Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Politics political discourse

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-16-2017, 05:29 PM   #76
Shuffle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,602
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
You can't consistently claim to support freedom of religion while at the same time banning large numbers of the actual religious people you live with from holding public office because of their religious beliefs.
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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
Vought was expressing a belief in Christian exclusivism, the idea that in order to be saved you must go through Jesus, i.e. be a Christian. This is a common belief among American Christians (eg this survey says that 24% of Americans say God doesn't accept the worship of all religions).
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
I also reject your premise. I don't think it prejudiced to believe that without Jesus Christ everyone is condemned to hell. It might be the case that many prejudiced people hold that view and find it a convenient outlet for their prejudice. But many others who hold this view believe that such prejudice is itself a betrayal of the teachings of Jesus.
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.

Last edited by Shuffle; 06-16-2017 at 05:40 PM.
Shuffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 09:45 PM   #77
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,460
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle View Post
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?
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2017, 10:40 PM   #78
patron
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 336
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

OrP straight killin' it itt.
patron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 12:08 AM   #79
Shuffle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,602
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
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).
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
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?
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
Did you read Vought's original statement? Vought is saying that he believes a personal relationship with Jesus is a requirement for salvation.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
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.
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.

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.
Shuffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 03:31 AM   #80
5ive
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
5ive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Harvard, in a place like Africa
Posts: 6,190
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Wait, so Shuffle was raised by Christian Wolves and has never heard of Exclusivity?

Spoiler:
5ive is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 03:34 AM   #81
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,460
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle View Post
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.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 03:42 AM   #82
5ive
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
5ive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Harvard, in a place like Africa
Posts: 6,190
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
...

Huh? Did you read Vought's original statement?

...
You know there's a million percent chance he has not and will not, right?

It could've went the way our conversation went in Unchained Pv8.8 Well Named's Repressed Anger Forum. I said, 'Damn, that dude hates himself some Islam,' you said, 'No, that's a snippet of a snippet of a quote, here's the full thing,' and I said, 'Oh, ok, he one of those guys, I get it now.'

But Shuffle wouldn't be Shuffle if he did that.
5ive is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 03:55 AM   #83
5ive
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
5ive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Harvard, in a place like Africa
Posts: 6,190
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

The main point is Vought wasn't singling out Muslims, rather it just so happened that Muslims were the ____ being filled in the context of that issue at his alma mater.

I'm an atheist who really loves himself some Jesus but that also would not qualify me for the afterlife according to his brand of Exclusivity. Which is fine. I don't even want to go to the heaven where his people go. I want to go to the heaven where the dogs go.
5ive is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 05:04 AM   #84
Shuffle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,602
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Original Position, you tried to make several points in your last post. All or nearly all of them can be responded to in the same manner, because you failed to understand the key point I made in my response. In case you missed it, I will reiterate:

The person in question was not professing his faith. He was engaging in hate speech. He did not limit his remarks to a mere discussion or profession of theological beliefs; he chose to use the firing of a woman who had been supportive of Muslims to spew anti-Muslim bigotry. His intent can rather clearly be inferred. That you would argue his intent was anything but, strains the limits of intellectual honesty.

Let's look at some other examples. Suppose another person had been fired for professing that only Christians go to heaven, and he had taken to Facebook to defend such a person and those views against a perceived unjust firing. In such a case, the intent of his remarks would have been different and he would not have been engaging in hate speech.

In another example, if he had defended the college, as he did, by saying something along the lines that he agrees with their position, and that he feels it's important for the faculty to teach the same doctrine as the school, or qualified his remarks by acknowledging that we should all be respectful to each other as Americans regardless of religious differences...he would not have been engaging in hate speech.

If he had been speaking at some kind of Christian conference, or been asked by a Christian magazine about his views on this matter, and he gave a respectful answer that was limited in scope to his beliefs, namely that his faith teaches him that one must come to God by Christ Jesus alone, and he firmly believes that, then he would not have been engaging in hate speech.

If he were proselytizing, and professed these beliefs in a sermon or on tv, without denigrating non-Christians, he would not have been engaging in hate speech.

