Except the original issue was this:

'At issue were a number of statements Vought had made in support of Wheaton College’s decision, last year, to suspend and then fire a tenured African American professor, Garcia Hawkins.
The reason: Wheaton College is a Christian school and Hawkins, who is Christian, not only donned a hireable in a gesture of solidarity with America’s Muslim community, but later declared that Christians and Muslims “worship the same God”.'

http://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/j...ld-be-rejected

Sounds rather like he in fact does support religious discrimination.

Dude. The guy openly denigrated Muslims and defended a college that fired a professor for showing solidarity with another religion. Listen to his his WHOLE testimony. It's clear he's a closed minded religious zealot. Sanders' line of questioning was perfectly appropriate.

Have you even read the first half of this thread? This has already been discussed, and your argument has already been refuted. The context is a private religious school. A church can fire a pastor, a temple can fire a rabbi, and a mosque can fire an imam, for their religious beliefs (or change in or lack thereof), and that is not wrongful or illegal religious discrimination, it is in fact what they should do, as that religious belief is central to the position.

The same goes for a private religious school. As such, it is clearly not wrongful or illegal religious discrimination, and in fact the case is the opposite, to discriminate against somebody from holding public office due to such beliefs is what is wrongful and illegal religious discrimination. The below may help you.

See the above. The guy did not denigrate Muslims, the private religious college fired a professor for making statements inconsistent with their statement of faith which is required for faculty, I've listened to his whole testimony, it is not clear that he's a closed minded religious zealot, and Sanders' line of questioning was not perfectly appropriate.

I've given support for all of the above in previous posts, while your statements have not been supported with reasonable justification.

Private institutions can say whatever they want or preach whatever beliefs they hold. But Vought wasn't seeking confirmation for a position as director of Office Management and Budget at a private institution. This is a public position that holds sway on federal budget allocations.

Let me ask you a question:

Suppose I were to tell you that I think you should be condemned. You might ask why, and I say it's because you're a Christian and I think all your fellow Christians deserve to be condemned and burn in hell too while they're at it. On a scale of 1 to 10 where does that fall within your inflammatory indignation of what Sanders asked?

Would you be comfortable with having someone like me in public office possibly making key decisions that will affect you and your fellow Christians? Really? You wouldn't even want to question me on whether or not I could be impartial and treat Christians fairly given my steadfast belief that all of you should be condemned and burn in hell?

Oh, and let me anticipate your next rebuttal of trying to semantically parse some difference between believing Muslims are condemned and thinking that they deserve to be condemned because IT'S THE SAME GODDAMN THING!

Yes, and...? You seem to be saying that it is okay to hold and state private religious beliefs that are solely to be applied to private religious schools, but not hold public positions due to them. That is wrongful and illegal religious discrimination.

0. I've been told that before. It's what a number of Muslims believe. I would be fine with those Muslims holding public office if they gave a similar answer as Vought in terms of not being prejudiced and treating all people the same in this world. And I think Sanders would be wrong for questioning that Muslim in the way he questioned Vought.

By the way, you don't even know if I'm Christian or not, although I've obviously been arguing for the Christian official's side in this case, I think that is the right side of the argument, both legally and morally, whether that person is Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, or other.

The questioning is fine, but after Vought says he would be impartial, Sanders has no basis to excoriate him and vote no.

And yes, as said above, I'd be fine with that person in public office if impartial and treated all people fairly.

In fact, I'd probably prefer an impartial Muslim than a partial Christian. Christians have fought each other for centuries, and this country was partially settled/founded by a set of Christians who were fleeing persecution by other Christians. The early interpretation of separation of church and state initially referred largely to prohibition of a particular denomination of Christianity being established as the official State religion, and ensuring freedom of religion amongst various denominations of Chrsitianity.

None of my responses used that argument, but if you want to bring it up, sure, that could apply as well, since it is in fact not the same thing at all. If someone is on fire trapped in a burning building, it is not at all the same to say "they are burning" vs "they deserve to be burning."

Even apart from that, many/most Christians would say that all have sinned and deserve to be condemned in the afterlife, not just Muslims, but Jews, atheists, polytheists, and yes, even Christians. The basic theology is that all deserve punishment, including the Christians, but that Christians' punishment is forgiven, because they specifically ask for that forgiveness from the right person who can give it. Christians then seek that forgiveness for all, including Muslims, by sharing that "good news" that they can have forgiveness and go to heaven as well, and encouraging them to do so, even Muslims. All of that is a further reason why Vought's statements are not discriminatory solely to Muslims, as he presumably believes that such condemnation in the afterlife applies to all, including Christians, except that the sentence is waived for Christians when they ask for forgiveness.

