More on the militia spotted helping federal law enforcement:

http://www.wwe<br /> ek.com/news/cit...ifa-protester/

I would put it differently. We should not fire Kim Davis for her religious beliefs. Rather, if her religious beliefs prevent her from doing her job, then she should be fired (or resign) because she isn't doing her job. The difference here is this: if Kim Davis's religious beliefs said that it was immoral for her to grant marriage certificates, but she decided to do it anyway, then she shouldn't be fired. Her conscience is her own business. Similarly, If Vought's religious beliefs interfere in his ability to perform the job of deputy director of OMB, then that is a problem. But that wasn't the argument made by Sanders. Rather, he said that because Vought had expressed Islamophobic views (under a definition that means that being eg an exclusivist Christian is inherently Islamophobic) was enough to disqualify him from any office.

I agree with all of this. I guess I should have worded my post better because I thought I said the same thing, more or less

I took us to be in agreement, I was just trying to formulate my thoughts into my own words. Here, I do actually disagree with the ACLU:

The ACLU should have a better understanding of religious freedom than this. The theological belief that salvation comes from Jesus alone does not immediately imply any substantive view about how the state should treat people of other religions. I don't know anything about Vought - maybe he really is opposed to religious freedom - but simply citing his exclusivist theological beliefs about salvation does not demonstrate that view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Not sure what your point is. Jesus has a place in Islam as well? Some people disagree with exclusivist versions of Christianity? So?

Why trust some one who casually endorses whole condemnations which may include you?

.

Having a religious test for public office would deny people with minority religious views full participation in public life.

Why would testing for prejudice which may lead to discrimination be a religious test?

It's not. Disqualifying someone for believing that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ is.

We should call it the Islamo-Judeo-Christian religion. I mean, that Judeo part was just added on like yesterday. Why not tack "Islamo" on the front? And enough with the "clash of civilizations" nonsense. The adherents of these religions have been learning things from each other and mixing culture for centuries. Different nationalities of "the West" were trying to genocide each other a mere few decades ago, but that doesn't prevent the recognition of Europe's peace and unity today.

All these nutty people in the Islam-Judeo-Christian world believe in more or less the same man in the sky. I mean, it's one thing to believe there is a man in the sky controlling ****. But to believe in the same man in the sky is like kismet. Don't all these people believe in Abraham and several other same prophets? I simply don't have any beliefs that bizarre and so I have no chance to ever meet people who also have some such utterly weird belief as me. As an atheist it is easy for me to see how similar all these religious people are. If they had any sense they would be all organizing against us atheists. We're taking over in 2090.

Just speculating about what might've raised Bernie's red flags. We read that statement and our takeaway is not:

I happen to agree with you in regards to post #1177, I'm just pointing out that my read was not exclusivity and Salvation Through Christ, like, not at all, when I saw the quote and I'm obviously not alone:

I can understand why you, reading just that quote, might be concerned. However, presumably Sanders (or his staffers) read the whole article. In context it is quite clear that Vought means what I said. Let me quote:

EDIT: I should say that it of course possible that Bernie still misinterpreted what Vought meant. For instance, I didn't need to look up the article to know what it said. I grew up in that kind of religious community and know the code-words and Bernie as a Jew might not. Maybe it only seems obvious to me. But this is only an additional reason to heed the wisdom of the no religious test rule. Religious beliefs are complicated and politicians are unlikely to understand those of a faith different than their own (if they even understand their own). Thus, bringing these beliefs into the confirmation process is more likely to lead to confusion and discrimination towards people with weird (i.e. different) religious beliefs from the majority than to provide effective oversight.

Ah, I see. That extended quote is a world of difference. It's HU THEOLOGY 4 ROLL$ and not an Islamaphobic condemnation, despite how troublesome that particular quote, the shortest one, is in a vacuum. Like you say,

It's code words and context, and it can be learned even if one didn't grow up in that environment, like myself. It's entirely possible Bernie is quick on the trigger due to the current anti-Islam/Muslim immigrants situation as I know that's what triggered my response. Reading the longer quote and now the entire article I see his angle. When I think of anti-Muslim sentiment and Islamophobia I don't think of Exclusivist Theologians; they're almost literally just talking about angels on the head of a pin and not hatred and discrimination.

