I don't object to Sanders questioning Vought about his religious beliefs. You claimed it wasn't necessary to understand religious beliefs to do public policy. I was pointing out that if someone is using religion as a criterion for whether to confirm a nominee for public office that they should understand that religion or they are likely to unfairly discriminate against its adherents.

So you are acknowledging that it is unequal treatment, but you think it is justified because Christian moral beliefs are dogmatic and barbaric?

Here is an interesting tidbit I just thought of.

Suppose a Christian someone found out that a certain atheist went to heaven. How would that make him feel? I think most would be happy even though that info might imply his beliefs were inaccurate and he may have wasted some time. Bad guys might get nervous because it might mean God judges on merit. But most Christians would think their chances for heaven were now at least as high as before.

Suppose an atheist somehow found out that a Christian had gone to heaven. 98% would be happy, though embarrassed, as long as that Christian hadn't harbored nasty beliefs, since his chances of heaven are no longer nil plus he is happy for that angel.

But what if a religious (probably Protestant) Christian somehow heard that a Muslim had gone to heaven? Or vice versa? Uh oh. This is now a problem. Because both sides are specifically saying that their members go while the other members are going to the other place. So now you are in big trouble as this means that your chances have just gone way down. But this in turn means that if you are a religious member of one of these religions you are specifically HOPING that the other ones are going to hell.

This post shows that you are still failing to understand the issue. It is not about what the definition of the word "condemn" is, it is about the context it is used in. I understand the meaning of the word, and it is perfectly appropriate even under the exact dictionary definition, as applied in context. The context is the statement that Muslims are condemned, i.e. sentenced, to death in the afterlife. Atheists similarly believe that Muslims are sentenced to death in the afterlife. They also believe that of Christians, themselves, and all people. If an atheist wrote that, would you feel the same way about them being unfit for public office? Would Sanders be justified to disqualify them?

This is where you are conflating condemned to death in the afterlife with general condemnation/prejudice in this lifetime on earth. The 1st does not necessitate the 2nd, and you have not shown the 2nd, which is what you need to show in order to support your conclusion.

Also, you are once again wrong about my feelings. I have already previously expressed comfortability with non-Christians, including Muslims and atheists, making decisions about my and others' welfare. And that is already the case. Atheists believe Christians are sentenced to death after this life, and believe that Christians are completely wrong in their belief system, and yet they make decisions about my and others' welfare that I live with and am comfortable with. Muslims make decisions about Jews' welfare. That is all a fact of our government. To now seek to disqualify a Christian for a similar belief, by taking the word "condemn" out of context, is wrongful and illegal discrimination.

No, you supported the definition of the word condemn. You did not support the context or usage of it being applied to people in general society in the present, as opposed to being sentenced in the afterlife. You need to provide evidence that Vought will prejudicially give unequal treatment to people currently, and a belief that people are sentenced to death in the afterlife does not show that.

Again that is something that atheists and people of almost all religions believe about others. Your belief about the sufficiency of Vought's answer does not matter, as the onus is on you and Sanders to provide evidence of prejudice in this world, which a belief about the afterlife does not show. The very question that Sanders uses is faulty and fails to understand the context or meaning of Vought's original statements.

As OrP stated, yes you do, if you are going to disqualify someone on the basis of it. You also need to show how that position affects public policy making.

As mentioned previously, an atheist who says that Muslims and Christians are completely wrong about the existence of God and an afterlife, is espousing an inflammatory view to many. Are you advocating for their disqualification for public office? If not, you are advocating for unequal treatment.

The above refutes the points you have made. And once more, your response has not refuted my answers, because you are giving definitions of the word condemn, and alleging prejudice based upon that, but not once addressing the context of the situation and how a belief about death in the afterlife necessitates unequal treatment in the present.

I believe what I claimed was that I shouldn't have to understand the Christian belief system in order to feel I will will be treated fairly by those serving in government rolls. That is to say, I do NOT feel anyone should be denied a public post based on their religious beliefs unless or until... They demonstrate disdain for others who do not believe as they do. When this is the case, they should be thoroughly questioned, which was the case with Vought/Sanders.

This is impractical, since there are almost as many interpretations of god and religion as there are religious people. If the above were true, then no religious person should hold public office! I would hope we would both agree that someone who earnestly believes that's it's okay to stone to death a non virgin bride on her father's doorstep should probably not hold public office if their job entails the well being of others.

