• Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office
    443 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52334372]The missionaries may have been peaceful, but they were reinforced by people with pointy metal sticks, and later people with metal rods that launched metal balls really fast. Those people going, "Listen to what the man with the book says or we sodomize you with this sword."[/QUOTE] Quite often it could be the opposite, missionaries risked themselves with no support to spread Christianity. Scandanavia and Japan are good examples of that. But the point is that events like the Crusades weren't really norm for the spread of Christianity. And by the time we got to colonialism, which also aggressively spreaded Christianity, a lot of societies and people started to think less of "Get rid of the heathens and spread the religion" as their main reasoning. Not to imply other religions hadn't come to that same conclusion, or even factor that in, but something to notice compared to other religions at the time like Islam.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334432]Which group might that be, hmm? I think you should calm down a little, Ben. You're angry, and that never helps your argument. You're making little sense here.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders, on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America.[/QUOTE] Irregardless of if it is an agreeable statement it is targeting a minority, why is that type of rhetoric allowed but Mr. Vought essentially quoting scripture and making no statements to support the claims he will allow his religious beliefs to interfere with his job, an offence worthy of disqualification from office?
[QUOTE=Tudd;52334448]Quite often it could be the opposite, missionaries risked themselves with no support to spread Christianity. Scandanavia and Japan are good examples of that. But the point is that events like the Crusades weren't really norm for the spread of Christianity. And by the time we got to colonialism, which also aggressively spreaded Christianity, a lot of societies and people started to think less of "Get rid of the heathens and spread the religion" as their main reasoning.[/QUOTE] That the Crusades were atypical of the spread of Christianity is a lie. Until the reformations, it was always a brutish religion. And there was similarly a time when the Muslim world was one that embraced science and theological scrutiny, in much the same way the western Christian world does today. You'll note that the difference between Christianity as a violent, oppressive tool of control, and a relatively peaceful belief system, is merely what system of government happened to be in control at the time, and the cultural environment.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334411]Hey, Tudd? I mentioned the Crusades and the historical violence of Christianity. I was really, really hoping you'd respond to that, considering your statement earlier. What gives?[/QUOTE] Sorry I missed it, on my mobile. Already kinda answered it my last post. The crusades are undoubtedly violent "by the sword."
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52334453]Irregardless of if it is an agreeable statement it is targeting a minority, why is that type of rhetoric allowed but Mr. Vought essentially quoting scripture and making no statements to support the claims he will allow his religious beliefs to interfere with his job, an offence worthy of disqualification from office?[/QUOTE] These billionaires and corporate leaders brought the western world to the brink of financial ruin because of their unchecked greed and their consistent choice to favour short-term gain over longterm stability. Any 'minority', as you put it, that holds the power to do major damage and wields that power irresponsibly no longer deserves it. I would also like to see the passage of scripture, complete with book, chapter and verse, that reads exactly thus: "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." I trust you're not all talk, and you can deliver, since you insisted the man was simply quoting scripture. Believe it or not, I know my scripture too.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334153] You clearly don't understand the idea of the Jewish laws and how they apply to Christians. Like I said previously, you are claiming to have a better understanding of Biblical theology than every Christian society to have existed. That is the height of ignorance and narcissism. [/QUOTE] I never made such a claim. Do not put words into my mouth. All I said was that people ignore those passages because those passages are terrible. Are you suggesting that they don't ignore them? If you ask 20 different Christians the same question, you can get up to 20 different answers. This is because every Christian has their own views on what their religion is, and those views are largely influenced by other things that they believe. So, getting indignant because I don't know what YOUR particular version is, is rather silly. But NONE of this is relevant to the thread. What IS relevant is that Vought chose to call out another religion by name, which calls into question his ability to keep his religious beliefs separate from his governmental duties.
