imo "most christians" don't know if they're going to heaven but they sure hope so

the ones who KNOW are among a multi-religious class of unquestioning zealots who should never be approved for any position of mass consequence, completely unrelated to the particular details of their respective religion


this not a constitutional argument but a pragmatic one of methodological competence

the constitutional argument remains "if you discriminate against people on religious bases, you can't be in the government"

I agree with this. Please note that my post that you are responding to was a reply to DS about a post he made that presumably has no relationship to the Vought-Sanders case. As such, I agree with your statement, but neither your statement nor my hypothetical that you replied to, should imply anything about disqualifying Vought or not.

Again you are applying an incorrect understanding of DS' original hypothetical. The question is how would a Christian (presumably Protestant) feel and what would a Christian think. The main thrust of this is presumably to ask what a Christian who truly believes Christian theology thinks, not to ask about a cultural non-religious Christian or median Christian or average Christian or whatever view of Christians you have in your own mind. It's about what one would think if one is really going by Christian theology.

If you want to change the question to what an "average" Christian would think, then yes, your arguments might apply, depending on the level of doubt vs certainty that Christian would have. Of course millions of Christians do not hold 100% certainty. But this does not appear to be the point of the question. Nor did DS quibble with this. He in fact replied to my post, and did not challenge anything, other than replying to the last sentence, where he says the point is that some Christians are bad people because of what they think God thinks.

Given the above, the point of DS's question is what Christians who truly believe Christian theology would think. And those Christians think their chances of heaven are 100%, or near 100%. They also think that the existence of God is 100%, or near 100%. They may be wrong, but that is their position. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." There is also a doctrine called "assurance of salvation" that you can look up to understand this further.

Also note that all of this is a total derail from the Vought-Sanders case, and has no bearing on it.

I'll let DS make his own points, but since I dragged myself into this, I'll make my own...

Thank you! Because DS said:

Most is more than average. If I have a bag with 100 marbles and give you most of them, I have given you more than 50%. If 75 out of 100 drivers exceed the speed limit, most of them speed. See how that works?

He came up with another one of his thought experiments which (he can correct me if I'm wrong), you failed miserably on.

100% is quite a bit different than near 100%. In probability a 100% likelihood of an event = 1. Anything less = <1.

If a christian who is less than 100% sure, sees an atheist enter heaven, then:

1. His beliefs are right, but god also uses other criteria

2. His beliefs are wrong, but god uses other criteria.

Either way, the chances are at least as good for getting into heaven. This is what DS stated.

But if a Christian who is less than 100% sure sees only a Muslim getting into heaven. This is an "Uh, oh" moment because now at the very least we know that belief in Christianity can't be right. And if the Islamic belief is correct, then Christians have been worshiping the wrong prophet! (the uh, oh part).

Do you see why scenario #1 is more hopeful than scenario #2 if you're a Christian who is less than 100% sure?

Of course, if you're 100% sure then you shouldn't believe your own eyes in either scenario and instead believe that the devil is tricking you or that god is putting you to some kind of test.

To me, faith is what you resort to when you don't have evidence to back up your beliefs. But that's an entirely different topic that if you wish, can be taken up in the RGT forum.

I don't need to look it up because I don't hold your beliefs. Perhaps you're one of those who thinks this is a "Christian nation" and everyone needs to kowtow to you? Because why else do you keep insisting I look at this from a Christian standpoint? Why should I have to?

I invite you to reread what Vought wrote and replace Muslims with black people. Are you still okay with what he wrote and think he's fit to hold public office?

Thats not very fair. If asked he would of said the same about other Christians called Catholics and all people who are not saved though Jesus.

Yes I am using it by way of example to show the danger of allowing religious bigotry to fester, which we can all agree on. For me this applies directly to Sanders_vought, obviously you disagree but I thought it worth pointing out anyway

patron aside, I think it's a fair litmus to ascertain whether what Vought wrote was discriminatory or not.

What I, batair, patron, 5ive, and others are arguing is that you are misinterpreting Vought's statement as discriminatory instead of as a statement of (non-discriminatory) theological principle (notice that most of us are not Christians). Your own feelings are not relevant to interpreting what he said or to the nature of Christian exclusivism.

Your example illustrates your misunderstanding. Here is the statement again:

As you can see, Vought is defending the theological view that in order to know God you must accept Jesus Christ (a common view among Christians). He says, "This is the fundamental problem. Muslims do not simply have a deficient [e.g., non-trinitarian -OrP] theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned...in John 3:18, Jesus says, "Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.""

Here we can see what is meant by a deficient theology of God - a theology that doesn't recognize the triune nature of God, or the Incarnation of Jesus. Anyone who accepts the Christian idea of God as accurate would say the same about Islam. Islamic theology is, from their perspective, literally deficient in its conception of God in that it views God as a single person rather than as three persons as in orthodox Christian theology (and most pertinently in not recognizing Jesus as God). Vought then refers explicitly to one of the most well-known passages in the Bible, where Jesus refers to his own purpose on earth as bringing eternal life to all who believe in him, and that those who don't believe in him will be condemned.

You ask us to substitute "black" for "Muslim," but this only shows your own misunderstanding. What would it mean to say that black people have a deficient theology of god for Vought? There is no black theology of god (at least, not in the relevant sense). There is a Muslim theology of god, so it makes sense to describe it as deficient. Or, why would Vought describe African-Americans as condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ when African-Americans are more likely to be Christians compared to the rest of the population (83% identify as either Protestant or Catholic, compared to 75% of the total population). Your analogy here simply doesn't work because you are ignoring the specifically religious character of Vought's statement and so treating Muslim and black as interchangeable.

