'muslims do not simply have deficient theology'. Pretty clear who is in the firing line there.

It is clear and its not just Muslims.

He believes all people who have not accepted Jesus Christ are condemned. And they all have a deficient theology.

Now maybe he would not go there with Jewish people...but he thinks it.

Well, you have the principle of 'context' correct, but the application wrong. You do not seem to understand the Christian context of the words "condemned" or "deficient theology" etc, and thus, you (and Sanders and some others itt) are the ones arriving at weird conclusions. The point is that this is not Muslim bashing anymore than atheists saying that Christians do not go to heaven or Muslims saying that Christians stand condemned before God. Post title needs changing to "Vought vs people who don't understand context."

Hint: Is Vought saying that (1) Muslims are to be condemned and mistreated in this world, or is he saying that (2) they do not go to heaven in the afterlife? If you think (1), you are wrong. If you think (2), that is what almost every religion thinks about people of other religions, and is what atheists think about all people. It is hardly racist or Islamophobic.

Questioning whether Vought is making racist slurs is beyond ridiculous. I am pointing out that it is similar to you using the word "condemnation" and then disparaging you for it. Vought's statement is not Islamophobic, it is standard for any religion about another religion (for the most part, universalists, etc aside).

Muslims would say that 'Christians do not simply have deficient theology'. Pretty clear who is in the firing line there. How do you feel about that?

The comparison doesn't work. It is Muslims who are suggested to be banned from the US; Muslims having their villages flattened, cities destroyed. Vought contributes to the ideology that makes this acceptable. Not all religions are equal in other words. There is a political weight when a politician makes such interventions, beyond simple theological discussion.

The trick of modern global racism is to locate it in 'cultural differences' rather than skin colour. Slavery was OK because people of brown skin were subhuman animals. Imperialism in the middle east today is OK because Muslims have a 'deficient theology'/ need democratising/regime change, 'our values', even referencing the crusades in the case of George W.

So now you're changing your rationale.

1) You previously said it was an "unacceptable racial slur." Can you explain how it is a racial slur, or are you backing off from that now?

2) In your new rationale, it's because Muslims are "suggested to be banned" etc and "not all religions are equal." Are you saying that it would be okay for Muslims to say that "Christians do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Muhammad His Prophet, and they stand condemned," but not okay for Christians to say that "Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ His Son, and they stand condemned."

In other words, are you discriminating against Christians and justifying it due to others having wrong attitudes about treatment of Muslims?

The context in which something is said matters. When Muhammad Morsi said something critical of Christianity people died because of it. When American political leaders rail against Islam it leads to bans and bombs.

The dude in question here may well think Muslims go to hell, but keeping his mouth shut is an option.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Proverbs 15:1

No I'm explaining why it is unacceptable racism (as opposed to a religious belief for which the right to air that belief must be protected), the racism is couched in religious / cultural terms but that doesn't stop it being racism - the degradation of a particular group on the grounds of a characteristic common to that group, which fits a wider structural oppression. Using the Muslim ban as an example of this wider picture. Is the Muslim ban racist? If you think not then your definition of racism isn't fit for purpose. If so then is this not linked to this comment from a prominent US politician? Is this separate from US intervention and expansionism in Syria/yemen/afghanistan/Iraq etc? Or is it pure coincidence that American politicians hate Islam at a time when their strategic goals are wrapped up with this religion.

Re Christians, no it isn't OK to say that Christianity is a deficient theology. But the context would be totally different so my judgement would also be different. My basic principle is to defend the right to practice religion insofar as it doesn't trample over the rights of others or cause harm to others. Not the case with Vought which is why I see this as a political issue not a religious one.

Yes, I agree that the context matters. The context here is totally outside of a government role, it is of a Christian alumnus of a Christian private school writing primarily to other Christian alumni and faculty of the school about Christian theological issues and their relation to employment at a Christian private school. He is not saying anything to the public at large about condemning Muslims in terms of treatment in this world.

Microbet, how would you feel about a religious Jewish person in a temple or Jewish religious school saying that "atheists do not know God because they reject His existence, and therefore they stand condemned before Him in the afterlife"?

Mystified, because Jews don't talk about standing condemned before Him in the afterlife.

But, looking past that and at the point you're trying to make: needs more context.

( I'm not that interested in this story and am not lik likely to make any definitive endorsement or condemnation of Bernie's line of questioning here.)

You still haven't explained how simply using the words "condemned" and "deficient theology" is unacceptable racism, whether it is about a minority group that has been oppressed or not. Are you saying that usage of any "negative" words about a minority group, is racism? Are you saying that your own usage of the words "Replace Muslim with jew and you have universal condemnation, and rightly so" is racist? Presumably not, but that is what your argument implies.

You simply do not understand what the words "condemned" and "deficient theology" mean in this context, which is part of a theological belief which is true of almost all religions vs other religions and atheism.

To answer your questions though:

Yes, the Muslim ban is racist.

No, it is not linked to this comment which reflects a widely held belief of Christians and many/most other religious groups of others for centuries or even millennia.

