Bernie Sanders vs Traditional Christianity

[Teallaura]

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?

Maybe, but they'd be wrong. There's a big difference between choices of the electorate and rules of the government. The latter, not the former, is prohibited by the Constitution in this instance.

[rogue06]

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.

Funny how the MSM and the Democrats (increasingly one and the same) went absolutely bat poop over Trump's supposed "religious test" concerning his "travel ban" but don't seem to mind one applied to Christians.

[NorrinRadd]

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?

"Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are not about religion. Many atheists and agnostics are Pro-Life because of their interpretation of the science: They believe that unborn humans are indeed humans, and as such should be afforded at least the most basic protections set out in our founding documents.

[Jedidiah]

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.

It is not a matter of asking such questions being inherently unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is applying it as a religious test, which is just what has he has done.

[Sparko]

I would have said, "Mr. Sanders. as a jew who rejects Jesus as the Messiah, I think you are just as condemned as the Muslims, as are the atheists, and buddhists, and any other person on earth who doesn't put his faith in Jesus for their salvation. The muslim would tell you the same thing, that anyone who doesn't follow the 5 pillars of Islam is condemned."

[Jin-roh]

I would have said, "Mr. Sanders. as a jew who rejects Jesus as the Messiah, I think you are just as condemned as the Muslims, as are the atheists, and buddhists, and any other person on earth who doesn't put his faith in Jesus for their salvation. The muslim would tell you the same thing, that anyone who doesn't follow the 5 pillars of Islam is condemned."

So you would've taken the bait, and made yourself look bad?

[hedrick]

I checked this with a leftist source, and both agreed on what happened. Given his support for firing a tenured professor, I don't think it would have been out of line to ask questions. The problem is that Sanders asked the wrong questions. A religious institution is free to interpret doctrine as they like. The questions should have been about how the candidate treats Muslims in non-Church contexts. It doesn't appear that Sanders asked the relevant questions.

I actually agree with Sanders' understanding of Christianity. But we've got enough walls in the US and in Christianity without liberals trying to remove religious conservatives from government.

[Sparko]

So you would've taken the bait, and made yourself look bad?

The guy just floundered there and never explained that "condemned" was a theological term referring to the judgment, not how we treat people who are still here with us.

He let Sanders make it sound like he was condemning muslims personally, now.

[tabibito]

The guy just floundered there and never explained that "condemned" was a theological term referring to the judgment, not how we treat people who are still here with us.

He let Sanders make it sound like he was condemning muslims personally, now.

That would assume he knows the context. Most don't.

[Sparko]

That would assume he knows the context. Most don't.

who? The guy Sander's berated? He knows the context. He just didn't explain it. Or maybe Sanders didn't give him a chance.

I would have also said, "No Senator, I didn't say they were condemned. Jesus did" and then quoted, John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

[Sparko]

Watching the video again, it is clear that Sanders has already made up his mind, is using the quote as an excuse and doesn't even let Vought explain himself. He keeps cutting him off.

[Jin-roh]

I probably wouldn't have used the word "condemned" at all, but would've said: "Senator Sanders, you put in the uncomfortable position of answering religious question for public office...." and maybe "Senator, I am uncertain how my understanding of my own religion influences my ability to perform duties on this budget..."

So on and so on until it was obvious to everyone that Sanders was asking about religion.

Only then would I answer the question with something. "My religion, like all others, has a degree of exclusivity. This will no more influence my fair treatment of my Muslim neighbor, than his or her condemnation of a the Trinity would influence their dealings with Christians."

But I'm not nearly 'wise as a serpent' enough to get into public office anywhere. So what do I know, right?

[Sparko]

I probably wouldn't have used the word "condemned" at all, but would've said: "Senator Sanders, you put in the uncomfortable position of answering religious question for public office...." and maybe "Senator, I am uncertain how my understanding of my own religion influences my ability to perform duties on this budget..."

So on and so on until it was obvious to everyone that Sanders was asking about religion.

Only then would I answer the question with something. "My religion, like all others, has a degree of exclusivity. This will no more influence my fair treatment of my Muslim neighbor, than his or her condemnation of a the Trinity would influence their dealings with Christians."

But I'm not nearly 'wise as a serpent' enough to get into public office anywhere. So what do I know, right?

That would have been a good strategy, if Sanders would have let him actually speak. Watching the video it is clear that Sanders just wanted to (ironically) condemn Vought by grandstanding, and didn't care what Vought said.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I finally realized one of the reasons this troubles me.

In Christian circles there is a lot of advocating for live a good Christian life and people will see how good Christians are. Variations on life-style evangelism.

Yet Senator Sanders attacks someone not on the basis of how they live their life but because of their beliefs. No matter how good that guys life was, it doesn't matter - his beliefs are reprehensible.

No matter how good we are, our beliefs disqualify us. This actually fits the Bible's warning that the world hates us.

Its possible that I'm overreacting. Yet as I look around this seems another indicator that society is slowly turning against Christians. Society is like a big ship, it turns very slowly but eventually it turns.

[hedrick]

It is not a matter of asking such questions being inherently unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is applying it as a religious test, which is just what has he has done.