How did this thread reach 7 pages? [quote]Where Sanders saw Islamophobia and intolerance, Vought believed he was stating a basic principle of his belief as an evangelical Christian: that faith in Jesus is the only pathway to salvation. And where Sanders believed he was policing bigotry in public office, others believed he was imposing a religious test. As Russell Moore, the head of the political arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, said in a statement, “Even if one were to excuse Senator Sanders for not realizing that all Christians of every age have insisted that faith in Jesus Christ is the only pathway to salvation, it is inconceivable that Senator Sanders would cite religious beliefs as disqualifying an individual for public office.”[/quote] Person 1: "Muslims are terrible at religion and worshipping god. Muslims do not know god." Person 2: "That's pretty islamophobic. People intolerant of other religions shouldn't hold public office." Person 1: "I disagree" Atlantic Journalist: "BERNIE SANDERS'S RELIGIOUS TEST FOR CHRISTIANS IN PUBLIC OFFICE, MORE AT 11" This is bordering an opinion article. At no point a religious test was brought up, Sanders said that people who are intolerant of other religions shouldn't be in public office and apparently that translated to "R E L I G I O U S T E S T" only to the author of the article. It wasn't even brought up in conversation.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334486]These billionaires and corporate leaders brought the western world to the brink of financial ruin because of their unchecked greed and their consistent choice to favour short-term gain over longterm stability. Any 'minority', as you put it, that holds the power to do major damage and wields that power irresponsibly no longer deserves it. I would also like to see the passage of scripture, complete with book, chapter and verse, that reads exactly thus: "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." I trust you're not all talk, and you can deliver, since you insisted the man was simply quoting scripture. Believe it or not, I know my scripture too.[/QUOTE] Vought quoted the scripture in his article, as I pointed out earlier the Muslim specific quote was boiled down but it fits in with the quotes he provided. Are you really going to try a pedantic argument on this level because I said "essentially quoting scripture"? are you prepared to argue that his beliefs are completely unfounded insofar as the quotes he is backing them up with are concerned?
[QUOTE=benwaddi;52334531]Vought quoted the scripture in his article, as I pointed out earlier the Muslim specific quote was boiled down but it fits in with the quotes he provided. Are you really going to try a pedantic argument on this level because I said "essentially quoting scripture"? are you prepared to argue that his beliefs are completely unfounded insofar as the quotes he is backing them up with are concerned?[/QUOTE] The quote I mentioned was the very quote that Sanders used as justification for voting against Vought. The smoking gun, so to speak, proving that he was unfit to serve as a representative of the American people because of his bias against Muslims. Bringing attention to that very quote, then, is the opposite of pedantry. You are the one attempting to distract from the issue by bringing Vought's Christianity into the spotlight and pretending that it's his religion - and not his negative bias against a portion of the people he's supposed to represent - that disqualifies him. You still have not addressed at all the very valid point that your poor oppressed minority of billionaires and corporate leaders were almost responsible for ruining America.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52334428]What was the colonisation of Africa :thinking_face: Hell, what was the colonisation of the Americas? What were the Plantations in Ireland? The fact you're getting a history degree is upsetting to me. You are way too biased and put your political ideology in how you view and retell events. That is a no-no. I hope you never teach or write history. Because you lie about it and simplify it to the misrepresentative extreme, like a shitty Hollywood movie, though with obvious insideous intent.[/QUOTE] Quite frankly, I really don't think you understand history objectively considering there are many students who get low grades for such simple statements you just made right now. Also I think people are jumping over the part of "early spread" of Christianity that I stated. Because that is extremely important to understand how such a religion was able to even grab a foothold of power to violently spread. I also don't bring politics into my history as much as I can. In fact most of professors think I'm pretty much liberal or don't know what I really think. Working on my thesis is about as close as I get to personal polifics, but even then I'm mentoring under a fairly liberal professor who is checking my work and got me a summer internship at a Holocaust museum. So really, maybe you should read some more history, cause it is quite interesting to do objective and analatiycal comparisons on first-hand sources and see how much history is open to interpretation/peer-review beyond your standard textbook that does summations.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52334522]How did this thread reach 7 pages? Person 1: "Muslims are terrible at religion and worshipping god. Muslims do not know god." Person 2: "That's pretty islamophobic. People intolerant of other religions shouldn't hold public office." Person 1: "I disagree" Atlantic Journalist: "BERNIE SANDERS'S RELIGIOUS TEST FOR CHRISTIANS IN PUBLIC OFFICE, MORE AT 11" This is bordering an opinion article. At no point a religious test was brought up, Sanders said that people who are intolerant of other religions shouldn't be in public office and apparently that translated to "R E L I G I O U S T E S T" only to the author of the article. It wasn't even brought up in conversation.[/QUOTE] Here's the problem: there's no reason to think the guy would mistreat Muslims. Sanders disagreement was on the theological beliefs of the man, not his actions, policy, or even speaking about treating Muslims badly.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334572]Here's the problem: there's no reason to think the guy would mistreat Muslims. Sanders disagreement was on the theological beliefs of the man, not his actions, policy, or even speaking about treating Muslims badly.[/QUOTE] "They stand condemned" sure isn't any indication that a politician might mistreat a minority.
