does that mean you're going to treat everyone who disagrees with you unfairly, or that you are going to take away their rights, or any other number of negative things? No, of course not. It being religious or non-religious exclusivity doesn't somehow make the logic change.
You're working off this odd assumption that thinking a person is wrong means that you will mistreat them. That simply isn't a valid assumption.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334084]EVERYONE believes in an exclusive system of truth. Do you think that gay marriage is correct? Then guess what? You have an exclusive belief system as well. Does that mean you're going to treat everyone who disagrees with you unfairly, or that you are going to take away their rights, or any other number of negative things? No, of course not.
You're working off this odd assumption that thinking a person is wrong means that you will mistreat them. That simply isn't a valid assumption.[/QUOTE]
Funny, because that seems pretty valid considering the way Muslims are treated in your country by the Christian majority.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334087]Funny, because that seems pretty valid considering the way Muslims are treated in your country by the Christian majority.[/QUOTE]
You have no clue what you're talking about. The US is one of the best places in the world for Muslims to live. In fact, there are more hate crimes against Jews in the US than against Muslims. Is the US anti-Jew as well?
You're taking the tiny number of senationalist examples spoken about in the media and crafting this fairy world image of the US as some constant oppressor of Muslims. It's simply false based on abject ignorance.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334084]EVERYONE believes in an exclusive system of truth. Do you think that gay marriage is correct? Then guess what? You have an exclusive belief system as well. Does that mean you're going to treat everyone who disagrees with you unfairly, or that you are going to take away their rights, or any other number of negative things? No, of course not. It being religious or non-religious exclusivity doesn't somehow make the logic change.
You're working off this odd assumption that thinking a person is wrong means that you will mistreat them. That simply isn't a valid assumption.[/QUOTE]
Everyone believes themselves to be correct without further evidence. Zealots believe themselves to be correct regardless of the evidence -- or lack thereof -- provided. Zealots do not question their own beliefs or allow them to be questioned.
A politician fit for office would acknowledge that another religion [i]might possibly[/i] not be condemned to eternal damnation. A politician unfit for office would insist, absolutely and with claimed authority, that it is literally impossible that they are wrong.
Sanders was asking Vought to clarify a public statement he wrote that is 100% relevant to whether or not he can adequately represent constituents who don't share his religious views. Vought is the nominee for an office that controls public money. How can you trust him to be unbiased if he's writing articles that denigrate other religions? The "no religious test" clause means you aren't required to adhere to a specific religion in order to qualify for office. It doesn't mean you can't be questioned on things you say that may affect your ability to govern just because it happened to be religious in nature.
[QUOTE=Jcw87;52333813]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.[/QUOTE]
Quite the generalization. I like Sanders, but the confirmation of Vought's views of his God's ways is not confirmation that he's going to discriminate against those that disagree with him. Sanders concluded that [I]based on his religion[/I], Vought was unfit.
[B]Edit: [/B]Wow 10 minutes of posts and I'm behind
[QUOTE=geel9;52334098]Everyone believes themselves to be correct without further evidence. Zealots believe themselves to be correct regardless of the evidence -- or lack thereof -- provided. Zealots do not question their own beliefs or allow them to be questioned.[/QUOTE]
How is what you perceive to be good evidence for the believe relevant in the slightest? He claimed that having an exclusivist view makes you inherently bigoted towards those who exist outside of that view. Whether someone has good evidence or not is irrelevant to that claim.
You keep shifting positions.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334084]EVERYONE believes in an exclusive system of truth. Do you think that gay marriage is correct? Then guess what? You have an exclusive belief system as well. Does that mean you're going to treat everyone who disagrees with you unfairly, or that you are going to take away their rights, or any other number of negative things? No, of course not. It being religious or non-religious exclusivity doesn't somehow make the logic change.