The problem was not the particular theological belief he holds; it was that he used that belief to engage in hate speech.
Shuffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 07:59 AM   #85
patron
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 336
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

^ That's a pretty confused post. Seems like Shuffle just doesn't understand what the word "condemned" means in this context. How is it different for a Christian to say that "only Christians go to heaven" vs "non-Christians are condemned in the afterlife", and why is one hate speech and not the other?
patron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 01:16 PM   #86
batair
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
batair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fore the rain starts
Posts: 14,027
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Condemn often means no afterlife. Death. Which i figure whats going to happen anyway. So as long as that belief in and of itself is not affecting policies. Meh.
batair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 05:38 PM   #87
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,460
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle View Post
Original Position, you tried to make several points in your last post. All or nearly all of them can be responded to in the same manner, because you failed to understand the key point I made in my response. In case you missed it, I will reiterate:

The person in question was not professing his faith. He was engaging in hate speech. He did not limit his remarks to a mere discussion or profession of theological beliefs; he chose to use the firing of a woman who had been supportive of Muslims to spew anti-Muslim bigotry. His intent can rather clearly be inferred. That you would argue his intent was anything but, strains the limits of intellectual honesty.
I'm glad that Sanders and you are concerned about religious prejudice. Sanders was concerned that Vought was prejudiced against Muslims (and Jews) on the basis of the passage from the Resurgent article. However, as I think you've acknowledged, this is a misunderstanding of Christian exclusivism, which doesn't imply that Christians should discriminate against Muslims or other nonbelievers in general society.

However, you are concerned not with Vought's belief, but that he used that belief to support firing a Christian faculty member for expressing solidarity with Muslims. Now, I'm not sure the distinction you are trying for here really works. But even so, I would argue that you are not being charitable to him. As I said previously, everyone (I assume?) would acknowledge that a church can fire its pastor if they became apostate. Private religious colleges have similar exemptions in hiring and firing their faculty. Maybe you disagree in this case whether the firing was justified. That's fine. But nonetheless, you should not ignore that his motive might have been a concern to preserve the doctrinal purity of the college's Statement of Faith rather than hatred of Muslims. After all, this is the motive he claimed for writing the article, both in the hearing and in the article itself. Furthermore, this motive has long driven Christians, especially Protestants, and especially American Protestants into exactly these kinds of institutional controversies and schisms. Assuming that it can only be anti-Muslim prejudice reflects an ignorance of religious history. These debates are typically an internal matter, a disagreement between Christians (as it in fact was in this case as well).

Quote:
Let's look at some other examples. Suppose another person had been fired for professing that only Christians go to heaven, and he had taken to Facebook to defend such a person and those views against a perceived unjust firing. In such a case, the intent of his remarks would have been different and he would not have been engaging in hate speech.

In another example, if he had defended the college, as he did, by saying something along the lines that he agrees with their position, and that he feels it's important for the faculty to teach the same doctrine as the school, or qualified his remarks by acknowledging that we should all be respectful to each other as Americans regardless of religious differences...he would not have been engaging in hate speech.

If he had been speaking at some kind of Christian conference, or been asked by a Christian magazine about his views on this matter, and he gave a respectful answer that was limited in scope to his beliefs, namely that his faith teaches him that one must come to God by Christ Jesus alone, and he firmly believes that, then he would not have been engaging in hate speech.

If he were proselytizing, and professed these beliefs in a sermon or on tv, without denigrating non-Christians, he would not have been engaging in hate speech.

The problem was not the particular theological belief he holds; it was that he used that belief to engage in hate speech.
Evangelical Christianity is a proselytizing religion. They (typically) believe that without a personal relationship with Jesus people will go to hell. They believe that Jesus commanded them to go to the nations and preach the good news. This good news starts with bad news, that you are a sinner condemned to hell. Whatever religion you currently adhere to will not save you, it is a false religion. Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, anyone who does not have a personal relationship with Jesus is condemned to hell.*

No doubt Vought believes that Islam is a false religion that is providing false hope to its adherents. He is not doing Muslims any favors (in his eyes) by not speaking clearly about this. You want him to be polite or speak softly, but he will answer to God at Judgement Day about why he didn't tell his neighbors that without Jesus they are condemned. God will not be impressed by him being worried that he might offend them by saying they follow a false religion.

That being said. The article you are worried about wasn't about Muslims, which is why it doesn't say more about them. But, when Senator Sanders asked Vought his view of Muslims, he did qualify his statement in the exact way you ask him to here, by acknowledging that all humans are created in the image of God and so should be treated with dignity and respect. As such, your concerns should be alleviated.

*There are some exceptions.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 09:46 PM   #88
Namath12
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Namath12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 43,512
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Bernie voting against Rusher sanctions matters more to me than any of this
Namath12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 02:06 AM   #89
stinkubus
old hand
 
stinkubus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,704
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Looks like the bill also included sanctions against Iran, which he opposed enough to vote no.

https://www.thenation.com/article/be...ned-this-week/
stinkubus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 06:55 PM   #90
DrModern
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DrModern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,342
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
If you agree with me about what Vought is saying, what exactly about this view do you find so worrying that you don't think public officials should hold it?
You truly don't understand why someone who believes that Muslims "do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned" might have difficulty upholding Muslim-Americans' right to the free exercise of their religion? Awkward.
DrModern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 11:10 PM   #91
patron
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern View Post
You truly don't understand why someone who believes that Muslims "do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned" might have difficulty upholding Muslim-Americans' right to the free exercise of their religion? Awkward.
You truly don't understand why someone who believes that Christians "do not know God because there is no God" might have difficulty upholding Christian-Americans' right to the free exercise of their religion? Awkward.
patron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 11:14 PM   #92
Shuffle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,602
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post

However, you are concerned not with Vought's belief, but that he used that belief to support firing a Christian faculty member for expressing solidarity with Muslims.
This is--once again-- not only wrong, but wrong in the kind of didactic way that betrays your intention to aggressively push some kind of agenda and not discuss.