I have enough confidence in my fellow citizens that they don't really believe fundamentalist teachings such as the above. Your attempt at pigeon holing this to a particular religion makes no sense. It's about what the individual running or applying for public office in a policy making capacity actually believes. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt regardless of their religious affiliation until they demonstrate otherwise, which I believe Vought did.

No doubt some atheists are dogmatic, but the key difference is that it's not due to any kind of indoctrination method. There is no belief system for not believing. To the extent that religious views change, it is because of secular methods, which include science. The evolution of the enlightenment when it comes to religious views on homosexuality, slaves, and women's rights, certainly didn't come from any religious book.

Again, I don't know what flavor of religious dogma you believe in (if any), but can I assume from the above that you don't believe in hell? Drawing back from my Catholic school days, I'm pretty sure it wasn't just death that Muslims and non Christians were facing, but eternal damnation, i.e., fire & brimstone, the gnashing of teeth, an infinite suffering. That's a wee bit more than simple death.

Atheism is simply a rejection of theistic claims. There is no compelling reason to think there is any such thing as an afterlife. So of course, I think that when a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or an atheist die, that's it! So you can be assured that I would treat all groups equally, since I think our fate is the same.

Let's just cut to the chase...

You're entire argument comes down to: Just because a person believes that billions of people who don't believe what he does, and that they all have deficient theologies and are condemned to burn in hell for eternity, it doesn't mean he looks upon them any differently in the here and now. Is THAT your argument?

Is this related or completely unrelated to the Vought-Sanders case? If you are implying any sort of relationship to be drawn from your conclusion, I would be curious as to what you think that is. Regardless, your conclusions seem inaccurate.

Individual Christians may feel one way or another, but many of those believing in traditional Protestant theology might be concerned. An atheist going to heaven would likely mean that the Protestant belief that salvation is only through repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, is incorrect. So they might be happy for that individual atheist, but they would likely be concerned for themselves, their Christian friends, and family members. Because they previously thought that their chances of heaven were almost certain, but now their entire belief system about how one goes to heaven is called into question. So they would most likely think that their chances of heaven are lower, than what they previously thought.

Again, individual atheists will have different feelings. But the implication is that this is a data point that Christians are more likely to be correct, or at least that atheists are wrong. Thus the atheist must consider not just the cessation of life when he dies, but the experience of heaven or hell, which might be worrisome for many atheists.

This issue is present with the above examples as well. A traditional Protestant Christian believes that true Christians go to heaven while all others go to the other place, so an atheist going to heaven challenges this belief system and brings the Christian's chances way down. An atheist believes that none go to heaven or hell, so a Christian going to heaven challenges this belief system and may increase the atheist's chances of going to heaven if he changes his beliefs and adopts religious ones, but it also drastically increases his chances of hell if he does not.

In either of those cases, or the Protestant vs Muslim one, though, it does not necessitate HOPING for others to go to hell. Some may, some may not. But there may well be (and in fact are) Christians who believe in traditional Protestant theology, and yet HOPE that somehow all go to heaven. Or atheists who believe there is no God or heaven, and yet HOPE that they are wrong and that all go to heaven. Or Muslims who believe others go to hell, and yet HOPE that they do not and that all go to heaven. So I think that your conclusion is inaccurate.

What is the point of all this anyway, is it simply a trap to try to say that Christians are bad people because they hope that others go to hell?

Many would say that the above depiction of hell is simply a description of the absence of God, and are the feelings that follow from being cut off from God, not literal fire and burning. Others would say that heaven exists as a real place/concept, but hell does not, and is a descriptor for death/being cut off from God, while others would say that souls do suffer in hell but are then destroyed after a period of time rather than exist in eternal torment.

But all of that is besides the point. Even if your description were accurate, it doesn't necessitate unequal treatment in this world. And simply using the word "condemned", whether sentenced to death or hell, does not show unequal treatment.

Now you are changing the argument. You are now saying it is okay to say that groups of people are condemned to death after this life, but as long as you think all people's fate is the same, it is okay. So atheists can say "Muslims are condemned to death in the [nonexistent] afterlife" but Christians cannot say "Muslims are condemned to death in the afterlife."