Ask that guy about Catholics....bet they dont make it either.

Lol, yes, probably not.

I'm not good at this discrimination stuff, but explain why keeping one's private religious beliefs out of public policy making is discrimination.

But he's already shown himself to be prejudiced against non believers of his faith. Of course, he'll say anything saying now to get confirmed.

Yeah, I kinda did know you were Christian, but my point's the same as yours. It wouldn't matter if you were a Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, or other because you'd be wrong no matter.

As would I. It seems we agree on the importance of impartiality, just not when it comes to believing someone trying to cover his own ass over past bigoted statements he's made. You think he was defending his faith. To me, it looks a lot like discriminatory rhetoric directed against people who hold a different set of beliefs.


If you're a card carrying member of the burning buildings club than it's no different. My point was that if you think your god is going to condemn and sentence people to eternal burning in hell for no other reason than they hold a different belief and you STILL worship that god, then both you and your god are *******s.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Religions have been using that shtick forever. I grew up Catholic and know all about it. The whole scam revolves around making you feel guilty and worthless. They demean you as not being worthy of god greatness. BUT... If you just get down on your knees to repent and ask god's forgiveness, and accept Jesus as your savior, all will be forgiven! Oh, and show up on Sundays to feed the tithe.

If people want to believe that, it's fine with me (although as I said in the beginning, I'd much rather they didn't). But it's very important to keep such thinking out of public policy. If you honestly think someone is condemned or should be condemned, it's not a stretch to think they hold people with the same beliefs as more deserving of public funds, than those who don't. That's all Sanders was trying to get at.

Because this is a strawman. Keeping prejudice out of public policy making is fine. Keeping people out of public office for private religious beliefs* is wrongful and illegal discrimination.

*in this case, about the afterlife, even if not prejudicial in general society in the present

You say things like this, but haven't shown your work. How has he shown himself to be prejudiced against non believers of his faith in general society in the present? Using the word "condemned" about the afterlife does not show that.

Well, you would be making incorrect assumptions and be wrong then, as many Christians (including probably Vought) would not consider my current beliefs to be Christian. My exact beliefs are besides the point, but it is relevant that you are making incorrect assumptions not only about me, but about the Christian belief system, what that implies about treatment of others, and drawing incorrect conclusions from that.

I do not know Vought personally, but it is likely that he does in fact believe "all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs" and that he believes "that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals" and is not merely trying to cover his own ass, because that is what the Christian belief system holds, most Christians believe, and all should believe.

You are also mischaracterizing his statements as bigoted because you likely do not understand the context or meaning of his statements. You have not shown support as to why those statements are bigoted. Would you also say that an atheist who says "Christians, Jews, and Muslims are wrong, there is no God, there is no afterlife" is making bigoted statements and is unfit for public office?

This is a logic fail. Even if the person were an arsonist, there would be a difference between saying "they are burning" and "they deserve to be burning". In fact,the arsonist may be an evil murderer who does not believe they deserve to be burning, and that is part of why he even does it, because he wants to kill innocent people. Regardless of his motivation, it is indeed a different thing to say "they are _____" vs "they deserve to be _____".

This is where your lack of understanding of the evangelical Protestant Christian faith leads to a false conclusion. These Christians do not believe that God is condemning people in the afterlife for holding a different belief, they believe that God is condemning all people for sin. Christians are then forgiven because they ask for forgiveness from the person who can give it.

This may have lead to some of the false assumptions you seem to be making. As you should be aware, the Catholic and Protestant faiths are different and have different beliefs. The context of Vought's statements is an evangelical Protestant Christian college, and should be interpreted as such. They should not be interpreted as having application to general society at large, and certainly not as official federal public policy. I would guess that Vought himself would say that, as would most Christians.

It doesn't appear to be fine with you, since you appear to want to discriminate on the basis of it. It is indeed a stretch to think that private beliefs about the afterlife or theological/employment policy at a private religious school necessarily leads to beliefs about being more deserving of public funds. Could it? Sure. Does it necessarily entail it? No. And assuming it does, is discrimination, just as assuming almost any trait of a group onto an individual is wrong.

And that most definitely was not all Sanders (or you or others itt) was trying to get at, since discussion of public funding and allocation among religious groups was not the primary line of questioning, but rather, Islamophobia and not being what this country is supposed to be about was, or itt, alleged bigotry, racism, hate, and oppression which has been alleged but not shown or supported.

Not if it effects their decision making! And that's what Sanders was trying to find out with his line of questioning and why he kept asking, "Is it your belief that all Muslims and/or non Christians are condemned?".

We just come at this from two diametrically opposed sides. You think it's discriminatory to question someone about the beliefs they hold when such beliefs could potentially prejudice their decision making.