Yes, this is separate from US intervention and expansionism in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

Yes, it is a coincidence (although your statement referencing this is vague and somewhat incorrect, so it's hard to evaluate).

These comments do not trample over the rights of others or cause harm to others, and they were not made in a policial context. Sanders, you, and others are the ones politicizing it and being discriminatory.

I have now answered your questions, but you still don't seem to have a grasp on what Vought is saying.

Is Vought saying that (1) Muslims are to be condemned and mistreated in this world, or is he saying that (2) they do not go to heaven in the afterlife?

Well, ethnic/cultural Jews may not, and even for religious Jews, it may not be as much of a focus as it is for Christians, but the Torah/Tanakh/Hebrew Bible do use the word "condemn" and Judaism does hold that there is an afterlife, resurrection of the dead, unrighteous will suffer, etc.

But as you said, looking past that and at the larger point, the context is important.

And the context of Vought's words was solely a Christian theological discussion as it relates to a Christian private school. It was not a government/political/treatment of religions and races at large discussion.

It would be akin to a Senator disqualifying a Jewish person from public office because of words they once said in temple that reflect longstanding Jewish beliefs about other religions, but that does not in any way imply mistreatment or prejudice against them.

The first paragragh is the kind of thing Christians say about Jews. I'm not religious, but I've been to temple, went to hebrew school for a bit, and lived in two different Jewish housing places in college both of which had religious people there and one was orthodox and they made me participate as much as they could guilt me into, for a while my mom was getting my kids into a temple and I was there plenty, and I've never in my life heard Jews talking about such things. Condemn and afterlife may show up somewhere in the texts which probably contradicts itself in a thousand places. It's not part of any conventional Jewish practice.

Did Bernie disqualify this guy?

I've been told those things by religious Jewish friends (although there is not nearly the emphasis on it as in Christianity), and I've confirmed it on Jewish websites. You can find them with simple Google searches as well. But as we've agreed, the specifics of Jewish beliefs about the afterlife are not the main point. The point is whether centuries-to-millennia-old commonly held beliefs that do not involve mistreatment of or prejudice against others in this world, should disqualify one from public office.

Yes, Sanders tried to disqualify him and voted no.

"I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about," Sanders said during the committee hearing. "I will vote no."

I'm not that interested in this guy and am not commenting on the specifics. There's still not enough context about how and why this guy said what he did. I quoted proverbs before, but this quote, which seems hard to attribute, comes to mind:

But, as far as the derail goes, I think your being part of those discussions and being Christian (I assume) was part of it. Whether it's there or not, it essentially never comes up among Jews and I suspect that whatever is there is contradicted in other places and like many things in religion you can find something to support whatever you're looking for.

And brief googling

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...ish-tradition/

There is plenty of context about how and why this guy said what he did. I've given the gist of it above, and it has been discussed earlier itt (2nd half of pg 1 at 100 posts/page, upper portion of pg 2 at 50 p/p). Original Position cited more context for Vought's statement on 6/15. You referenced the context on pg 1, but don't appear interested in reading about or discussing it. Which is fine, I guess, but then you can't fairly say that we don't have enough context.

Regarding both your Proverbs and Rumi quotes, I don't think they apply the way you seem to intend, since this is not a case of a Muslim asking Vought a question, it is of a Christian having a theological discussion primarily with other Christians. Even so, within the context and meaning of the remarks, they pass those tests, as they are true, necessary, and kind, in context.

As for the derail on Jewish beliefs, I am not making a case for the beliefs of all Jewish people, nor ever intended to (just as not all Christians believe precisely what Vought believes). I used it as a comparable example in relation to this case, since a number of religious Jews do have such beliefs about the afterlife. To clarify, I was referring to religious Orthodox Judaism, in which a number do hold that there is an afterlife, resurrection of the dead, unrighteous will suffer, etc.

Yes, of course you can Google and find other Jewish people who do not believe such things, but that is not what I was claiming. I did not say that no Jewish people do not believe in the afterlife, or anything about modern vs traditional, etc. My statements were true, if you Google search, you can find Jewish websites that refer to traditional Orthodox Jewish belief in the afterlife etc (and I have always referenced that it has less emphasis than in the Christian faith). And even in the quotes you provided, they reference that traditional Jewish belief in the afterlife, heaven and hell, Sheol, cut off from God, etc. I make no claims on which is more prevalent today, and have no reason to doubt most of what you say (although I would guess that there are temples and places where it is discussed more than in your own experiences, just as within Christianity there are different beliefs about various things and different emphases laid on them in different circles).

And all of that is largely irrelevant to this case and the point I was making and the example I used, which is, if there were any traditional Orthodox Jew that did speak in temple (or write to his religious school members) about his views on the afterlife or other religions, which did not in any way imply mistreatment or prejudice against others, should those words disqualify that Jewish person from public office (or should Senators try to disqualify them)?