So you are showing that you do not actually have a problem with saying that a group is condemned in the afterlife, you have a problem with a group thinking that some go to heaven at all, while others do not. Yes, that is what a lot of religious people of different religions believe. But you still have not shown that those beliefs necessitate unequal treatment here on earth. That is religious discrimination that would apply to a huge number of religious people of numerous different religions.

My argument is that if you want to disqualify someone from public office for a religious belief, then the burden of proof is on Sanders and you to provide tangible evidence that Vought would give unequal treatment to others or in allocation of funds, otherwise it is wrongful and illegal religious discrimination. If Vought wrote his statements in defense of firing an OMB employee, you would have such evidence. If Vought wrote that Muslims stand condemned and therefore do not deserve as much resources as Christians, you would have that.

But Sanders does not even ask Vought primarily about that, he simply asks about being "condemned" and demonstrates that he does not understand the word "condemned" in context, and then when he receives an answer indicating equal treatment (which is not merely lip service, but longstanding widely held Christian belief), he dismisses it, excoriates him, and votes no/disqualifies him personally anyway.

As far as your phrasing above, no, it does not mean that he looks at them any differently in the here and now, in terms of equal treatment as US citizens and government allocation of resources.

And even for those that do look at them differently in terms of their ultimate fate in the afterlife, that often drives some to treat them better. There are a number of Christians who devote their entire lives to helping Muslims or other groups of non-Christians, both in tangible ways such as healthcare, education, human rights advocacy, etc, while simultaneously trying to help them go to heaven in the afterlife by sharing the good news of salvation with them and hoping that they accept Jesus and go to heaven. These Christian missionaries arguably treat Muslims or other non-Christians better than they treat Christians, as they have devoted their entire lives to helping them in tangible ways, and advocate for resources to be sent to these people from Christians. Arguably, if that person applied such thinking as a government official, they would be discriminating in favor of Muslims and other non-Christians, not against them.

But all of that is again besides the point, except to the extent that it demonstrates that you do not know how a person will treat others as a government employee in the present, based upon particular beliefs about the afterlife. Thus, disqualifying someone for saying others are condemned in the afterlife, is wrongful discrimination, and you must provide tangible evidence beyond that to prove your case.

They (some of them) are bad people because they think that God thinks that what you believe has a greater a effect on whether you go to hell than what you do.

Why would they be lower? If anything, their chances INCREASE assuming the atheist got into heaven for leading a good life because it eliminates the much more likely possibility that they were worshiping the wrong god or religion.

The whole point is, if Muslims are right and Christians are wrong, Christians and everyone else are screwed. If Christians are right, and Muslims are wrong, then Muslims and everyone else are screwed. If atheists are right, it doesn't matter. But if an atheist gets into heaven then everyone can breathe a sigh of relief, since we must be judged on something other than the accidental geographic location of our birth or which religion we happen to have been born into.

If you don't understand someone's religious views, you might interpret what they say as meaning something different than what they actually meant. The claim I've made is that he didn't demonstrate disdain for others, that it is a misunderstanding of Christian theology to think he has. Your feelings on the matter are not relevant.

Right, which is why we shouldn't use religion or religious beliefs qua religious beliefs as a criterion for whether to confirm a nominee for public office.
You seem to here be saying that religious fundamentalists shouldn't be allowed to hold public office (in a policy-making capacity). Is that really your view? Notice, I am not asking whether you would support those people yourself, but rather whether you would support some kind of rule barring religious fundamentalists (or at least, people who believe in religious exclusivism) from holding public office. For instance, I don't support Mike Pence, but I do think he should be allowed to hold public office.

Sure, some may believe that, and you may think they are bad people, but if so, they have an incorrect view of Christianity. We've been over this already. Protestant belief is that "what you do" includes sin, and that all have sinned, which means that all should go to hell, including Christians. Christians escape this punishment not simply because of "what they believe" but because they repent and ask forgiveness from the person who can give it, and pledge to follow Him as Lord and Savior. Others are welcome to do this and have their punishments waived as well, but they choose not to, and as such, do not escape the consequences.

To restate your point, a Protestant would say that God thinks that genuine repentance, asking for forgiveness, and pledging to follow Him, has a greater effect on whether you are forgiven the consequences, than not asking or doing any of those things.