I repeatedly expressed my concern in the previous post, over and over again. Nobody is arguing whether the school had the right to expect faculty to teach in a way consistent with school policies; the problem was that Mr. Vought saw this issue as an invitation to engage in hate speech. He used defamatory language against a specific group of people. There are many others who profess the same belief as Mr. Voight and yet do not engage in public displays of hate speech. He did not simply agree with or support the school's decision, and he did not simply profess his faith or expound on the importance of needing to believe in Jesus Christ specifically in order to receive salvation, as his apparently his religious belief.

Instead, he singled out a group of people and slandered them. Anyone with an average or above average IQ can read his blog post and surmise that was his intention. There was no coherent, logical, or persuasive theological narrative inherent in his post. It was simply an attempt to grab the spotlight and denounce a whole group of people as being inferior to him and his beliefs.

If you are unable to discern between people who simply agree the school had the right to do what it did, people who believe as Mr. Voight does but are able to do so without trying to demean and denounce minorities, and Mr. Voight himself, who was quite eager to slander people with hate speech, then I don't know what else to tell you.
Shuffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 11:17 PM   #93
patron
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 336
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Shuffle, the reason that you are entirely wrong is that it's not hate speech. Again:

How is it different for a Christian to say that "only Christians go to heaven" vs "non-Christians are condemned in the afterlife", and why is one hate speech and not the other?
patron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 11:53 PM   #94
batair
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
batair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fore the rain starts
Posts: 14,027
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by patron View Post
You truly don't understand why someone who believes that Christians "do not know God because there is no God" might have difficulty upholding Christian-Americans' right to the free exercise of their religion? Awkward.
Pretty much.
batair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:19 PM   #95
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,460
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffle View Post
This is--once again-- not only wrong, but wrong in the kind of didactic way that betrays your intention to aggressively push some kind of agenda and not discuss.

I repeatedly expressed my concern in the previous post, over and over again. Nobody is arguing whether the school had the right to expect faculty to teach in a way consistent with school policies; the problem was that Mr. Vought saw this issue as an invitation to engage in hate speech. He used defamatory language against a specific group of people. There are many others who profess the same belief as Mr. Voight and yet do not engage in public displays of hate speech. He did not simply agree with or support the school's decision, and he did not simply profess his faith or expound on the importance of needing to believe in Jesus Christ specifically in order to receive salvation, as his apparently his religious belief.

Instead, he singled out a group of people and slandered them. Anyone with an average or above average IQ can read his blog post and surmise that was his intention. There was no coherent, logical, or persuasive theological narrative inherent in his post. It was simply an attempt to grab the spotlight and denounce a whole group of people as being inferior to him and his beliefs.

If you are unable to discern between people who simply agree the school had the right to do what it did, people who believe as Mr. Voight does but are able to do so without trying to demean and denounce minorities, and Mr. Voight himself, who was quite eager to slander people with hate speech, then I don't know what else to tell you.
I guess this is the issue. I read that passage that you think is hate speech and it looks to me like a theological argument about the centrality of Jesus to salvation. You read it and it looks to you like a demeaning and slanderous hate speech against a US minority religion. I'm not a relativist on this issue - I think your understanding of this passage is clearly incorrect and argued as much - but there is little point in pursuing that further.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:01 PM   #96
spaceman Bryce
anything you guys want
 
spaceman Bryce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: I don't like school; it's stupid
Posts: 15,485
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

I tend to agree with original position on this. Just let people think what they want as long as they can leave it at the door.
spaceman Bryce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 05:07 AM   #97
estefaniocurry
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 76
Re: Bernie Sanders vs the Religious Christian

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
I'm confused. Do people think these Christians go home at night and high-five each other because all the Muslims are condemned to hell? Christian theology, even the exclusivist variants, is usually pretty clear that Christians are supposed to have compassion and love towards nonbelievers.
As a child I was told, relatively frequently, by classmates and teachers, that I was going to hell. The compassionate ones gave me propaganda and tried to proselytize me.
estefaniocurry is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online