So...If I understand you correctly, if someone attacks another religion that is something the Senate cannot consider in whether to approve a nominee? What if a Muslim says his religious beliefs are that women should not be allowed to drive or overall participate equally in society? Still ok?It seems to me that when a person starts attacking another religion as harshly as that nominee did...that's fair game for the Senate to consider. I don't care if he did it for his alma mater--he stood by it.

Ok, let's switch it around. Muslim nominee says "Christianity is a deficient ideology and Christians are condemned"...you would be ok with that nominee being approved? As for Sanders not attacking a Muslim nominee like that...no way if a Muslim nominee said that about the Christian religion he would even get nominated!

Come on, this isn't even a close call. That's slo-pitch softball...

freeman3 wrote:So...If I understand you correctly, if someone attacks another religion that is something the Senate cannot consider in whether to approve a nominee?

I think you need some context. Try this: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ht/529614/

What if a Muslim says his religious beliefs are that women should not be allowed to drive or overall participate equally in society? Still ok?It seems to me that when a person starts attacking another religion as harshly as that nominee did...that's fair game for the Senate to consider. I don't care if he did it for his alma mater--he stood by it.

Again, this had nothing to do with Vought's job. Nothing. Zero. It had no relevance to a hearing. The only way to get Sanders' vote was to deny his faith. Jesus Himself made following Him a requirement for heaven, which is what Sanders was driving at. According to Sanders, and apparently you, no Christian could serve in government.

When Vought tried to say he would treat all equally, that wasn't sufficient. Sanders wanted Vought to validate other religions. That's a religious test and unconstitutional.

Ok, let's switch it around. Muslim nominee says "Christianity is a deficient ideology and Christians are condemned"...you would be ok with that nominee being approved?

If he says anything else, he doesn't understand his religion.

As for Sanders not attacking a Muslim nominee like that...no way if a Muslim nominee said that about the Christian religion he would even get nominated!

Sure. So, no one, for example, who has been a Mormon missionary could serve. After all, they try to CONVERT people, right? That necessarily implies superiority. In fact, anyone who has ever evangelized for their faith is disqualified. I'd take it a step further: anyone who genuinely believes their religion is not qualified.

Only atheists and nominal believers need apply.

Come on, this isn't even a close call. That's slo-pitch softball...

You're right--it's not close. This is shocking overreach by Sanders and shows why he should never be President.

I don't see where it is required that you attack other religion in order to worship. I guess in order to get converts you might need to demonstrate why your religion is better than another religion or why your religion is true and the other one is false. Two problems with that argument here: (1) is that what the nominee was trying to do with regard to what he said on behalf of his alma mater...convert people?, and (2) was it necessary to use such harsh language such as saying that the Muslim religion has a deficient ideology and that Muslims stand condemned?.

Sure, government should not employ a religion test in staffing the government. However, the government also is not supposed to discriminate against people because of race, ethnicity...or based on religion. As is common when speaking about rights you have to balance them against each other. Once a person is not just worshipping a particular religion but harshly attacking another religion so as to raise concerns that they could not be fair to members of that religion, then those attacks on another religion become a matter for legitimate inquiry.

I am quite confident that the government could be easily staffed with Christians who had not harshly attacked another religion. Quite confident. I am not saying that his comments disqualified him, but it was certainly appropriate to thoroughly question him on them and be part of the assessment of whether he should be confirmed.

freeman3 wrote:I don't see where it is required that you attack other religion in order to worship. I guess in order to get converts you might need to demonstrate why your religion is better than another religion or why your religion is true and the other one is false. Two problems with that argument here: (1) is that what the nominee was trying to do with regard to what he said on behalf of his alma mater...convert people?, and (2) was it necessary to use such harsh language such as saying that the Muslim religion has a deficient ideology and that Muslims stand condemned?.

