Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

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

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

Valid point...but based on the line of questioning, where would Vought stand? Do you believe he would denie rights to non-Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

I like this..but it doesn't seem that way in the state of Utah. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2017 at 10:58 AM, bsjkki said:

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?

 

I think Sanders, unfortunately, has created a straw man argument and does not begin to understand religion, any religion, or its objectives.  This is evident in the simple fact that according to Islam all people, each and every one of them, are condemned before Allah if they are not Muslim. This type of exclusivity in beliefs is not a novel idea or concept, but Sanders shows an extreme ignorance and attacks the hometown boy while missing the bigger picture.

According to Sanders, it would seem and if all are treated fairly, all individuals of major religions are not acceptable candidates for political office.  LDS, Catholics, Orthodox, Evangelicals, Christians in general, Muslims, etc.; none are viable according to him.

This is an effort to appear tolerant gone astray for Sanders.  In a religious context, we can hold others excluded from the Kingdom of God and still have no problems in a social or political context treating others as equals regardless of their religious affiliation.  Religion remains a personal choice and having beliefs is not a sign of social intolerance or social exclusivity.  Having a religion does not equate to be unloving of humanity.  

Edited by Storm Rider

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

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. 

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. 

Do you believe in the Bible? They are condemned by God, Acts 4: 11-12

Share this post


Link to post

God is more than capable of taking care of himself. It is what us mere mortals do to each other that concerns me.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I like this..but it doesn't seem that way in the state of Utah. 

I've lived in a number of states. My idea is relatively rare in those too.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Valid point...but based on the line of questioning, where would Vought stand? Do you believe he would denie rights to non-Christians.

I don't know, but he was clearly unable to nuance his remarks to Sanders.  Perhaps he has now thought it over and realized how idiotic he sounded.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

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

Hold on just a minute.  Are you suggesting that John McCain is a conservative?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

What is unusual is for someone like Vought to be so inane as to miss the main point, which is that one's personal religious beliefs must not be allowed to influence their performance of govt obligations.  I can't imagine a member of the LDS First Pres or Twelve being so insensitive, even though they clearly believe that only the LDS Church has the authentic saving ordinances.  Jack Kennedy and Mitt Romney both had to deal with this suspicion of religious bias and bigotry, and for very good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is unusual is for someone like Vought to be so inane as to miss the main point, which is that one's personal religious beliefs must not be allowed to influence their performance of govt obligations.

The exchange in no way answered whether Vought's beliefs would influence his government performance. Sanders cut him off, did not let him fully answer and did not ask that question. I went and watched the video and it was worse to watch than read. Here is the video. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-trump-nominee-muslims_us_59386779e4b0c5a35c9b9eb0  This was gotcha questioning and Sanders made sure to not allow true context for Vought's writings to be discussed. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Do you believe in the Bible?

I don't have a position on the Bible. 

5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

 They are condemned by God, Acts 4: 11-12

The Bible uses harsh language  that is no longer appropriate today. 

8 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

What is next? all might be damned who believed not the truth, 2 Thes. 2:12.

Edited by MormonVideoGame

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/12/2017 at 11:53 AM, bsjkki said:

This was gotcha questioning and Sanders made sure to not allow true context for Vought's writings to be discussed. 

There is no "true context" because we in the 21st century shouldn't use harsh 1st century language. For example, you can't tell someone "repent or go to Hell".  Today it is just inappropriate to say that a religious group is "condemened" "damned" "wicked". 

Please tell us why you are using a misleading title "Does being a devout Christian make a person unfit for public office" is it because you don't like Sanders? 

You know Sanders doesn't have a problem with devout Christians. 

On 6/12/2017 at 9:06 AM, Storm Rider said:

According to Sanders, it would seem, all people of major religions are not acceptable candidates for political office.  LDS, Catholics, Orthodox, Evangelicals, Christians in general, Muslims, etc.

Anyways.... Sanders at least doesn't deny climate science like many Republicans do. 

poster removed: politicking

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The exchange in no way answered whether Vought's beliefs would influence his government performance. Sanders cut him off, did not let him fully answer and did not ask that question. I went and watched the video and it was worse to watch than read. Here is the video. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-trump-nominee-muslims_us_59386779e4b0c5a35c9b9eb0  This was gotcha questioning and Sanders made sure to not allow true context for Vought's writings to be discussed. 

