Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle
Yes you do go further than me, I don't agree with that line at all.
If Voight had never made the post that he made, and the only thing that was known to the public about his religious beliefs was that he is Christian, in what world would it be OK to question him about his religious beliefs? How would you ever frame such a question without prejudice?
"Mr. Voight. You are Christian. Does that mean you hate Muslims?"
What kind of question would that be?
I would greatly prefer that question to what actually happened, which was along the lines of this:
"Mr. Vought. You are an exclusivist Christian. That means you hate Muslims. So, are you really an exclusivist Christian?"
I don't mind so much if Senators ask questions which are prejudiced towards religions as long as they still adhere to liberal principles of freedom of religion in their votes, which I take to include political offices being open to all religions. I might vote against these prejudiced Senators when they run for re-election, but I don't think they are doing anything more wrong by asking these questions than they already were by holding those prejudiced views.
Quote:
Mr. Voight did not merely practice his religion. He was not defending his religious beliefs. He used his religious beliefs to justify a post that was an unsolicited attack on many different groups of constitutionally protected people. His belief is not relevant. The way he used his belief as a weapon of hate against many people was.
You are here asserting that it is hateful for a private religious school to require its teachers to adhere to the beliefs of their religion. I don't really know how to respond to this - your rhetoric seems so hyperbolic to me that it is difficult to take seriously. Do you also believe it is hateful for a Christian church to require that its pastor be a Christian?
I'll just say this. I think you are making two mistakes here. At the core, you seem to think that Christian exclusivism, taken seriously, is a hateful belief. However, I'll point out that neither you, nor Senator Sanders, nor anyone else in this thread have stated a single thing that follows from this belief about how we should treat other people. In fact, the only thing we have gotten is a statement by Vought that he believes people of all religions should be treated with dignity and respect, which is not very hateful imo.
Second, at the end, religious freedom means letting even religious bigots into public office. As long as someone is qualified for the job, and their religious beliefs will not interfere with that job, then we shouldn't discriminate against them.
Quote:
The answer is simple. I am not God, therefore it's not my place to decide who is saved and who is condemned. Nor is it Mr. Voight's place, nor anyone's. His stance is one of certainty, mine is one of deference to a higher authority. Like Senator Sanders, I perceive bigotry and hatred in this man's heart based on his public statements. They are not compatible with my Christian beliefs.
How do you know that his stance is one of certainty? You have shown no evidence of knowing more about his beliefs than two sentences. For many Christians, statements of faith such as those made by Vought are by their nature beliefs for which they lack certainty. Their faith consists in accepting those beliefs and trusting in God regardless of the doubts they sometimes experience. Anyway, who cares? Certainty is not usually considered disqualifying for public office.
And if you perceive bigotry and hatred in a man's heart on the basis of these few sentences, one of which was this: "I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect, regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian, that's how I should treat all individuals--" then I would caution you to look to your own heart.
Quote:
I think you are wrong on this. His post started with the word 'Muslims' and ended with 'condemned'. You are misreading the clear intent of his post.
Quote:
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.
This is, quite clearly, a statement of intolerance, and not a profession of his own faith.
Again, you seem to be unclear about the situation here. In fact, this quotation comes from
an article Vought wrote in response to a controversy in the evangelical Christian world. The article starts with the word "Wheaton College" and ends with what is supposed to be an encouraging quotation from the prophet Jeremiah, not "condemned."
Read the article if you don't believe me - or even just the longer segment I quoted above to Dr. Modern. That passage is very clearly an argument for the necessity of experiencing God through Jesus to achieve salvation. Since, Muslims do not experience God through Jesus, they are not saved. That is the argument. That is also exactly what he is saying in the quotation you find objectionable.
Also, I don't know if you mean these to be exclusive, but I don't see any contradiction in something being both a profession of someone's personal faith
and a statement of intolerance, although I do not think Vought's statement here was intolerant.
Quote:
I'm just going to respond to one of your examples. Obviously, not all Catholics believe in every official position of the Catholic church. There are many Catholics who believe that women should be allowed to be priests. One professing to be Catholic does not equate them with being against the practice, or mean that they would be unable to act professionally against their female co-workers. I think there is a clear difference between that generality and something like Mr. Voight posted on twitter or facebook or whatever it was.
This is not an adequate response. Yes, of course, not all Catholics accept Catholic doctrine on the priesthood of women. But many of them do. Would you reject a Catholic from all public offices if he publicly stated that he supports the position of the Catholic church on this issue? If your defence against holding anti-Catholic prejudice is that you are not prejudiced against the Catholics that reject Catholic theology, I don't think you are going to reassure anyone.
Quote:
Well, sure. But political views and religious views are two different (although sometimes connected) matters. His political advocacy is without a doubt open to scrutiny.
Agreed.
Quote:
To sum up, I think Bernie's opening line of questioning was fine. When Mr. Voight responded, as you did, that his beliefs do not necessarily mean that he would treat non-Christians with prejudice in his official capacity, Bernie's follow-ups could have been more focused and pointed. The problem with Mr. Voight's social media post had nothing to do with him believing that only Christians who believe in Jesus Christ can be saved--a purely religious matter. It had everything to do with him using that belief and the firing of the professor as a means to spew off hate speech against many, many people.
The main problem here is that you are making a unwarranted normative distinction between Vought's belief in religious exclusivism, and a particular statement of that belief in relation to Muslims. After all, the statement that Muslims are condemned by God logically follows from the claim that anyone who rejects Jesus is condemned and that Muslims reject Jesus. Those two statements will commonly be accepted by Christian exclusivists. You claim that Vought's belief in Christian exclusivism is acceptable, that it is a purely religious matter. However, you also think him stating that belief in relation to Muslims is hate speech and so evidence of bigotry and hatred.
First, I disagree with this characterization of hate speech. Hate speech is characterized by the meaning of the statements made and the intentions of those making it. Here you are not looking at the context of Vought's statement in order to understand what he meant. Instead, you are following Sanders in taking a statement out of context in a way that makes it seem like hate speech when it is not.
Second, you are still not getting to freedom of religion with this distinction. Here you are saying that it is okay for Vought to
hold a bigoted and hateful belief (i.e. Christian exclusivism), but it is not okay for him to state it. If you force someone to keep their religious views secret if they wish to hold public office you are not allowing them to practice their religion freely.