rickyp wrote: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"..

Dear Senator Sanders,

I am a pastor in Manchester Center, Vermont, so I am one of your constituents. And I am concerned. You and I both know that Vermont has added to the rich history of religious freedom in our great country. I live 25 minutes from the Old First Church in Bennington, where the following plaque is placed on the side of the historic church building: “First Church in Vermont dedicated to separation of church and state. Congregation founded by those seeking religious freedom.” As you probably know, First Church was “gathered” on December 3, 1762, the first Protestant congregation in the New Hampshire Grants. They were “separatists,” believing that the government should neither establish nor restrict religious freedom. They were seeking religious freedom, not freedom from religion.

Your actions towards and comments to Russell Vought during his confirmation hearing for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget endanger our rich history of religious freedom as both a state and a country.

Here is why I am concerned, and here is why I write you today: not only because I believe you violated Article VI of the United States Constitution in imposing a religious test as a litmus test for somebody’s fitness to hold a government office, but also because you then released this statement yesterday: “racism and bigotry—condemning an entire group of people because of their faith—cannot be part of any public policy.”

As I have read your comments towards Mr. Vought and watched the video of your interaction, I am astounded at how quickly you have tied together personal faith that Jesus is the only Savior with an individual’s public policy. As Mr. Vought tried to express but was interrupted, Christians believe that all people are made in the image of God and thus should be treated with dignity and respect, even while we hold to Jesus’ statements such as, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

We do not have to be Universalists theologically to be able to hold public office nor to be good citizens in the Green Mountain State or in the United States of America. I believe that the founders of First Church would have been shocked at your statements as they were leaving a government that told them what they could and could not believe. We have reverted back to a government that has a religious test, but rather than church membership allowing entrance into government office, it is now philosophical membership in secularism that holds the keys.

I ask you to clarify and clearly articulate whether or not you truly believe that a Christian who believes that Jesus is the only way to salvation can no longer hold public office in this country. Are you saying that citizens who are not atheists, agnostics, or Universalists cannot serve as government officials? As you have been reminded already since Wednesday, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution declares, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Evangelical Christians who hold to salvation in Christ alone may be a minority in our great state, but we are not racists or bigots, and our elected Senators should not make such broad-brush and intolerant statements.

I will continue to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, which means the “good news” of Jesus Christ. It is a message of reconciliation to God and fellow man. It is good news that we offer to all people who will listen: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) It is a message that says that although our sin condemns us before the holy God, that Jesus took our condemnation on the cross and rose from the dead so that believers in him will never stand condemned (Romans 8:1). And if somebody really believes that message, they will embrace Jesus not only for salvation but also to help them live a life of service and love to others. Jesus himself said that all of the commandments are summed up in love for God and love for others (Matthew 22:36-40).

I will not only continue to preach that message, I will continue to pray that those of us who believe in this good news will be allowed to serve in public office; not promoted because of our faith but also not prohibited from service because of our faith. I am writing to you today not because you are telling me I cannot preach this message, but because you are telling me that those I preach this message to are “hateful” not because of their actions, but because of their faith.

As a Vermont pastor, I ask my country for freedom to not only preach the gospel–but also for freedom for those I preach to–to hold their religious beliefs while also holding public office. If you return to our roots of religious freedom as a state and as a nation, the religious tests will stop. And you may find that those you classify as racists and bigots today not only believe that Jesus is the only way to personal salvation, but also that His way is a way of love that treats all persons with the utmost love, respect, and service–even in public office.

Sincerely,
Tim Counts
A Concerned Pastor in Vermont

freeman3 wrote:There is a larger context here. The president campaigned on discriminating against Muslims. One of the first things he did was initiate a travel ban against Muslims from 7 countries. This is an Administration with anti-Muslims in it and willing to take anti-Muslim actions.

Now, we have a person who is going to join the Administration who appears to fit right in with his description of Islam as being a "deficient ideology" and that Muslims "stand condemned". So...why should Sanders decide oh great another anti-Muslim person to join this anti-Muslim Administration?

And there is yet another context. You're whining that a Christian gets closely questioned because of writings that describe Islam in a negative way. What about all Muslims that would be affected by the travel ban? What about the families split up? What about people not being able to flee war torn areas? What about women, children...everyone being denied the chance to start a new life? You have no empathy for them it appears...but a Christian whose views get scrutinized, that's the end of the world.

I was also struck by his argument that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same god. See..that presents kind of a fairness problem when your God is the only God. Why? Ok what happens to the following people: (1) all people who lived before Jesus who did not have access to his teachings, (2) all people who have lived since Jesus who did not have access to his teachings (like say a tribe in the Amazon but of course there are innumerable examples), (3) people who grew up in another religion who did not have equal access to his teachings, (4) those who died at a very young age and did not have a chance to accept his teachings. You have an enormous issue of fairness...once you insist that your God is the only God. But if you say that people everywhere worship the same god in different manifestations but your interpretation of god is the best, most accurate one...then at least some of the fairness issue goes away.

When you start showing empathy for Muslims who are being discriminated against--I think we can probably safely assume that some Muslims would die because of the travel ban--I'll start showing empathy for your probably well-to-do Christian facing a few tough questions.

Snowflake indeed.

freeman3 wrote:Dishonest? Where is there dishonesty in my post. You should not just throw around accusations around with no support whatsoever.

And there is yet another context. You're whining that a Christian gets closely questioned because of writings that describe Islam in a negative way. What about all Muslims that would be affected by the travel ban? What about the families split up? What about people not being able to flee war torn areas? What about women, children...everyone being denied the chance to start a new life? You have no empathy for them it appears...but a Christian whose views get scrutinized, that's the end of the world.

At the end of day, your guy made negative comments about another group of people. You don't get to cry "religious test" or ideology or claim Jesus said it so it's ok. Senators have an obligation to explore those negative comments to see if he will carry that it into his government post.

And nothing happens in a vacuum. The fact that we have an Administration that is trying to ban ALL Muslims from 6 countries makes someone making unnecessarily negative comments about another religion particularly relevant. Oh but he can treat Muslims fairly. And the Trump Administration is treating them fairly, right?

It was fair game to inquire into his article. He should be able to defend his actions. If Sanders was applying a religious test...he would be doing that to other Christian nominees. Got any other examples where Sanders did this or any example where a Christians nominee before the Senate was harassed just because they were Christian? No? Didn't think so...

The idea that Christians are under attack in the US..is so laughable.

freeman3 wrote:I'll limit my response to your allegation of dishonesty. I don't think any reader would intepret what I said as indicating that you actually said you have no sympathy for Muslims caught up in the Travel Ban. I said it "appears" so because (to me)you have supported the travel ban without ever mentioning any empathy for Muslims caught up in it. And to me it's almost by definition if you support a total temporary ban you are not empathetic to whose who are caught up in it. But you were free to counter it. The most you can say there was insufficient evidence to support it. But it was in no sense dishonest because I did not mislead the reader. And "the end of the world" comment does not mean that you literally said it but instead represents my analysis of your reaction. Again not dishonest.

freeman3 wrote:Hmm...I would think that if someone claimed that it "appears" that I was not empathetic to a group of people that my reaction would not be to dodge the claim and assert that it was dishonest. I would think in your position--if I wanted to disagree with the assertion--I would say you're wrong I am empathetic to innocent Muslims affected by the Travel Ban but I feel that security concerns outweigh those concerns. Your claim of dishonesty is just a technique to avoid an argument you don't like. That's it.