Since you apparently can't be bothered, the context was a professor at a Christian college being fired for saying Muslims worship the same god. They do not. Islam doesn't have a Trinity. They deny the deity of Christ. What Sanders asked Vought to do was LIE. He wanted him to say something CONTRARY to his beliefs. That's rubbish.

Btw, one prominent evangelical who pastors in DC said he would welcome someone of a different faith in government. https://mobile.twitter.com/markdever/st ... 9636040704

Unlike the senator from Vermont, I welcome in public service and am thankful for those who, though we disagree theologically, agree on laws.

Dever is someone with whom I agree 99.9% of the time. And, he's right here.

Sure, government should not employ a religion test in staffing the government. However, the government also is not supposed to discriminate against people because of race, ethnicity...or based on religion. As is common when speaking about rights you have to balance them against each other. Once a person is not just worshipping a particular religion but harshly attacking another religion so as to raise concerns that they could not be fair to members of that religion, then those attacks on another religion become a matter for legitimate inquiry.

You're being silly. "Harshly attacking?" Really? By refusing to say, in effect, that Islam is just as valid as Christianity? Would you expect a Christian to say that?

I am quite confident that the government could be easily staffed with Christians who had not harshly attacked another religion. Quite confident. I am not saying that his comments disqualified him, but it was certainly appropriate to thoroughly question him on them and be part of the assessment of whether he should be confirmed.

Here's an "appropriate" line of questioning:

"Mr. Vought, you are a Christian?"

"Yes I am."

"Is there anything in your belief system that would prevent you from dealing fairly with those of other faiths?"

What Sanders did was attack him. He's a hypocrite and Constitutional ignoramus.

["what you say"]
They mock and persecute Christians--see Sanders. [/quote]

["what I hear"]
Mama, Bernie Sanders hurt my feelings.

Oh there, there, my dear fragile little snowflake. [/quote]

geojanes wrote:

["what you say"]
They mock and persecute Christians--see Sanders.

["what I hear"]
Mama, Bernie Sanders hurt my feelings.

Oh there, there, my dear fragile little snowflake.

Of course, because you're so concerned about freedom--unless it's religious freedom of Christians.

Then again, you don't like the 2nd amendment either.

Really, try to make a sensible argument FOR the nature of Sanders' questions. There isn't one other than ignorance or hostility.

Yeah...how horrible for a professor to say that Muslims and Christians worship the same God such that a professor has to be fired for saying it. Anyway, so Vought voluntarily writes this piece justifying why his alma mater had to fire this professor for her Facebook post. Did he have to say that Islam has a "deficient ideology" and that Muslims "stand condemned" in order to show that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same God? You seem to be able to do that without using inflammatory rhetoric--why can't he? That's the issue because otherwise he used unnecessarily harsh language to attack another religion.

freeman3 wrote:Yeah...how horrible for a professor to say that Muslims and Christians worship the same God such that a professor has to be fired for saying it.

At a Christian university with a Christian statement of faith, that is a uniquely anti-Christian thing to say. She deserved to get fired. She was in violation of the statement of faith and thus a violation of her terms of employment. That'll get you fired every time.

Anyway, so Vought voluntarily writes this piece justifying why his alma mater had to fire this professor for her Facebook post. Did he have to say that Islam has a "deficient ideology" and that Muslims "stand condemned" in order to show that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same God?

That is why she was fired. What's he supposed to do, not draw the distinction? How would that help?

You seem to be able to do that without using inflammatory rhetoric--why can't he? That's the issue because otherwise he used unnecessarily harsh language to attack another religion.

The college drew some complaints for firing her. From a theological perspective, her firing was completely understandable. In fact, it was mandatory.

Here is Vought's essay. He does not demean Muslims. He merely points out that which is true: Christians and Muslims do not agree on the nature of God nor do they agree about Christ. Jesus made claims of exclusivity which are rejected by Muslims. That is their right, but it shows we do not worship the same God.