Just look all the other articles reporting this [url]https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d3Zf-tGsfvC70kMeKBP3S9xd3dv-M&q=bernie+sanders+religious+test&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLhraj37HUAhVM22MKHXKXBo8QqgIILzAA[/url] CBN News: so batshit crazy that [URL="http://i.imgur.com/UQXqiEQ.png"]it has it's own custom scale for it's pseudoscience [/URL], but at least has the integrity to admit "hey this is one guy's perspective" US World news: High Factual Reporting, Left-Center Bias. Has the journalistic integrity to mention that this whole "RELIGIOUS TEST" thing started because of a columnist at a hard-right conservative magazine. Also has the journalistic integrity to say that experts say that Sanders is within his right and this does not fall under some sort of religious persecution crap with an expert analysis. New York Magazine: High factual reporting, hard left bias, does the exact same thing as the atlantic did except somehow more acceptable by phrasing the title as a question ([I]"Did Bernie Sanders Embrace a ‘Religious Test’ for a Trump Nominee?"[/I]) instead of a statement ("[I]Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office"[/I]). Washington Times, High factual reporting, right-center bias. Does the same thing as the Atlantic except it appropriately labels it as an opinion article. First 4 articles of that link, save for a blog because that's easy pickings. This an opinion article.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52334561]The quote I mentioned was the very quote that Sanders used as justification for voting against Vought. The smoking gun, so to speak, proving that he was unfit to serve as a representative of the American people because of his bias against Muslims. Bringing attention to that very quote, then, is the opposite of pedantry. You are the one attempting to distract from the issue by bringing Vought's Christianity into the spotlight and pretending that it's his religion - and not his negative bias against a portion of the people he's supposed to represent - that disqualifies him.[/QUOTE] The fucking quote is conveying his religious beliefs as backed up by the quotes in the article. Have you been sipping the water in Flint? It is absolutely an issue of his Christianity considering Bernie was digging up a quote in an article about a theological disagreement. Still you haven't shown a clear example of how that quote of Vought's translates directly into him treating non Christians unfairly, there is no intent displayed, he has no track record that I know of and he was quick to point out he would treat everyone the same. [QUOTE]You still have not addressed at all the very valid point that your poor oppressed minority of billionaires and corporate leaders were almost responsible for ruining America.[/QUOTE] I didn't say the quote was disagreeable, I said he targetted a minority for a "moral and political war", are you arguing that statements implying an derogatory view of a group is allowed now? They weren't a minute ago....