As for questioning him, as I said before, I have no problem with Sanders questioning Vought about his views. My disagreement is with the claim that a public statement of Christian exclusivist beliefs is sufficient to show that someone is bigoted towards people of other religions and so should be disqualified from public office.

How so?

If stating a belief in religious exclusivism is ipso facto reason to think someone may act in a discriminatory manner and so disqualified from office, then you do believe there should be a religious test for office.

That is fine for you to point out, as long as we are aware that this is a new point that you are making, and does not appear to be what DS intended, and none of my replies on that topic were meant to apply directly to the Vought-Sanders case.

That said, I agree that we do not want religious bigotry affecting public policy making, treatment of people, or allocation of funds. As such, I agree with your statement that I am not denying that cultural or religious bigotry exists, or that people with such prejudices are in government, or even that Christians with such prejudices are in government. There are plenty of examples of such people. What I am denying is that the Christian faith, particularly evangelical Protestant theology (which is the context of the college and Vought's interpretation of faith), necessitates such bigotry or prejudice or unequal treatment.

So if you want to disqualify Vought specifically for his interpretation of Christian theology, you need to show tangible evidence that he will give unequal treatment to others. As explained previously, belief that some/most/all are condemned/sentenced in the afterlife does not show that. As also shown previously, some Christians in fact take that belief and arguably treat Muslims or other non-Christians better because of it. So if someone holds that belief, you have no way of knowing if that individual will treat others better, worse, or equal due to it. To assume otherwise is wrongful discrimination.

I agree with this as far as official government language and positions go, and all religious (or non-religious) groups deserve equal treatment and inclusivity as far as government treatment and positions. But you cannot insist upon inclusive language for all religious groups as far as their belief in the afterlife (or several other religious beliefs as well, but those are different topics). You cannot say that the official position of government must be that Christians must include Muslims as going to heaven in the afterlife, or Muslims include Jews in that group, etc. That should be obvious, the government is not in the business of dictating what religious beliefs should be. This extends to people that hold those beliefs, you cannot demand what their personal beliefs should be, or bar them from government positions due to them, if you cannot show that those beliefs necessitate unequal treatment. So if you are seeking to use this point and apply it to the Vought-Sanders case, you are going to need to show how that is the case.

The term "deficient theology" is meaningless to me and it really doesn't matter to me what he (or anyone else) means by it. It could be a deficient theology, a deficient intellect, a deficient amount of money. To suggest that an entire group of people stands condemned is again, in my view, discriminatory and should be questioned.

I know you (and others) don't have a problem with Sanders' line of questioning. But it seems you do have a problem with his vote of nay for his confirmation. I agree with that vote and would've voted the same.

The derail with patron was to explain the difference between someone who is 100% sure their theology is right and something less. And while I really do appreciate your well thought out attempt at explaining to me why I'm wrong in terms of not understanding the problem, it is not enough to change my mind.

I do not believe in a religious test to hold public office. One could believe in astrology for all I care. But when they start making decisions, or if they show there's even a chance that they'll start making decisions that affect the public based upon their horoscope reading for the day, I do not think they are fit for public office. Notice that this is different from bigotry. But I consider Voghts thoughts on theology to be both bigoted and anti intellectual enough to not be in public service.


I've already stated that my personal preference is to have ZERO religious persons in government because I think that to be religious is to automatically be bigoted at least to some degree. I'd be happy with a completely secular society. It won't happen in our lifetime, but one day I think it will if our species survives long enough.

You mentioned that you wouldn't vote for Kasich, but think he should be allowed to run. Well, I do too. But have you ever heard his comments on the guy who played Harry Potter being an atheist? Ever heard George H.W. Bush say that atheists aren't really U.S. citizens? Neither would ever get my vote just based on those comments. And likewise, Voght would never get my vote based on his comments about Muslims. And if I were a senator, I'd do everything I could to block his nomination. They are allowed to run and be nominated, but I'm allowed to vote no and make fun of their silly (and bigoted) beliefs. I'm sure many will think that I'm bigoted, but they do anyway.

I think I've said all I have to say about this.

Not really. What i wrote was fair yours is apples and oranges.

Maybe I'd understand this apple/orange thingy and all the reasons I'm in the wrong on this subject if you would just explain some of the virtues that having a confirmed political official who thinks every group of people who doesn't believe what he does all standing condemned, would give to society?

I'm not even interested why I'm wrong anymore. I just want to know what the benefits are to confirming someone like that.

Maybe they also believe in other things like its their duty to feed the hungry and cloth the poor of all races and religions. And treat all justly as children of God.

Just because someone holds that only those saved through Jesus are saved does not mean they could not do their job well.

Of course you can bar them from government, depending on how extreme their views are. What is your view of George bush who referenced the crusades as he ordered the killing of a million people and prayed with tony Blair as the bombs dropped. These are the legitimate leaders of the democratic world (ha) who used *Christian theology* to justify political positions. I assume you think this is wrong so the question is where should the line be drawn - vought and bush are on the same spectrum in my view.

The point about inclusive language in this case is that you dont need to negatively reference other religions to follow your own beliefs. It is inherently bigoted to do so. Religious people have to accept that other religions have an equal right to exist and have to be respected, regardless of their personal views.