Stackhouse implies that someone could really “know God” without a focus on Jesus. He explains, “Having a deficient (e.g., nontrinitarian) theology of God…does not mean you are not in actual prayerful and faithful relationship with God. (Having wrong ideas about a person…doesn’t mean that you do not have a relationship with that person.)” This is the fundamental problem. 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. In John 8:19, “Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And in John 3:18, Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

So, Vought's "intolerance" is nothing more (or less) than the words of Jesus. That is why Senator Sanders' words are so offensive and why, contra some here, I am not "a snowflake."

A flake? Maybe.

This is the key passage: "This is the fundamental problem. 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 think if you are planning on working in government--where you are expected to treat everyone equally--you probably would want to say things differently. This is the 21st Century...not the 15th. We live in a multi-culultural society with people who hold many different beliefs. We need to be respectful of other people's beliefs at least when those beliefs are within reason. The government needs to be neutral and Vought used language that was excessive pertaining to Muslims in my opinion with regard to a doctrinal dispute over whether Muslims and Christians worship the same god (by the way, I believe Muslims would hold that People of the Book--Jews and Christians--do worship the same God...though I could be wrong about that)

At the end of the day there is no way for any religion to prove that their interpretation of God is right as compared to another religion. So religiin divides over issues that can never be proven. Somehow religion is never a private thing, it always spills over into the the public space. That's the problem. At least in the West we have separated the Church and State so people have the freedom to live their lives without someone else's religion dictating how they should live. But we have to be mindful to keep it that way.

Doctor Fate wrote:Of course, because you're so concerned about freedom--unless it's religious freedom of Christians.

In the United States of America to say that Christians are persecuted is like saying that white people are persecuted; sure some people believe that, but it's an absurd thing to say. Christianity is the majority religion, by far! It's in power and holds incredible sway on politics, policy and even daily life! To me, your assertion is absolutely absurd and completely without merit. Really Fate, when did you become such a fragile little snowflake?

freeman3 wrote:This is the key passage: "This is the fundamental problem. 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."

And, I cited THAT passage. One key difference: I didn't cut off the very words of Jesus!

You want a Christian who stays silent about the words of Christ! Can you not see the fundamental contradiction?

"It's fine that you're a Christian--as long as you believe all other faiths, or no faith whatsoever, are equally valid."

Um, that's not Christianity.

If Senator Sanders wants to have such a test for government positions, I think he runs afoul of the Constitution. What about you?

I think if you are planning on working in government--where you are expected to treat everyone equally--you probably would want to say things differently.

So, he should put political considerations ahead of his faith?

Btw, did Senator Sanders introduce any EVIDENCE that Vought had EVER treated someone unequally? If that's the standard, where's the evidence?

This is the 21st Century...not the 15th. We live in a multi-culultural society with people who hold many different beliefs. We need to be respectful of other people's beliefs at least when those beliefs are within reason.

And, in the 15th Century, or the 25th Century, it will always be the same: I must be permitted to disagree with you without being discriminated against. There is no evidence that Vought had ever or would ever discriminate on the basis of religion. However, the State may not dictate what he may/may not believe. That's what Sanders was trying to do.

The government needs to be neutral and Vought used language that was excessive pertaining to Muslims in my opinion with regard to a doctrinal dispute over whether Muslims and Christians worship the same god (by the way, I believe Muslims would hold that People of the Book--Jews and Christians--do worship the same God...though I could be wrong about that)

Do Muslims believe Jesus is God? Did Jesus say He was God?

Since the answers are "No" and "Yes," there is a rift between Christians and Muslims. We must be permitted to disagree and to do so agreeably. That is to say Christians cannot and ought not insist that others share their beliefs, but they also may not be denied the right to believe what they will--and to write about it.

There is zero evidence that Vought's faith would impact his ability to serve. None.