Use of negative terms describing a minority group is generally hateful/oppressive yes because by definition the group has been generalised in negative terms. Happy for counter example to be provided.
The point about replacing muslim with Jew in Vought's statement is that the issue would hardly be up for debate. It would be anti-Semitic, and 'condemned' by the liberal press.
It isn't standard practice for religious people to bash other religions in this way. It is beyond the boundaries of acceptable religious practice, certainly in public forums.

Calling people out for offensive language is not 'discriminatory'. It is a move to prevent potential discrimination in the future.

Patron,

I'm just more interested in the derail. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's the rule, not the exception, that Jews are not sure about any condemnation or afterlife. I think 'not sure' is the best way to put it as well. Judaism is more about practice than belief and uncertainty in specific beliefs is totally standard.

As far as the guy question is concerned, well, if context matters to me then obviously I think it's possible for it to be ok.

Micro, I get where you're coming from and what part you're more interested in discussing, and that's fine. With that in mind, I agree that my original comparison using a Jewish person probably sounds strange, especially considering that I simply cut and pasted the same language to make the comparison easier to see, and that most/almost all Jewish people would not use such language, even those that believe in an afterlife and heaven and suffering, etc.

I stand by it being an acceptable comparison, and that there are some religious Orthodox Jewish people that might make such a statement conceptually (even if not the exact same wording), and that such a statement should be acceptable within a proper context, and not disqualify that person from public office or subject them to public shaming.

Besides that, I have no quarrel with any of the statements you've made, and mine were not meant to be overreaching statements about the Jewish faith or people, so I don't actually think we have much disagreement left, if any.

You are still missing the point and not addressing the question that shows how you are missing the point. None of what you wrote addresses this misunderstanding, which can be boiled down to:

Is Vought saying that (1) Muslims are to be condemned and mistreated in this world, or is he saying that (2) they do not go to heaven in the afterlife?

If you can answer that question correctly, then there is no hateful or oppressive language, it is not Islamophobic (nor anti-Semitic if replacing Muslim for Jew), is not bashing another religion, and is not beyond the boundaries of acceptable religious practice.

Calling people out for a centuries-to-millennia-old commonly-held religious belief that does not imply mistreatment of or prejudice against people in this world, is most certainly discriminatory, and promotes rather than prevents discrimination in the future.

I can see why you are coming to different conclusions though, because before you can even begin to accurately analyze all of those above factors, you have to correctly understand the original statement and what it actually means or does not mean, implies or does not imply. So again:

Is Vought saying that (1) Muslims are to be condemned and mistreated in this world, or is he saying that (2) they do not go to heaven in the afterlife?

I understand what you are asking I just don't think it is important whether he is referring to the afterlife or now. What he said was offensive and inflammatory and he refused to retract.

Bashing a religion is different than bashing people. Islam >< Muslims. Christianity <> Christians, and so on. If someone puts forth one stupid belief they hold, it is not bigoted to want to prevent that person from making important decisions.

Of course, in my mind that eliminates most of the American population. Also, it could be argued that Sanders' problem was not with Vought's decision making abilities, but in thinking that Vought himself was bigoted because in speaking up for HIS religion, he implied others stood condemned.

But yes. If you're very religious it is almost impossible NOT to be bigoted against those not of your religion. So Sanders had every right to grill him. The real problem is Sanders cannot come out say why, because we aren't allowed to call religious beliefs stupid.

Ensuring that a political appointee will be able to act without religious prejudice is exactly what the separation of church and state looks like.

It does not matter which religion it is.

That's where you are wrong. It is an important distinction. If an atheist says (when speaking to other atheists about his beliefs about the correctness of other religions or not): Muslims do not go to heaven. Christians do not go to heaven. Jews do not go to heaven. There is no God. Muslims are wrong. Christians are wrong. Jews are wrong.

Well, that would be offensive and inflammatory to many. Should that be the standard? Should we disqualify from public office, any atheist who thinks or says such things?

Presumably no, and although those comments would be offensive and inflammatory to many, they are not necessarily racist, hateful, or oppressive, the same way that Vought's comments are not. This is the whole point, regardless of what you personally believe about the comments.

Are you arguing that most of the American population, or at least the very religious, should be disqualified from public office, on that basis alone, regardless of whether they support mistreatment of and prejudice against others or not? I'm assuming you're half-joking, because if not...

Right. Which is why there were further questions answered about prejudice against or not and treatment of people in this world in the present.

Discrimination against a political appointee for a commonly-held religious belief that does not imply those things is exactly what separation of church and state is not supposed to do.

As a matter of fact, I would very much prefer that people who write our laws or in any way impact the lives of every day Americans, were not religious and instead, were all rational thinkers who don't believe in fairy tales.

Should someone be disqualified if they're "very religious"? It depends. Can they compartmentalize their irrational beliefs and leave them at home before going to work? If so, then then they can perform their job. But you're missing the point of Sanders' questioning:

Sanders was not being prejudiced, but was trying to find out if a religious fundamentalist who held stupid beliefs and wrote them out publicly was himself prejudiced. And it sure looks like he was.

That is fine as your preference, but if applied, it would obviously be religious discrimination.

Good thing there was further testimony in which he showed that he was not:

Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals.

Sanders was definitely in the wrong.