I assume you also think it's discriminatory not to hire a pharmacist who refuses to dispense birth control. Whereas, I think they should find another ****ing job! Why should the general public be suffer because of another's belief system?

You haven't shown that it affects his decision making. He has said that it doesn't. That is not necessarily just to cover his ass, as it is part of the Christian belief system, something most Christians believe, and that all should.

That does not appear to be what Sanders was trying to find out, since Vought answered that's how he would treat all individuals, and yet Sanders went on to excoriate him and vote no, on the basis of non-prejudicial religious statements.

Furthermore, Sanders' question doesn't even get at the issue of treatment of others or the allocation of public funding. He does not appear to understand the context of the word "condemned", just as you do not appear to. Why would an answer to the question "Is it your belief that all Muslims and/or non Christians are condemned in the afterlife" necessitate different treatment in general society in the present from the position of a public office?

This is false. Again, you are not comprehending the posts. I already explicitly said previously that "the questioning is fine, but after Vought says he would be impartial, Sanders has no basis to excoriate him and vote no."

We are not coming at this from two diametrically opposed sides, you simply don't appear to understand the context and are drawing false conclusions from the word "condemn" [in the afterlife].

Again, a false assumption. I believe it would be fine not to hire a pharmacist who refuses to dispense birth control.

It shouldn't. Christians are also part of the general public, and Sanders and you appear to favor discriminating against them due to your own belief system about the afterlife (or lack thereof) and the word "condemn" as it relates to the afterlife.

What else do I need to show? If you think someone is condemned, then you're already biased. Now the only question is if you will base decisions on that bias in the capacity of your job.

And I don't believe him. Why? Because he publicly stated that he thinks all Muslims and non Christians are condemned.

Oh, okay. I think you're condemned and deserve to go to hell, but I was taught to treat everyone equally, so ya know... I got that going for me...

Sanders went on because he didn't believe his bull**** cover up story to what he wrote about how Muslims stand condemned, just like I don't believe it either.

I think you have a deficient theology and stand condemned and deserve to burn in hell for eternity, but hey... What's that got to do with now?!

Now you're just acting a fool and we can discontinue the dialogue.

This is false, and it is now you playing semantic games and/or refusing to understand what the word "condemn" means in context. All atheists think that Christians & Muslims are condemned to be wrong about the existence of God and an afterlife. This does not necessarily make them biased, just as it does not necessarily make a Christian biased to believe that non-Christians are condemned in the afterlife.

Again, condemned in the afterlife does not necessarily equal prejudice in general society in the present. You have alleged it, but have not once supported it. You just keep re-stating it as fact when it is not. You need to prove or show evidence of his prejudice in general society in the present, for you to have basis for such belief, otherwise you are engaging in wrongful and illegal religious discrimination.


Here you are mischaracterizing and willfully refusing to understand the Christian position, even when it has been explained to you. Vought presumably believes that all people, including Christians, deserve to go to hell, so yes, even if you are judging someone based on their religious beliefs about the afterlife (which is wrongful and illegal religious discrimination), equal treatment would be implied.

It's not bull****, it's standard Christian theology and has been for centuries, and does not necessitate unequal treatment. Your lack of understanding of this is perhaps driving your lack of understanding about Vought's statements and this situation.

This is what a large number, if not the vast majority, of both Muslims and Christians believe and have for centuries, and does not necessitate unequal treatment. You want to disqualify them from public office for it. That is wrongful and illegal religious discrimination.

If you want to discontinue, you are welcome to. However, I have refuted all of your arguments with logic and a proper contextual understanding, while you have not done so, and simply keep re-stating allegations that are not supported or proven.

No they really don't. They believe that believing in Jesus is an act that justifies that they be forgiven as far as God is concerned. They don't think that they deserved hell and merely got lucky to not go there.

If you ask a 100 different Christians, you'll likely get at least 90 different versions of exactly what you need to believe, who gets into heaven, who doesn't, etc.

It's my understanding that the main tenet of Christianity is you not only have to believe Jesus was divine (something Islam and Judaism reject), but you also must repent and accept Jesus as your personal Savior.

But again, some Christians will tell you that everyone has a shot at heaven as long as you lived a good life. Some will tell you something a bit more stringent. And the fundamentalists (like Vought seems to be) will tell you that all other theologies are "deficient" and their worshipers are condemned. People cherry pick their beliefs using their own moral code, which is why patron thinking he speaks for the whole of Christianity (or even just his sect within it), is not just pompous, but featherbrained.

