Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

Does being a devout Christian make a person unfit for public office

Recommended Posts

This exchange happened during senate confirmation hearings: 

Sanders: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “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.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?

Vought: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and . . . 

Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?

Vought: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College:

Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian . . . 

Sanders (shouting): I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

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: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?

Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation. 

Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/448393/print

If denouncing the religious tenets of your faith is required for holding office, would this standard disqualify all faithful Mormons too?

 

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me that such questions as asked would be inappropriate in a job interview .How it is acceptable in this case I don't know. I thought there was not to be a religious test for public office.

Share this post


Link to post

The US is one the most religious country on earth. The US also prohibits any profession of faith from the holding public office or office of trust. If you keep your religion out of my politics. I'll keep my politics out of your religion seems the best way to go.

Share this post


Link to post

Article 6, Section 3

3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

... If denouncing the religious tenets of your faith is required for holding office, would this standard disqualify all faithful Mormons too?

 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, provoman said:

Article 6, Section 3

3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

No exeptions? So if someone believes blacks are inferior that shouldn't be taken into account? Vought said something similar about Muslims, "they stand condemned"

How do you define "religious Test" anyway? 

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yes.

"U.S. News & World Report spoke to legal experts who say Sanders is on solid legal ground. "Senators can vote against nominees for any reason or no reason at all," one law professor told the magazine. "It may be atrocious, but it's not unconstitutional," another said"

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/09/532116365/is-it-hateful-to-believe-in-hell-bernie-sanders-questions-prompt-backlash

7 hours ago, bsjkki said:

If denouncing the religious tenets of your faith is required for holding office, would this standard disqualify all faithful Mormons too?

Conservative writters are full of propaganda. See how it is obvious that John Mccain was reading a lot of propaganda. 

 

Edited by MormonVideoGame

Share this post


Link to post

To me, the question is whether a person's religious views would impact how he or she would perform their duties of office. Senator Sanders was asking th wrong questions. What questions would he have asked a Muslim or a Jew?

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

To me, the question is whether a person's religious views would impact how he or she would perform their duties of office. Senator Sanders was asking th wrong questions. What questions would he have asked a Muslim or a Jew?

 

I did have that thought.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

No exeptions? So if someone believes blacks are inferior that shouldn't be taken into account? Vought said something similar about Muslims, "they stand condemned"

The constitution prohibits a religious test but you answered your own question here:

 

6 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

U.S. News & World Report spoke to legal experts who say Sanders is on solid legal ground. "Senators can vote against nominees for any reason or no reason at all," one law professor told the magazine. "It may be atrocious, but it's not unconstitutional," another said

Senators are able to disqualify a nominee for whatever reason they want. If you believe a Christian man should be disqualified because he believes those who do not accept Christ will be condemned in the eyes of God, that is also your opinion.

What I am saying is if you hold Christians to this standard because you believe their faith tenets are offensive, Mormons would also be disqualified as well as most people of faith. 

I quoted the exchange and included the reference to National Review as my source for the transcript. Your opinion on conservative writers or John McCain  does not address whether people of faith should not hold office because of the beliefs of their faith. It has no bearing on the discussion. 

I think it has been shown time and time again, Christians will defend the rights and respect those who believe differently. An individuals belief in the rights protected in the constitution, is more important than their belief in hell for those who will not follow Christ.

Edited by bsjkki

Share this post


Link to post

"So if someone believes blacks are inferior that shouldn't be taken into account? Vought said something similar about Muslims, "they stand condemned""

It is one thing if he was just talking in terms of eternal salvation (which to me it sounded like he was) if they refuse to accept Christ as their savior.

That is significantly different than thinking that makes them inherently inferior as human beings in mortality (which is what in my opinion Sanders was trying to make it appear he believed).

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

An individuals belief in the rights protected in the constitution, is more important than their belief in hell for those who will not follow Christ.

At least as far as their suitability for government appointments, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

At least as far as their suitability for government appointments, that is.

....yes...and I appreciate the clarification!

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Calm said:

"So if someone believes blacks are inferior that shouldn't be taken into account? Vought said something similar about Muslims, "they stand condemned""

It is one thing if he was just talking in terms of eternal salvation (which to me it sounded like he was) if they refuse to accept Christ as their savior.

That is significantly different than thinking that makes them inherently inferior as human beings in mortality (which is what in my opinion Sanders was trying to make it appear he believed).

the culture is changing, we don't say "they stand condemned" anymore. Can you imagine church leaders saying that about non-Mormons in General Conference? What sane person writes that for a newspaper? The guy has issues.  

52 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Senators are able to disqualify a nominee for whatever reason they want.

So where is the problem? To republicans everything legal is okay, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

the culture is changing, we don't say "they stand condemned" anymore. Can you imagine church leaders saying that about non-Mormons in General Conference? What sane person writes that for a newspaper? The guy has issues.  

So where is the problem? To republicans everything legal is okay, right? 

Try not to derail the thread. If you believe it was valid questioning and a valid reason to reject him...you are entitled to your opinion. 