At the end of the day there is no way for any religion to prove that their interpretation of God is right as compared to another religion. So religiin divides over issues that can never be proven. Somehow religion is never a private thing, it always spills over into the the public space. That's the problem. At least in the West we have separated the Church and State so people have the freedom to live their lives without someone else's religion dictating how they should live. But we have to be mindful to keep it that way.

Oh, don't pull the Establishment Clause. Vought's nowhere near that--so it's a red herring.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Of course, because you're so concerned about freedom--unless it's religious freedom of Christians.

In the United States of America to say that Christians are persecuted is like saying that white people are persecuted; sure some people believe that, but it's an absurd thing to say. Christianity is the majority religion, by far! It's in power and holds incredible sway on politics, policy and even daily life! To me, your assertion is absolutely absurd and completely without merit. Really Fate, when did you become such a fragile little snowflake?

Rubbish. When did you become so flaky?

Certainly, Sanders was persecuting Vought for being a Christian. That was the extent of Vought's "crime." He had the temerity to stand up for the words of Christ. Isn't being a "Christian" following Christ?

You can laugh all you want about Christians not being persecuted, but what is happening is that more and more restrictions are being placed on Christians--far beyond this case.

In the UK, preachers are jailed for calling homosexuality a sin.

In Canada, one province just passed a law authorizing social services to take children out of homes IF the parents disagree with their "transsexual" child. So, if little Billy decides he is going to be Willamena and the parents refuse to help, the State takes the child.

You can mock it all you want. It's happening. And, you are supporting it.

Doctor Fate wrote:You can mock it all you want. It's happening. And, you are supporting it.

Fate, it's hard to be a religious person, but I've seen you on Facebook putting down all kinds of Christians for not be Christian enough, or the right kind, or whatever. You might even say they weren't Christians at all. I am absolutely SURE you attack more Christians than I do, for not being the right kind or by being apostates or whatever. But that comes with the territory. Faith will always be tested no matter who you are and what god you worship. But the people you have to worry about is usually people of faith putting down other people of faith for being the wrong faith. You worry about Christians being attacked, OK, but maybe you don't have to look so far to find the source.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You can mock it all you want. It's happening. And, you are supporting it.

Fate, it's hard to be a religious person, but I've seen you on Facebook putting down all kinds of Christians for not be Christian enough, or the right kind, or whatever. You might even say they weren't Christians at all. I am absolutely SURE you attack more Christians than I do, for not being the right kind or by being apostates or whatever. But that comes with the territory. Faith will always be tested no matter who you are and what god you worship. But the people you have to worry about is usually people of faith putting down other people of faith for being the wrong faith. You worry about Christians being attacked, OK, but maybe you don't have to look so far to find the source.

I don't attack people, with the exception of absolute frauds, like Benny Hinn. I go after ideas.

I don't go after "people of faith for being the wrong faith." Why not? Because it's not their fault. And, that's a discussion for another day.

Nevertheless, to get back on point, do you support Senator Sanders and his establishing a religious test for political office? That is what he did.

fate

Certainly, Sanders was persecuting Vought for being a Christian

He was criticizing him for being intolerant. And disagreeing with his fitness to serve because of the intolerance. That's not persecution because intolerance is something anyone can demonstrate.
Whether he was an intolerant Christian or an intolerant Muslim or an intolerant atheist ....
The premise of "freedom to worship your religion of choice" presumes that tolerance is essential.
A civic official who cannot be tolerant in deed and word should not serve as the contradiction undermines the basic premise of "freedom to worship".

Fundamental Islamic interpretations like Wahabism have poisoned Islam over the last 150 years...
Fundamental Christian interpretations were at one time common and their effects were far more deadly to mankind before reason and secularism began to sway society towards tolerance.
Fate

So, Vought's "intolerance" is nothing more (or less) than the words of Jesus

Justifying intolerance with scripture is always the nature of fundamental religions. One can have a right to those thoughts. But when acts on it in the public marketplace, and it begins to infringe on the rights of others, than it becomes intolerance...