Also, as a general proposition, sometimes belief matters more than action, in terms of being a "bad person". Suppose that a white person held the belief that black people are inferior and should still be slaves. But he did not say these words out loud or act upon them or discriminate due to this belief, because he was scared to, and people otherwise could not tell that he held this belief. But everytime he saw them he thought that they were dirty ******* and unfit for polite society. Presumably you would still think that he was a "bad person" based upon his beliefs and not his actions.

*Note: This does not mean that actions cannot be worse; obviously if he then started discriminating in person and calling them dirty ******* to their faces and treating them as inferior chattel, then that would be even worse. But in the original example, his wrong belief is worse than his lack of wrong actions.

You are looking at this from your vantage point and not the Christian's. Of course the Protestant Christian would think his chances are lower. Protestants do not believe they go to heaven for leading a good life. He previously thought his chances of going to heaven were 100%, based upon repentance and acceptance of Christ. After he finds out the atheist has gone to heaven, his whole belief system is challenged, and the way he thinks one goes to heaven is shown to be wrong. So he now thinks his chances are lower than 100%.

No. If atheists are right, Christians and Muslims and all religious people who believe they go to heaven are screwed. And to a Christian, Muslim, or other religious person, if an atheist gets into heaven, he may be happy for that person, but he does not breathe a sigh of relief, instead his whole belief system is called into question, they way he thinks one goes to heaven is wrong, and his own eternal destiny is now called into question, whereas he previously thought it was as high as 100%.

Suppose that a student fills out an application but doesn't mail it in. That does stop him from getting enrolled.

I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate here. The point of my analogy was to illustrate that desert isn't always the relevant variable. You think going to heaven and hell has something to do with what people deserve and so interpret Protestant theology along those lines. That is accurate for some, but not for most. All of creation has participated in the Fall and so all of it is condemned. The nature of grace and mercy is exactly that it is undeserved. Claiming that those who receive this grace and mercy deserve it is to miss the point.

Except that they kinda are relevant when someone says they believe a large section of earth's population stands condemned. What if we swapped out religion for skin color? What if he wrote his views that all black people stand condemned? Would you be okay with letting that statement slide? Or do you think we might want to question him further on what exactly he meant by that?

It is if their belief system causes them to be biased.

I believe there shall be no religious test. Unless...an individual provides reason to think he may act in a discriminatory manner, which is what I think Vought did here.

I am looking at it from an objective vantage point.

There are many religions one could believe in. Some put the number at over 4000. Even if we knock out some of the sillier ones (I agree Mormonism is less likely to be true than Protestantism), you still have a slim chance of being born into or having chosen the right religion.

Religions that require a specific belief or set of beliefs for getting into heaven, necessarily mean that all the other religions have it wrong. So DS's point (I think) was that if you're a Protestant and a Muslim gets into heaven, it means you're screwed! Whereas if an atheist gets into heaven, it still means you were wrong, but your chances for entering heaven have gone UP, since it's now obvious that god is judging based on something other than a specific set of beliefs.

That's the best job I can do for now in explaining it to you. It's really simple math and looking at it from an objective vantage point. You seem to expect me (everyone?) to adopt the vantage point of a Christian. Sorry, but there's no reason to do that. And to even expect as much, is a biased viewpoint in and of itself.

Meh they change from within too.

You need to re-read DS' hypothetical and my reply to it.

Your "objective" vantage point is not relevant to the paragraph being responded to. The whole point of that paragraph is to respond to how a Christian would feel, and what a Christian would think from his Christian vantage point.

The next paragraph is how an atheist would feel, and what an atheist would think from an atheistic vantage point. The next is about a Protestant vs a Muslim.

In each case, it is about how that person would feel from their own vantage point. It is not about comparing all 3 scenarios from your "objective" vantage point. You are answering a much different question.

It seems he was making two points:

This is the mathematical one. Assuming there is a god who cares about our thoughts, who we have sex with, and all the rest of our activities, you at least realize that whichever religion you belong to, you are an underdog to be in god's chosen one, right? If we just take the big 4; Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, there is a 1 in 4 chance or 25% that you landed on the right one. Now obviously, you probably feel your chances are higher than this due to whatever inside knowledge you think you have over Muslims, Hindus, and Jews as it relates to this personal god. But there is certainly less than 50/50 chance you're correct.

