Same for Muslims?

What about if he is an astrologer, a Scientologist, or someone who has no religion but think it is morally right to kill abortion doctors?

Who cares

You spoke out against it. On the same Internet you criticized, ironically. And your statement consisted of a couple of sentences, directed towards ultra-left leaning, non-religious people, so I doubt they had much impact.

My knowledge of Christianity in practice comes from many sources, including plenty of real life interaction. Granted, many are open-minded, progressive people, and many others don't put all that much thought into social and cultural issues, but make no mistake: there are plenty of horrible ones. It's not just some infinitesimal number of far-right nuts.

You tried this in the other thread, which I imagine you do frequently, then ran and hid as soon as you got a response. I shouldn't waste my time indulging you, but, for the record:

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/c...-gay-marriage/

Overall support for SSM in this poll? 55%.
White evangelical Protestants? 27%. Black Protestants? 39%.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...homosexuality/

Only 54% of Christians overall - less than 5 in 9 - are accepting of homosexuality period.


http://www.abortionfacts.com/literat...ew-of-abortion

Here's a Christian-based rant about "Godless, secular people", followed by assertions that the Bible should control legal and social policy in this country.

https://mobile.twitter.com/pastorloc...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Here's self-described ultra-conservative Christian pastor Greg Locke, who has a rather lengthy history of homophobic, anti-choice, extremist rhetoric, and recently made headlines for continually blasting Montel Williams over Williams' progressive stances on social issues.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/p...on-abortion-2/

26%/74% split choice/life out of evangelical Protestants, those wonderfully progressive people.

I said nothing remotely ban-worthy. Those familiar with my posting know that I rarely, if ever, do.

I find all extremist, regressive religions repulsive. For example, many Muslims in the United States are good, fair, reasonable, hard-working people without crazy views, and I am quite fine with them recognizing and practicing their faith. I am against any ones embracing far-right views, Sharia Law, etc.

None of these things have any relevance to the work my employees do, so yeah, no different.

But we are talking about approving a person for an important management position in government (public service).

I agree that it would be unfair in a descriptive sense to claim that all Christians have this view. But Vought isn't trying to describe Christianity as a sociological artifact. He is a Christian. He probably thinks it is true that all non-believers go to hell. He probably thinks that Christians with different views are heretics, that is, they have views which they think are Christian, call Christian, but aren't actually Christian because they depart from God's message to the world.

Sure, I can understand people getting nervous. I just think they're being paranoid because they are ignorant about evangelical Christianity. Vought is making a theological, not a political point in that article. He is not arguing for job discrimination against Christian heretics society-wide, just at a specific religious institution. I don't know, as a general principle it seems pretty reasonable that if the pastor of the local First Baptist church converts to Judaism that he can be fired. I also think supporting principles of religious freedom when they are being applied to the majority religion is one of the best ways of protecting them for when they are applied to minority ones.

EDIT: Heretic is probably too strong, but meh, too complicated.

I think the point is the same though. It is preferable in a pluralistic democracy to focus on rules that constrain how people are allowed to act as government officials, rather than rules which constrain what they may believe. Obviously beliefs inform actions, but it's still better (pragmatically) to disqualify on the basis of action, not belief, because the alternative (both for private employers and for government) is almost necessarily prejudicial.

Yeah, herp derp basic human rights. How silly we're all being that we care about that.

Of course the real problem here is that anti discrimination laws should really only apply to people who are in categories that they are not free to (easily) change.

evidently there's an argument to be made (and i'd bet neil gorsuch believes it) that being a divisive ******* is constitutionally protected IF you claim it's your religion*

*christians only

Is it your view that religion is one of these? Like, I genuinely believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for my sins and that by having faith in God he'll save my eternal soul, but I can't work at the local bank unless I convert to Zoroastrianism, so I guess that is just my choice?

I feel that by writing an article supporting a private christian-based college's decision to fire a professor who supported Muslims ("they worship the same God"), Vought has demonstrated that he may well hold and act upon discriminatory views against people of other religions. In this case words are actions.

I think that individuals should be legally allowed to take your opinions about things into account before hiring you. There shouldn't be a law against it. Suppose for instance you proclaimed that 217 was bad luck?

Look, this just doesn't work. You yourself just literally wrote a forum post supporting the decision to not hire a Christian for his religious views. You claim this is because his religious views are relevant to the job, because they might cause him to be a biased manager. But what is your evidence for this?

Almost exactly the same thing you're doing right now, citing that he wrote an article supporting the decision to fire a Christian for her religious views. And since she was actually teaching at a Christian university with explicit requirements that faculty members are supposed to have those views, his case that those religious views are relevant to the job is much stronger than yours.

I'm not sure the part about Christians getting a ticket to heaven by being good boys and girls is accurate. I thought the Lord's blessing is granted to the spiritual minority not the moral majority?

First, this doesn't answer my question.

Second, there is no law saying you can't take people's opinions about things into account. Rather, it says no religious discrimination, which overlaps, but is not the same thing. For instance, I don't think your example would be covered as it is not a religious belief.

Third, I think this is one of those cases where total freedom in the system is increased by restricting a local freedom. If bosses were allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, this would create a social environment with greater pressure for religious conformity and segregation, thus increasing the cost of religious independence or dissent. My guess is this would be a greater loss of freedom than losing the ability to discriminate on religious grounds in employment decisions. Religious and occupation choices at the margins have a greater impact on people than the marginal difference of not hiring someone of an unwanted religion has on the employer.

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. 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).

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.

I didn't criticize the internet I criticized your use of it, presumably exclusively to amplify your own prejudices.

Essentially what you are doing is looking at the fringes and judging the entirety of Christianity on that basis. Which you could do anything-when did you last apologize on behalf of atheists for Mao and Stalin?

*Sound of champagne glasses clinking*

What is a "religious exclusivist?" (Later on I think you get around to saying that it's someone who believes people who aren't members of their faith are damned? If so, then sure, a religious exclusivist could work for my company. My company is a Chick-Fil-A franchise, thanks for asking.)

Yes. Sanders' question is valid insofar as it goes to this person's ability to uphold his duty to uphold others' constitutional right to the free exercise of their religion. I think it's easy to see why a dogmatic extremist reasonably might be considered to pose a greater risk of failing to uphold duties of office. The statement Sanders reads is fairly clear in the view it describes.

This is an absurd conclusion to draw here. Moreover, virtually no identity category is totally immutable, e.g. transgenderism.

Is the implication here that religious faith is easy to change? Seems like a dubious proposition.

More or less. A religious exclusivist is someone who believed that their religion is the only path to god, salvation, enlightenment, whatever.

Sure, I think it is completely fair for Sanders to question Vought on his commitment to treat other people fairly and uphold people's rights to freedom of religion. What is not fair is to reject Vought after he assures Sanders that he will do so merely on the basis of Vought's religious beliefs. That is using a religious test for public office.

Here is more context for Vought's statement:

Here Vought is making an argument about the nature of God and salvation. The reference to Muslims having a "deficient theology" is a reference to Stackhouse's claim that some people have a deficient (i.e. nontrinitarian) theology. But his main point in the quoted passage is that the reason Muslims aren't saved (i.e. condemned) is because they don't know Jesus Christ, and knowing Jesus is a requirement of salvation. 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?

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.

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.

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?