Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle
Freedom of religion entitles you to practice whatever religion you want--as long as you don't harm others--without fear of arrest and under equal protection of the law. Freedom of religion does not entitle you to freedom from public scrutiny. If you're going to be up for public office, then the public has a right to take into account your religious beliefs as applicable to social policy and decide if they want you representing them in the first place at all.
First and foremost, your religious beliefs are a private matter. If someone has not disclosed their religious beliefs in public, then Sen. Sanders questioning would have been totally out of line. Second, even when someone does announce in public their religious affiliation...such as attending a church, mosque, synagogue, or through any number of means...that alone does not disclose for the public record their doctrinal beliefs or how they feel their religious beliefs would influence their decisions on social policy matters. Simply being known as a Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Atheist, or Buddhist, or whatever, is not enough to invite the type of questioning that Sen. Sanders conducted. I am a Christian, and I know that my beliefs differ wildly from someone who professes to be a Bible-Belt evangelist or fundamentalist, for instance.
However, once someone has entered into the public record, a specific theological belief and its application towards social policy, then Sen. Sanders line of question is totally warranted, in my opinion.
I don't have a problem with Sanders questioning a nominee for office about their beliefs. I'd even go further than you it sounds like, I don't have a problem in principle with questioning a nominee for public office about their religious beliefs that they've
not made public (although I don't think the nominee needs to answer if they don't want). My objection is to
Sanders' statement that Vought should not be accepted for public office
because of his religious belief in Christian exclusivism. My guess is that he misunderstands Christian theology and so is reading something into it that isn't there. But even so, this is equivalent to using a religious test for public office. Reject Vought on the basis of his qualifications or political beliefs, not his religious ones.
Quote:
The fact that this nominee felt so much hatred in his heart as to espouse bigoted and prejudiced views towards entire groups of people, and falsely claim that his religion promotes such things, warrants him being called out for his beliefs, as Sen. Sanders did.
Some Christians believe this, and some do not. I am personally agnostic on this issue, although I lean towards the latter group; but it's not up to me. There are many people who have lived on this earth and never heard the name Jesus Christ. Others have been raised in environments sympathetic to other religions, or even hostile towards Christianity, and it's simply not the place for someone in a Christian nation to judge them. Be kind to others, do to them as you would want them to do to you. If they are moral people and do the best they can in life not just for themselves but most especially for other people, let God judge them. My suspicion is that they would be judged favorably.
I'm confused by this. On the one hand you describe Vought's statement of his belief in Christian exclusivism as being evidence of him being full of "hatred in his heart" and of espousing "bigoted and prejudiced views towards entire groups of people." On the other hand, you say you are agnostic about this view. Huh? Did you read Vought's original statement? The two sentences quoted by Sanders on their own are imo misleading as to Vought's view. Vought is saying that he believes a personal relationship with Jesus is a requirement for salvation. Muslims, atheists, Jews, Hindus, etc. do not have this relationship and so are not saved. Senator Sanders is inferring from this view that Vought thinks we should do...what? Mission trips? Be Christlike towards non-believers? The Inquisition? In actuality, Christian exclusivism is completely consistent with an acceptance of a robust freedom of religion and love towards Muslims and others.
The inclusivist view you express here is obviously a common view among Christians. But the view Vought has is also common among Christians, with
lots of support among Christian theologians since the early church. I don't
like the view particularly. But then, I don't like many beliefs and practices common in Christianity. For instance, should we not allow Catholics to hold public office because they don't allow women to be priests? Does that mean they won't be able to act professionally towards their female co-workers? What about evangelical Christians who claim sex outside of marriage is sinful? Will they not be able to be around DC philanderers? Picking and choosing which religious doctrines are acceptable for public office in this way seems likely to lead to religious conflict.
Quote:
Again, I don't think it's for any person to decide. We see through a glass darkly, as they say. God does not; let Him judge all people.
More relevant to the topic at hand, when someone keeps their religious beliefs personal, or merely identifies with a certain religion but does not disclose for the public record specific doctrinal beliefs and how they would impact policy, then questioning their beliefs would amount to a fishing expedition and should be out of bounds.
Once idiots like this guy espouse specific theological beliefs and how they would influence decisions on policy, they invite criticism or support.
Vought worked at Heritage Action, so I'm sure he's espoused many substantive political views that Sanders could appeal to as a reason to reject him as a nominee. But Christian exclusivism doesn't imply any government policy. Vought was talking about policy for a private Christian college in the article cited by Sanders. We shouldn't assume that Vought thinks that should apply to the whole country. If Sanders is concerned that he does, then ask him
that question.
I will also reiterate my disagreement with people who assume this belief is a constitutive of bigotry and prejudice. I wonder, if a convinced utilitarian was nominated, would we assume this mean she was prejudiced and bigoted against Kantians and Aristotelians? Are people who believe that evolution by natural selection true bigoted and prejudiced against those who believe in special creation?