Again, the bolded part is simply referring to probability.

If you truly believe that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, then you better hope that Muslims are wrong (and therefore, are going to hell), because they think the way to paradise is through a different prophet!

This may have been the other point he was making. If god would allow a serial child rapist into heaven just because he accepted Jesus, while letting well meaning atheists and Muslims who dedicated their lives to good deeds and helping others to burn in hell, then god is an ******* and so are those who worship him and are okay with this system of judgment.

DS can speak for himself and his point may have been entirely different and more complex, but that's my take on all of this.

...from a Christian vantage point. It's hard to tell whether you are being intellectually dishonest just to be argumentative, or if you really don't comprehend what you are reading. In case you are sincere, but didn't understand the operative part of the sentence, here is the important part as it pertains to this discussion:

It is about what Christians think their chances are, from their own perspective, not from yours.

The rest of your post is near gibberish, as it contains a number of logical errors as well as errors about what Christians believe. They are besides the points we have been discussing itt, so I will not go into detail on them, but you do not understand the actual belief system and are making a number of errors both in logic and in your conclusions due to your lack of understanding. If you wish to address that, you can read about Christian theology online and/or post about it in the religion forums here or elsewhere.

Muslims believe Jesus a prophet you must accept and follow. Just not the final prophet.

It's borderline hilarious that you think I'm the one not understanding and being illogical when it's been pointed out over and over (not just by me) that you are the one who's not comprehending the problem.

Are you disagreeing with this? If so, why? Even looking at this from a Christian standpoint the above statement should be obviously true. If an atheist got into heaven, you'd have to think your chances are at least as high as before.

I get it and even from a Christian's standpoint the above DS statement seems obviously true. If you disagree, please explain why.

It's gibberish to you because you are being stubborn and refuse to look at the problem from any other standpoint than that of a Christian. You have reached your own conclusion before asking (and answering the right questions). I have now answered this from a Christian's perspective and explained that the chances are at least as good as before if an atheist gets into heaven. This is NOT the case if a Muslim or non Christian does. Do you really not see why this is so?

Seems like more intellectual dishonesty, but I'll bite since it's so easy to knock down. You and I are the only ones who have been replying about this part of the topic (what Christians believe from their perspective if an atheist goes to heaven), so it is literally impossible for someone else to have pointed out something to me. Also, you have not addressed looking at this from a Christian standpoint, so you also have not pointed it out, until your last post. So what you just wrote is literally false.

You were obviously wrong to address it from your own "objective" vantage point, since that is not what was being discussed. Now that you are addressing looking at it from a Christian standpoint, you can address the following point that I previously made (which you previously failed to answer and instead deflected to your own "objective" vantage point):

The Christian previously thought his chances of going to heaven were 100%, based upon repentance and acceptance of Christ. After he finds out the atheist has gone to heaven, his whole belief system is challenged, and the way he thinks one goes to heaven is shown to be wrong. So he now thinks his chances are lower than 100%.

If the Christian initially thinks his chances of going to heaven were 100%, after he finds out the atheist has gone to heaven, how can he then think that his chances are increased or at least as high as before, when his entire belief system about heaven has been shown to be wrong?

Governments are packed with such people, and people in positions of power generally, which is one of the reasons for continued structural institutionalised racism. The problem extends to cultural / religious bigotry.
One of the ways this is challenged is to insist on inclusive language. This undermines potential damage caused by prejudices which may still be held by individuals, but which gradually become less relevant.

I know you think you're making valiant arguments, but the reality is, you're failing miserably. If you want to fancy yourself a masterful debater on this topic, then you're going to have to learn some math, definitions, and recognize when you're arguing from an impossible dichotomous position.

First of all, if a Christian such as you describe ever saw an atheist or Muslim get into heaven, he shouldn't believe it! Instead, he should think he was being tricked by the devil. Otherwise, he was never 100% sure, was he?

Luckily, most Christians don't possess the degree of hubris and arrogance you ascribe to them. Most, recognize there are literally billions of people who hold other beliefs and would never assign a 100% probability to them being right.

So my point stands whether it's from an objective viewpoint (which is the correct one to hold if you care about whether or not your beliefs are true), or the subjective viewpoint of a Christian.

Btw- I'm assuming you know what 100% means.