Bernie Sanders vs Traditional Christianity

[Thoughtful Monk]

Buried behind all of Comey/Trump/Russia was an exchange in a Senate confirmation hearing between Senator Bernie Sanders and the nominee for White House deputy budget director.

Among several links I could have chosen, this seems the best for discussion https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org...d-to-be-about/

I'll admit that when first started hearing about Senator Sanders, I had somewhat of a favorable view. However as time as past, my view of him has dropped and this caused a major plunge.

Seems to me, he's using his office to hinder someone's practice of religion. Looking at some broader trends, I don't think this bodes well for conservative (traditional) Christians in this county. I don't know how fast this will come and I think it will be regional - more pronounced in the blue states than the red states.

Am I overacting? Opinions are welcome.

[Teallaura]

It reads like pandering to his base to me. That's not to say you shouldn't be concerned - it's inflammatory (that, I suspect is intentional) and distinctly anti-Christian. I just don't know how much is his belief and how much is his pandering.

[Jin-roh]

I think Sanders overstepped his bounds here. It's religious test for office, even if he wants to code it as a bigotry test.

Seriously, the guy is in the running for a budget office. What he thinks about religion is seriously far off from his daily duties.

[NorrinRadd]

Crazy Bernie is a loud-mouthed small-brained infidel who should carefully review both traditional Xian doctrine and, more pertinently to the matter at hand, the Constitution, while biding his time waiting for hell.

What else is there to discuss?

[demi-conservative]

He's commie, what do you think view of his about Christianity is like???

[Thoughtful Monk]

Crazy Bernie is a loud-mouthed small-brained infidel who should carefully review both traditional Xian doctrine and, more pertinently to the matter at hand, the Constitution, while biding his time waiting for hell.

What else is there to discuss?

He's one of our elected leaders in a position of high power and influence. How long until his opinion starts getting repeated across the nation?

(Edit): And I just discovered there was another US Senator that agreed with Bernie Sanders at the hearing: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...ment-officials

The first time is happenstance, the second is coincidence, ... now I'm more concerned.

[Teallaura]

He's one of our elected leaders in a position of high power and influence. How long until his opinion starts getting repeated across the nation?

(Edit): And I just discovered there was another US Senator that agreed with Bernie Sanders at the hearing: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...ment-officials

The first time is happenstance, the second is coincidence, ... now I'm more concerned.

The base will lap it up - but that isn't the same thing as convincing the whole nation. Yes, it's concerning - no, it's not time to break out the pitchforks.

[Thoughtful Monk]

The base will lap it up - but that isn't the same thing as convincing the whole nation. Yes, it's concerning - no, it's not time to break out the pitchforks.

Yes, his base will lap it up. I think you're missing the significance that he is sitting in a seat of power in Washington, D.C. He doesn't have to convince the nation. He just has to convince his fellow leaders or enough of them. Lots of tyrannies are a minority that forced themselves on a majority.

Also, I'm not a fighter. I'm wondering if its time to run for the bunker.

[Teallaura]

Yes, his base will lap it up. I think you're missing the significance that he is sitting in a seat of power in Washington, D.C. He doesn't have to convince the nation. He just has to convince his fellow leaders or enough of them. Lots of tyrannies are a minority that forced themselves on a majority.

Also, I'm not a fighter. I'm wondering if its time to run for the bunker.

True - but this is not the first time this particular line has been used - probably not even in the Senate.

No, not time for the bunker yet.

[KingsGambit]

What Bernie said is deplorable, however, I think Christians are making a mistake by arguing that asking such questions about religious beliefs inherently violates the Constitution. There are times such a question would be relevant. It would be proper to ask such questions of a Scientologist, who would probably be forced to do the bidding of the CoS. It would be proper to ask questions of a Quaker who was up for a position that required the authorization of military force. And so on... It just so happens that there is no good reason for Bernie to be asking what he asked here.

[Jin-roh]

What Bernie said is deplorable, however, I think Christians are making a mistake by arguing that asking such questions about religious beliefs inherently violates the Constitution. There are times such a question would be relevant. It would be proper to ask such questions of a Scientologist, who would probably be forced to do the bidding of the CoS. It would be proper to ask questions of a Quaker who was up for a position that required the authorization of military force. And so on... It just so happens that there is no good reason for Bernie to be asking what he asked here.

Yeah, and even then I think Bernie could've been less Bernie about it.

I could imagine a legit question about someone's religious commitments being like this:

"Mr. Vought, we've noticed that your alma mater expelled a teacher for her solidarity with Muslims. Your op-ed defended this action and argued that Muslims stand condemned before God. You can see how many may be concerned about this statement, as you may be a prosecuting attorney for Los Angeles, a city with no less than twelve Mosques..."

[Teallaura]

What Bernie said is deplorable, however, I think Christians are making a mistake by arguing that asking such questions about religious beliefs inherently violates the Constitution. There are times such a question would be relevant. It would be proper to ask such questions of a Scientologist, who would probably be forced to do the bidding of the CoS. It would be proper to ask questions of a Quaker who was up for a position that required the authorization of military force. And so on... It just so happens that there is no good reason for Bernie to be asking what he asked here.

You're talking about loyalty - that is indeed valid. But Sanders was applying a beliefs test - not will you uphold the Constitution but you don't believe the right things. That is unconstitutional on its face - and what was concerning TM, as I understood him.

[KingsGambit]

You're talking about loyalty - that is indeed valid. But Sanders was applying a beliefs test - not will you uphold the Constitution but you don't believe the right things. That is unconstitutional on its face - and what was concerning TM, as I understood him.

I don't think it's facially unconstitutional, as it's more than loyalty - there are questions as to whether one's beliefs would prevent one from upholding their duties. Had Obama attempted to nominate Jeremiah Wright to some position, the right certainly wouldn't have come to that conclusion (nor should they have).

[Teallaura]

I don't think it's facially unconstitutional, as it's more than loyalty - there are questions as to whether one's beliefs would prevent one from upholding their duties. Had Obama attempted to nominate Jeremiah Wright to some position, the right certainly wouldn't have come to that conclusion (nor should they have).

Look at what he actually asked - he wasn't asking 'in light of your Christian beliefs can you treat muslims fairly' - which is a fair question - he was stating that no one with those beliefs should hold office. That's where he crosses the line.

[KingsGambit]

Look at what he actually asked - he wasn't asking 'in light of your Christian beliefs can you treat muslims fairly' - which is a fair question - he was stating that no one with those beliefs should hold office. That's where he crosses the line.

That's fair. I would still come to the same conclusion of beliefs inherently disqualifying about a radical Muslim, though (not that one would likely ever be nominated to any position).

I don't think this is unfamiliar ground for Christians. Wouldn't most evangelical Christians on here argue that a pro-choice belief is disqualifying?