That said, and this is going off on a tangent, I do have a huge problem with Vought's stance on a number of levels but most specifically how it pertains to Hawkins original comment about "Muslims and her argument that Christians 'worship the same God.'" General Inclusivity aside, unless one phrases the question directly as,

Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the holy trinity? Y/N

there's no way to formulate an idea where Islam 'rejects' Jesus, to use Vought's verb. On its face it's a preposterous notion.

I've told people that I think you have to be an atheist to appreciate the beauty of religion, or if I'm feeling particularly foul and snarky, that the beauty of religion is mostly wasted on religious people.

Yup, they're called the Abrahamic religions or the monotheistic religions. (Or, in Islam, 'People of the Book'.)

I don't think this qualifies as a "religious test." By that logic if someone said "I think all Mormons should be executed" then they could not be excluded from a federal job. That's not what "religious test" means:

From Wiki:

"Religious tests" are usually oaths that are instituted to ensure that members of a government adhere to a state religion.

I disagree with Sanders on this, but it looks like it's Constitutional to exclude an individual from a government job due to their religious beliefs. (Whether it's legal is a different question.)

Discrimination is a "liberty" that the conservative religious liberty movement is seeking to insure.

I don't mind Sanders raising this point of theology as a question to clarify Vought's views. But this response by Vought should be adequate to alleviate Sanders' concerns:

I assume Vought is an evangelical Christian. If so, it is likely that by "rejecting Jesus" he means that Muslims have rejected a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not just a set of theological doctrines about the nature of God or how to understand the Bible.

According to this article, you are essentially correct that Senators are allowed to vote no on a nominee for any reason they want. So it isn't unconstitutional in a legally relevant sense. However, it is still applying a religious test for office. Sanders' main line of questioning was to determine whether Vought believed that Muslims or Jews or other non-Christian Americans are condemned before God in Vought's view. Vought tried to avoid stating this explicitly, but it is clearly his view. It is also, of course, a standard part of Christian theology.

Using Vought's agreement with that theological belief without any reference to how it impacts his ability to perform his duties as the reason to vote no is using religion as a test for public office. Sanders ended by saying, "I will simply say, Mr Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about. I will vote no." That is pretty clearly religious discrimination, claiming that he will vote no because the kind of person that Vought is (i.e. an evangelical exclusivist Christian) is "not the kind of person this country is about."

Condemnation is is not an exclusively religious value and not an exclusively Christian value among religions, and not even universally practiced by Christians. So Bernie, maybe, isn't down with a such condemning person?

In my view, comes down to a judgment of whether or not the nominee's explanation for the condemnation was sufficient to give comfort no discrimination may come from their position. It's like asking - 'But do you really condemn people?'

I can understand how you think that the nominee gave a sufficient answer. But just because the nominee's answer contained 'I am a Christian...' doesn't mean that is why Sanders thinks he doesn't fit as a government servant. It could be the nominee openly condemns people and then has a canned-style answer for it.

Two points. First, you are misinterpreting Christian theology here. Vought is not saying that he condemns non-Christians. Rather, he is claiming that God condemns non-Christians. The Christian view here is that all humans are condemned by God, and it is only by God's grace mediated through Jesus that born-again Christians are pardoned. This does not necessarily imply that non-Christians are any more deserving of condemnation than Christians.

Second, if Sanders wants to know if Vought will discriminate against non-Christians, then he should look at his record to see if he does so. If the only evidence he finds is that Vought holds exclusivist views about salvation and infers on that basis that Vought does do so, then he is himself discriminating against Vought on religious grounds. That is not sufficient evidence to show that Vought discriminates against people of other faiths. This point is why the ACLU statement was wrong as well.

Well put

1. I can generally assume a human who speaks for God is speaking for themselves- in the absence of that God's presence for confirmation of the human's claim. Christians of that sort you reference are, of course, free to assume and claim they are actually speaking for God.


2. I, along with Sanders, can take the nominee's expression of condemnation in the context of the events which it came about. A person being fired after making an expression about Muslims.

Yes, you are free to do these things. Whether you should is another matter entirely.