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334572]Here's the problem: there's no reason to think the guy would mistreat Muslims. Sanders disagreement was on the theological beliefs of the man, not his actions, policy, or even speaking about treating Muslims badly.[/QUOTE] I can't believe I'm encouraging this, but at least find a better article that focuses on the fact that opinions aren't equal to actions instead of the much heavier claim of "Bernie Sanders wants to implement a Religious Test"
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52334635]I can't believe I'm encouraging this, but at least find a better article that focuses on the fact that opinions aren't equal to actions instead of the much heavier claim of "Bernie Sanders wants to implement a Religious Test"[/QUOTE] It was the first article I saw on the topic and it's rated as center-left and high factual reporting. Don't read just the title and all the information is there. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;52334615]"They stand condemned" sure isn't any indication that a politician might mistreat a minority.[/QUOTE] It isn't if you go beyond the most shallow and ignorant understanding of it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334678]It was the first article I saw on the topic and it's rated as center-left and high factual reporting. Don't read just the title and all the information is there.[/QUOTE] Yeah and as well as the author's imput and several good chunks of the article. [quote]During a contentious confirmation hearing, the Vermont senator questioned the faith of the nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.[/quote] [quote]Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” On Wednesday, Senator Bernie Sanders flirted with the boundaries of this rule during a confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.[/quote] [quote]The exchange shows just how tense the political environment under Trump has become. But it’s also evidence of the danger of using religion to deem someone unfit to serve in government.[/quote] [quote]After a long exchange on tax cuts for the wealthy and other issues directly relevant to Vought’s proposed role in government, this issue—Vought’s beliefs about the exclusivity of his religion—seemed to be the reason why Sanders saw him as an unacceptable candidate for office.[/quote] [quote]It’s one thing to take issue with bigotry. It’s another to try to exclude people from office based on their theological convictions. Sanders used the term “Islamophobia” to suggest that Vought fears Muslims for who they are. But in his writing, Vought was contesting something different: He disagrees with what Muslims believe, and does not think their faith is satisfactory for salvation. Right or wrong, this is a conviction held by millions of Americans—and many Muslims might say the same thing about Christianity. This is the danger of relying on religion as a threshold test for public service, the kind of test America’s founders were guarding against when they drafted Article VI. But that danger did not stop Sanders or Van Hollen from focusing on Vought’s religious beliefs during his confirmation hearing. It did not stop groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and Muslim Advocates from sending out press releases condemning Vought’s comments. The American Civil Liberties Union also weighed in, saying that it was Vought’s views which threatened the principle of religious freedom. As the demands for tolerance in America become greater, the bounds of acceptance can also become tighter. Ironically, that pits acceptance of religious diversity against the freedom of individual conscience.[/quote]
I don't understand your contention. [QUOTE]It’s one thing to take issue with bigotry. It’s another to try to exclude people from office based on their theological convictions. Sanders used the term “Islamophobia” to suggest that Vought fears Muslims for who they are. But in his writing, Vought was contesting something different: He disagrees with what Muslims believe, and does not think their faith is satisfactory for salvation. Right or wrong, this is a conviction held by millions of Americans—and many Muslims might say the same thing about Christianity.[/QUOTE] This is a very accurate explanation of the beliefs in question.
[QUOTE]After a long exchange on tax cuts for the wealthy and other issues directly relevant to Vought’s proposed role in government, this issue—Vought’s beliefs about the exclusivity of his religion—seemed to be the reason why Sanders saw him as an unacceptable candidate for office. [/QUOTE] I mean if your relgious beliefs inform your political ones(as pretty much everyones do) then his actions as a christian will impact people in ways that may not be fair or correct
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52334702]I mean if your relgious beliefs inform your political ones(as pretty much everyones do) then his actions as a christian will impact people in ways that may not be fair or correct[/QUOTE] It was that he had an exclusive religious belief, not that any specific part of his belief system would lead to disagreeable policy. He didn't point to his non-recognition of gay marriage or any other specific policy applicable belief (Probably because it would be irrelevant to the position he was being appointed to). Sanders, instead, disagrees with the very fact that he dared to say that Muslims don't have salvation through Christ.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334701]I don't understand your contention. This is a very accurate explanation of the beliefs in question.[/QUOTE] Well that "theological conviction" is bigotry. I don't care if your religious doctrine tells you to do it, it's still bigotry.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52334715]Well that "theological conviction" is bigotry. I don't care if your religious doctrine tells you to do it, it's still bigotry.[/QUOTE] Can you explain how it's bigotry to disagree with someone's religious beliefs? Bigotry is generally some form of intolerance, but I see no connection between that "theological conviction" and a lack of tolerance for Muslim beliefs.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52334725]Can you explain how it's bigotry to disagree with someone's religious beliefs?[/QUOTE] because no matter how much you state this, religious beliefs aren't special and you shouldn't have any special protections from them over any other type of belief
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52334728]because no matter how much you state this, religious beliefs aren't special and you shouldn't have any special protections from them over any other type of belief[/QUOTE] I don't see how that's an answer to the question. Can you explain how that belief is equivalent to not being tolerant to Muslim beliefs? Are the two people in this discussion being bigoted towards each other ([URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2NBcVAV038)?[/URL] They would both agree with that statement for their perspective religions, yet are discussing with good intentions and kindness. I'm not sure how you can watch that and say, "Yup, those are just two bigots in opposition to each other."