I'll try one more time because I think I've found the problem. You just need a dictionary:

con·demn
kənˈdem/Submit
verb
past tense: condemned; past participle: condemned
1.
express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure.
"fair-minded people declined to condemn her on mere suspicion"
synonyms: censure, criticize, denounce, revile, blame, chastise, berate, reprimand, rebuke, reprove, take to task, find fault with; More
2.
sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death.
"the rebels had been condemned to death"
synonyms: sentence; More

And again, if someone held the above definition of you personally, I doubt you'd feel comfortable with them making fair and balanced decisions about your welfare vs. those who they don't think fit the above definition of condemned in this lifetime on earth.

I just supported it in the clearest terms possible. I've spoon fed you the actual definition of the word and explained why people should rightly feel disturbed by those in power holding this view of them.

He provided his own evidence by publicly writing that all other religions are deficient and those among them stand condemned. Sanders rightly questioned him on it. Sanders didn't think his answer, "But I'm a Christian..." was a sufficient, and neither do I.

I shouldn't need to understand the Christian position. That's the point. The Christian position has no place in public policy making.

I'm not advocating for unequal treatment. I'm advocating for religious beliefs to be kept the **** out of politics and public policy making. When someone is known to have espoused inflammatory views about those belonging to other religions, it is perfectly appropriate to question them on it. The problem is, you think Sanders was being inflammatory when in fact, it was Vought who publicly wrote an inflammatory piece.

Not only have you failed to refute my argument, you have strengthened it by showing a complete lack of understanding of the separation of church and state.

As a psychological description of their beliefs you might be right, but that isn't Protestant theology. Protestants claim their salvation as a matter of grace, as a gift from God because of his love for humanity, not as something they earn or deserve by believing in Jesus. They aren't pardoned because they aren't guilty or don't deserve the punishment, but rather because of the mercy and compassion of the ruling judge.

But he won't give that mercy to those who think Mary wasn't a virgin Or whatever). So either God isn't really compassionate to humanity in general, or believing Mary wasn't a virgin is actually an act that makes you more deserving to avoid hell.

And even if you can dispute that, your first sentence is what is germane anyway, as far as politics is concerned. If you think that someone else is making decisions that they should know will displease God, it is almost inevitable that you will not be able to govern them in a completely unbiased way.

If the state of California passes a law that guarantees free admission to college for anyone who applies, does that mean that those who don't apply don't deserve free college?

You keep trying to interpret Christian theology into a moral framework they (typically) explicitly reject. Maybe their beliefs are incoherent and their views really do have the implications you think. Nonetheless, since they've been making these claims for centuries, you should then view Christians as having incoherent beliefs, not that they don't believe what they claim to believe.

Sure, but if we are no longer talking about the implications of people's beliefs, but rather just normal in-group/out-group bias, then I see little reason to single out Christians. Atheists are also biased against fundamentalists, Jews against Christians, and so on. Almost any moral system will imply that some groups are making moral mistakes. Why is it more biased to conceptualize a moral mistake as being a sin against God rather than in purely secular terms, eg as not respecting the inherent dignity and worth of other humans? We surely do not demand of public officials that they not have moral views that imply some social groups or divisions are morally wrong, so why does thinking there are theological implications to that wrongness so objectionable? This veers close to Christian claims (which I assume you reject) that atheistic ethics are impossible because morality requires a religious component.

If you are going to refuse someone from being in public office because of their religious beliefs, then you should understand their beliefs. Otherwise you are just discriminating against them because of their religious identity.

Person A holds moral views on secular grounds. Person B holds moral views on religious grounds. Person A is allowed to use her moral views to guide public policy, but Person B is not. Please tell me how this isn't unequal treatment favoring atheists like yourself.

And isn't this EXACTLY what Sanders was attempting to do with his line of questioning?

For one thing, moral views held on secular grounds are amenable to change when shown to be wrong. This is precisely because they aren't rooted in dogma. Another perhaps more important difference is that secular views don't stem from the barbaric teachings of ancient peasants who didn't know the shape of the planet they were standing on.

Religious views change and there are plenty of atheists who are dogmatic.

Suppose that a student applies but also writes on his application "by the way I am very doubtful that the person reading this has the power to actually get me that free college". That doesn't stop him from getting enrolled.

OrP answered your objections, but I'm still curious about this part.

David, are you seeking to disqualify from public office any religious person? (That thinks others make decisions that displease God, which is the vast majority of religious people)

Regarding bias, do you believe that atheists can govern Christians in a completely unbiased way? That Muslims can govern Jews in a completely unbiased way? You seem to be equating any amount of religious opinion as bias that necessitates prejudicial unequal treatment in general society in the present. The extension of this would seem to lead to a conclusion that no group can adequately govern any other group.