Here is an article from The Atlantic...is this more acceptable to you? It clarifies why this is an issue. https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/529614/

Share this post


Link to post

It is interesting Voughts remarks defending his alma mater surround the rights of the school to fire a professor who seems to be outside the faith parameters of the private institution. We seem to debate the rights of private faith based schools to police the faith beliefs of their professors and students. He quotes from this evil, conservative publication that is defending the rights of Christian schools. (sarcasm)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429735/left-wont-leave-christian-colleges-alone

Edited by bsjkki

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Try not to derail the thread. If you believe it was valid questioning and a valid reason to reject him...you are entitled to your opinion. 

I think your title "Does being a devout Christian make a person unfit for public office" is misleading, Sanders has no issue with devout Christians. 

I suspect you are a Republican that strongly disagrees with Sanders on most issues. 

24 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Here is an article from The Atlantic...is this more acceptable to you? It clarifies why this is an issue. 

You think it is appropriate to say "they are condemned" in public? We are no longer in the 19th century. Modern church leaders don't use that language. 

Edited by MormonVideoGame

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the quote in context...it is a religious discussion about the supremacy of the savior.  So everyone must now be politically correct during religious debates?

" Stackhouse implies that someone could really “know God” without a focus on Jesus. He explains, “Having a deficient (e.g., nontrinitarian) theology of God…does not mean you are not in actual prayerful and faithful relationship with God. (Having wrong ideas about a person…doesn’t mean that you do not have a relationship with that person.)” This is the fundamental problem. 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 John 8:19, “Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And 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.”

Do you understand the context of these remarks? Does this make any difference to you? 

Share this post


Link to post

Okay. More of the story. A tenured professor at a Christian school was fired for wearing a hijab in solidarity with Muslims and saying both worship the same God along with other religious statements. Vought tore into her declaring how inferior the Muslim faith is. Sanders (and others) are right to question Vought's ability to be fair.

I would ask those who think this is a religious test if they would feel the same way if the professor was fired for wearing the Star of David and Vought tore into her declaring Judaism to be an inferior religion for not accepting Christ. Why is Islamophobia privileged over anti-Semitism?

Would Mormons fall under this "religious test"? Sure, if they are mindless jerks who spend their time preaching on the inferiority of other faiths. I would not want them in government office either in the same way I do not really want Vought there.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

.........................................................

I think it has been shown time and time again, Christians will defend the rights and respect those who believe differently.

I'm not sure that is true.  Certainly the early Mormons found it not to be true at all, and Joseph Smith found that the Pres of the USA himself had no interest in defending the Constitutional rights of Mormons (letter to the Pres April 10, 1834).  Pres Martin Van Buren told Joseph personally: "What can I do? I can do nothing for you, -if I do anything, I shall come in contact with the whole State of Missouri."

Those who believe differently than others in this country have frequently been denied their rights under the law.  It doesn't take much to get the sound and fury of bigotry going in this country.  Never has.  Where are all those so-called "Christians" you tout?

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

An individuals belief in the rights protected in the constitution, is more important than their belief in hell for those who will not follow Christ.

Sounds good, but I'm waiting for the hidden agenda underlying all the bland assurances from people like Vought.  After all, why should Bernie Sanders  the Jew want to leave his rights in the hands of someone like Vought, who sees him condemned by God?

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

................................... Why is Islamophobia privileged over anti-Semitism?

.............................................

Yes, and how is it that only hatred of Jews is anti-Semitic, when the Arabs are also Semites?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Here is the quote in context...it is a religious discussion about the supremacy of the savior.  So everyone must now be politically correct during religious debates?

" Stackhouse implies that someone could really “know God” without a focus on Jesus. He explains, “Having a deficient (e.g., nontrinitarian) theology of God…does not mean you are not in actual prayerful and faithful relationship with God. (Having wrong ideas about a person…doesn’t mean that you do not have a relationship with that person.)” This is the fundamental problem. 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 John 8:19, “Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And 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.”

Do you understand the context of these remarks? Does this make any difference to you? 

I understand the context, but he was writting for the Wash. Post newspaper. The American people are not theologians. 

Like I said church leaders and missionaries don't use that language anymore. Not the way to convert non-Christians by telling them "you are condenmed".  Can you imagine the outrage if a Mormon politician in power would have said the same thing about evangelical christians? 

Please respond, or are you simply playing politics?

Quote

I think your title "Does being a devout Christian make a person unfit for public office" is misleading, Sanders has no issue with devout Christians. I suspect you are a Republican that strongly disagrees with Sanders on most issues.

 

Edited by MormonVideoGame

Share this post


Link to post

deleted to avoid derailment

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

After all, why should Bernie Sanders  the Jew want to leave his rights in the hands of someone like Vought, who sees him condemned by God?

Are you suggesting this is a new and unusual position "that those who do not accept Jesus as Saviour are condemned by God" for Christians of various denominations to hold?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Would Mormons fall under this "religious test"? Sure, if they are mindless jerks who spend their time preaching on the inferiority of other faiths.

While I am grateful we don't often hear active preaching against other faiths, our statement of belief about being the one true faith tends to make other faiths believe we think they are inferior. 😉

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I understand the context, but he was writting for the Wash. Post newspaper. The American people are not theologians. 

Not factually correct. He wrote it for The Resurgent defending the decision to fire this professor for publically advocating out of harmony teachings. BYU reserves that same right. http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_3934360

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...