You're working off this odd assumption that thinking a person is wrong means that you will mistreat them. That simply isn't a valid assumption.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you're wrong about my belief that gay marriage should be allowed. There are many political, as there are religious, perspectives as to how society should function. My adopted perspective is the humanist one. That does not mean that a say, fascist perspective is not without merit - merely that I personally dislike it and those who adopt it. So no, I don't believe in moral exclusivity, but its subjectivity. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about this idea.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334107]Actually, you're wrong about my belief that gay marriage should be allowed. There are many political, as there are religious, perspectives as to how society should function. My adopted perspective is the humanist one. That does not mean that a say, fascist perspective is not without merit - merely that I personally dislike it. So no, I don't believe in moral exclusivity, but its subjectivity. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about this idea.[/QUOTE]
So you believe in an exclusively morally subjective worldview. That's still an exclusive truth claim. How can I trust that you will treat those who believe in objective views fairly?
No matter how you try to spin it, everyone makes exclusive claims of truth. This does NOT rationally require them to mistreat those who disagree.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334104]How is what you perceive to be good evidence for the believe relevant in the slightest? He claimed that having an exclusivist view makes you inherently bigoted towards those who exist outside of that view. Whether someone has good evidence or not is irrelevant to that claim.
You keep shifting positions.[/QUOTE]
Essentially, we're at a crossroads between people who claim that morals are either subjective or their objectivity is not provable or knowable, and people who claim that not only are morals objective but that [i]their specific morals[/i] are absolute, unchangeable, and unquestionable.
That's the difference between a reasonable person and a zealot, and the man in question -- along with far too many religious people -- espoused the latter.
[QUOTE=geel9;52334112]Essentially, we're at a crossroads between people who claim that morals are either subjective or their objectivity is not provable or knowable, and people who claim that not only are morals objective but that [I]their specific morals[/I] are absolute, unchangeable, and unquestionable.
That's the difference between a reasonable person and a zealot, and the man in question -- along with far too many religious people -- espoused the latter.[/QUOTE]
It also has nothing to do with the question at hand.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334116]It also has nothing to do with the question at hand.[/QUOTE]
It absolutely does. A politician who refuses to accept that perhaps their position could change -- or rather, bases their moral code entirely on an unchanging document -- is, in my opinion, completely unfit to represent the people. If someone refuses to even consider another argument, I would never vote for that person.
[QUOTE=geel9;52334119]It absolutely does. A politician who refuses to accept that perhaps their position could change -- or rather, bases their moral code entirely on an unchanging document -- is, in my opinion, completely unfit to represent the people. If someone refuses to even consider another argument, I would never vote for that person.[/QUOTE]
How can you possibly make the claim that he won't even consider another argument? Not agreeing with you is not the same as not considering it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334121]How can you possibly make the claim that he won't even consider another argument? Not agreeing with you is not the same as not considering it.[/QUOTE]
Because he literally stated as abject fact that Muslims do not know God and are thus condemned?
That's not a statement made by someone who isn't completely steadfastly devoted to that position.
[QUOTE=geel9;52334129]Because he literally stated as abject fact that Muslims do not know God and are thus condemned?
That's not a statement made by someone who isn't completely steadfastly devoted to that position.[/QUOTE]
... It's a truth claim like literally any other truth claim. Also, since when is being steadfastly devoted to something you think is true the same as never considering any other view? You're positions are super inconsistent. It's hard to follow your line of thinking.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334084]EVERYONE believes in an exclusive system of truth. Do you think that gay marriage is correct? Then guess what? You have an exclusive belief system as well. Does that mean you're going to treat everyone who disagrees with you unfairly, or that you are going to take away their rights, or any other number of negative things? No, of course not. It being religious or non-religious exclusivity doesn't somehow make the logic change.
You're working off this odd assumption that thinking a person is wrong means that you will mistreat them. That simply isn't a valid assumption.[/QUOTE]
Do you really not understand how someone regarding a group of people as sinners condemned by god who will justly be tortured for all time for refusing to accept that person's religious ideology could possibly negatively inform their view of that group?
Don't you think that the parts of someone's ideology that they choose to speak about might say something about how that religious ideology informs their views?
like in a world where people are fucking computers and subtext doesn't exist and we just judge people explicitly by what they literally say yeah you're totally right but we don't live in that world and people aren't that simple
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.