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52334428]What was the colonisation of Africa :thinking_face: Hell, what was the colonisation of the Americas? What were the Plantations in Ireland? The fact you're getting a history degree is upsetting to me. You are way too biased and put your political ideology in how you view and retell events. That is a no-no. I hope you never teach or write history. Because you lie about it and simplify it to the misrepresentative extreme, like a shitty Hollywood movie, though with obvious insideous intent.[/QUOTE] What good is a history degree if you're not allowed to rewrite the past to suit your perspectives?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52334734]What good is a history degree if you're not allowed to rewrite the past to suit your perspectives?[/QUOTE] You know unlike Blackmagemari, I actually think you are pretty smart in quite a few areas and I can respect alot of your points. Don't think I am just discounting it all. I do think you assume the worst of my points though. You totally make way more comprehensive posts on here that due truly are solid and full of effort and it is easy to identify that. As to this, "rewrite history" thing, I think people in general should really read up on the topic. I took a history of American Religion class as an Atheist thinking it would be meh and pretty much thinking the way most of yall feel right about now, but it turned out to really change my outlook throughout history. I straight up think most people on here are tackling the issue from a surface level perspective.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52334522]How did this thread reach 7 pages? Person 1: "Muslims are terrible at religion and worshipping god. Muslims do not know god." Person 2: "That's pretty islamophobic. People intolerant of other religions shouldn't hold public office." Person 1: "I disagree" Atlantic Journalist: "BERNIE SANDERS'S RELIGIOUS TEST FOR CHRISTIANS IN PUBLIC OFFICE, MORE AT 11" This is bordering an opinion article. At no point a religious test was brought up, Sanders said that people who are intolerant of other religions shouldn't be in public office and apparently that translated to "R E L I G I O U S T E S T" only to the author of the article. It wasn't even brought up in conversation.[/QUOTE] I think the confusion here is between the words "intolerance" and "disagreement". Everyone who is in a religion probably believes that their religion is correct. As is the case with Vought. Since most of Islam also holds the belief that non-believers are condemned to eternity in Hell, would you be willing to say they're intolerant of other religions as well? The thing is that believing your religion is the only pathway to salvation absolutely does not make you intolerant of people that don't share your belief. Everybody here is riding on that assumption. "I will treat everybody with dignity and respect no matter their religion" "Yeah well I think you'll treat other people as subhuman. I have no proof yet, but your religious views make me want to prevent you from ever proving me wrong"
[QUOTE=KingofBeast;52335350]I think the confusion here is between the words "intolerance" and "disagreement". Everyone who is in a religion probably believes that their religion is correct. As is the case with Vought. Since most of Islam also holds the belief that non-believers are condemned to eternity in Hell, would you be willing to say they're intolerant of other religions as well?[/quote] I honestly could not give a shit who said it. If someone says that their religion is better than other religions then they're an ass. Have I shown any indication whatsoever that I give special treatment to Muslims? [QUOTE=KingofBeast;52335350]The thing is that believing your religion is the only pathway to salvation absolutely does not make you intolerant of people that don't share your belief. Everybody here is riding on that assumption. "I will treat everybody with dignity and respect no matter their religion" "Yeah well I think you'll treat other people as subhuman. I have no proof yet, but your religious views make me want to prevent you from ever proving me wrong"[/QUOTE] Sure let's strawman that conversation. Reword your point and I'll be happy to argue it. [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52334725]Can you explain how it's bigotry to disagree with someone's religious beliefs? Bigotry is generally some form of intolerance, but I see no connection between that "theological conviction" and a lack of tolerance for Muslim beliefs.[/QUOTE] That's not disagreeing with other people's beliefs. Saying that you don't like a particular religion is fine, saying that you do not like a particular idea of a religion is fine. [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] This isn't a petty disagreement. This is being a cunt.
Sgman doesn't equate believing people who disagree with your worldview are destined for eternal damnation in the firey pits of hell to be a flaw in judgement and that is why this thread in 7 pages long.
After all that arguing about the "not a muslim ban" muslim ban any problems people may have about this particular situation should be directed at their own rears.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.