Yes, I had already watched the full exchange the other day, and I was appalled at Vought's lack of insight and his inability to nuance his beliefs with appropriate declarations that he would never allow such parochial views to influence his govt decision-making.  He had plenty of time to do so, and Sanders asked him repeatedly and in a variety of ways to get him to see what the problem was.  Vought appears to be a neophyte at this, and that may be the primary problem.  All Vought had to do then, or thereafter, was to openly accept the pluralistic nature of American society.  On the other hand, he may be one of those narrow and superficial people who actually believes that this is a "Christian" nation, and that it is upon that basis that we must be governed -- completely disregarding the Constitution.  There are people in American with that ridiculous opinion, and Sanders may have thought he had found a live one in Vought.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, I had already watched the full exchange the other day, and I was appalled at Vought's lack of insight and his inability to nuance his beliefs with appropriate declarations that he would never allow such parochial views to influence his govt decision-making.  He had plenty of time to do so, and Sanders asked him repeatedly and in a variety of ways to get him to see what the problem was.  Vought appears to be a neophyte at this, and that may be the primary problem.  All Vought had to do then, or thereafter, was to openly accept the pluralistic nature of American society.  On the other hand, he may be one of those narrow and superficial people who actually believes that this is a "Christian" nation, and that it is upon that basis that we must be governed -- completely disregarding the Constitution.  There are people in American with that ridiculous opinion, and Sanders may have thought he had found a live one in Vought.

We will have to agree to disagree. We see the intent by both parties completely different. I did not see "plenty of time." Sanders shut him down. I would like to see the written answer he gave to the senate. Is there a way to see that? Anyone know?

I hope you can take the time to read this. I think it sums up these issues in a very even-handed way. https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/posteverything/wp/2017/06/12/bernie-sanders-got-christian-theology-wrong-but-hes-right-about-islamophobia/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader

"Melissa Rogers, former director of the faith-based office in the Obama administration, tweeted it as well. “Senators should not oppose nominees because of nominees’ purely theological convictions/beliefs,” she said. Then she added, “Senators should ensure that nominees will protect equal rights for people of all faiths or none.” That is exactly the right balance."

I agree with her...do you?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Anyways.... Sanders at least doesn't deny climate science like many Republicans do. 

Out of what I stated this is your response? How does that have anything to do with the topic?  

Within the political sphere we address the ideas, concepts, positions of individual politicians.  Disagreeing one a single point does not equate to rejecting the individual or their entire political thought.  For example, I preferred Sanders to Clinton because though Sanders can get way out there, he has some ideas that I thought were stronger and better for the country than Clinton.  Yet, what I or a republican or a Democrats thinks is not really germane to the topic.  Right?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

We will have to agree to disagree. We see the intent by both parties completely different. I did not see "plenty of time." Sanders shut him down. I would like to see the written answer he gave to the senate. Is there a way to see that? Anyone know?

I hope you can take the time to read this. I think it sums up these issues in a very even-handed way. https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/posteverything/wp/2017/06/12/bernie-sanders-got-christian-theology-wrong-but-hes-right-about-islamophobia/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader

"Melissa Rogers, former director of the faith-based office in the Obama administration, tweeted it as well. “Senators should not oppose nominees because of nominees’ purely theological convictions/beliefs,” she said. Then she added, “Senators should ensure that nominees will protect equal rights for people of all faiths or none.” That is exactly the right balance."

I agree with her...do you?

I'm not sure that I agree with anyone who tweets -- I never adopted the Twitter Faith -- but I certainly agree with Jim Wallis of Sojourners.  However, that is precisely whom you will not see serving in the Trump admin.  Only the most narrow and superficial people are allowed to serve him.

As to God, well, it always amazes me how quickly trenchant "Christians" forget Romans 11 (cf. Jacob 5-6) in their haste to condemn an entire people.  It is no different than hearing a Muslim declare that his God is not the same as the Christian and Jewish God -- exactly the opposite of the declaration of Muhammad himself.  Indeed, the Judeo-Christian-Muslim version of God is philosophically the same, their theology largely unified.  Oddly enough, it is precisely on that basis that the Mormon faith is so utterly different.  Yet one seldom hears words of condemnation from Mormons.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I don't have a position on the Bible. 

The Bible uses harsh language  that is no longer appropriate today. 

 

Seeing your 2nd sentence means you DO have a position on the Bible, whether you admit it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/12/2017 at 5:53 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

I don't have a position on the Bible. 

The Bible uses harsh language  that is no longer appropriate today. 

What is next? all might be damned who believed not the truth, 2 Thes. 2:12.

A Christian is like unto the man who sees his neighbor's house aflame. It's late at night and the house is dark because this neighbor is sleeping. Now, is it okay to beat down the door and awaken this neighbor in an attempt to save them  --- or is it better to just walk away (be socially correct) and let them alone and let them sleep? GOD FORBID! One would beat down the door grab a ladder, etc., etc., etc...  The Bible presents the fact that everyone deserves HELL for all eternity. It also provides the ONLY means of escape! That is only through the LORD JESUS the MESSIAH/CHRIST! Now, a Christian can remain silent and "politically correct" and offend no one. However, is that what GOD expects of Christians!  Should I care what Congress thinks or what GOD wants?

I Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

A Christian is like unto the man who sees his neighbor's house aflame. It's late at night and the house is dark because this neighbor is sleeping. Now, is it okay to beat down the door and awaken this neighbor in an attempt to save them  --- or is it better to just walk away (be socially correct) and let them alone and let them sleep? GOD FORBID! One would beat down the door grab a ladder, etc., etc., etc...  The Bible presents the fact that everyone deserves HELL for all eternity. It also provides the ONLY means of escape! That is only through the LORD JESUS the MESSIAH/CHRIST! Now, a Christian can remain silent and "politically correct" and offend no one. However, is that what GOD expects of Christians!  Should I care what Congress thinks or what GOD wants?

I Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

While I understand the intent of the metaphor these kinds of metaphors always annoy me. There are many variations including mobilizing everyone to find a lost child and not doing the same for a lost soul.

When you awaken the neighbor he will see the fire and almost certainly want help. The child wants to be found. Sharing the gospel message is so different the metaphor is silly. Bang on a neighbor's door to tell him he is going to hell will not yield the desired result. The neighbor will think you are a nut. If the congregation thinks you are lost and sends members out to "find you" at all hours of the night they will probably seek restraining orders.

I think the Savior did a better job. A lost sheep has to be enticed gently and kindly before it will allow you to lead it home. A lost coin can be found through diligent and careful searching. The prodigal son had to be allowed to leave and loved in his abscence and the memory of that love may bring the prodigal home one day.

The modern metaphors suggest drastic desperate action and a kind of hysteria counterproductive to the goal. The Savior's parables are more restrained, more helpful, and more likely to yield the desired result.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While I understand the intent of the metaphor these kinds of metaphors always annoy me. There are many variations including mobilizing everyone to find a lost child and not doing the same for a lost soul.

When you awaken the neighbor he will see the fire and almost certainly want help. The child wants to be found. Sharing the gospel message is so different the metaphor is silly. Bang on a neighbor's door to tell him he is going to hell will not yield the desired result. The neighbor will think you are a nut. If the congregation thinks you are lost and sends members out to "find you" at all hours of the night they will probably seek restraining orders.

I think the Savior did a better job. A lost sheep has to be enticed gently and kindly before it will allow you to lead it home. A lost coin can be found through diligent and careful searching. The prodigal son had to be allowed to leave and loved in his abscence and the memory of that love may bring the prodigal home one day.

The modern metaphors suggest drastic desperate action and a kind of hysteria counterproductive to the goal. The Savior's parables are more restrained, more helpful, and more likely to yield the desired result.

Obviously, one needs to be a greek to a greek and a Jew to a Jew. However, if asked point blank if people who do not accept Christ will still go to heaven, all one needs to do is say consider the rich man and Lazarus. The answer should appear to be obvious,  The Bible is offensive. The death, burial and resurrection is offensive. Calling a spade a spade is offensive. Life isn't always going to be pretty, and eternity is a reality whether one wishes to accept it or not. A Christian needs be as honest, yet as gentle as possible.

Frankly, if a Christian cannot hold public office I'd hate to see the outcome of that nation. It will not be good. Get rid of the Christians in office and next drive out the citizens who professing to be Christian cannot follow very far behind!

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Obviously, one needs to be a greek to a greek and a Jew to a Jew. However, if asked point blank if people who do not accept Christ will still go to heaven, all one needs to do is say consider the rich man and Lazarus. The answer should appear to be obvious,  The Bible is offensive. The death, burial and resurrection is offensive. Calling a spade a spade is offensive. Life isn't always going to be pretty, and eternity is a reality whether one wishes to accept it or not. A Christian needs be as honest, yet as gentle as possible.

Frankly, if a Christian cannot hold public office I'd hate to see the outcome of that nation. It will not be good. Get rid of the Christians in office and next drive out the citizens who professing to be Christian cannot follow very far behind!

My question is where do LDS go after being driven out of Utah? We are running out of wilderness to run to. Anyone who suggests Canada will be punched. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Anyone who suggests Canada will be punched. ;) 

Heathen

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

My question is where do LDS go after being driven out of Utah? We are running out of wilderness to run to. Anyone who suggests Canada will be punched. ;) 

You may wish to consider New Jersey! :lol:

All kidding aside --- please don't take this wrong. I don't know how else to say it; however, how some Mormons behaved regarding marriage and taking wives was an affront to polite society of 19th Century America. The Shakers were left alone in not wishing to marry. The Seventh Day Adventists were left alone to their blend of Bible Prophecy and trying to determine the exact time and hour of Christ's return. There were other groups as well; however, even if Joseph Smith had decided to toss out the Bible in favor of Ben Franklin's Farmers Almanac, he would have been left alone to stew in his own heresy (as Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox would have viewed him at that time). But, when He instituted plural marriage at that time, Mr. Smith might as well have pushed for Gay Marriage!!!!!!!!!!! The very idea was considered as Christian as "Free Love" or as obscene at that time as building a brothel next to a school house/church.

In this day and age, Mormons are now viewed by the worldly as rather very conservative. I don't see them as any more or less conservative than most Republicans or any more dangerous than a Catholic President in 1960. 

 

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My question is where do LDS go after being driven out of Utah? We are running out of wilderness to run to. Anyone who suggests Canada will be punched. ;) 

The Nehor:

https://history.lds.org/place/cardston-alberta-canada?lang=eng

Don't hurt your fists.

:D:rofl::D 

Sincerely,

-Ken

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

There were other groups as well; however, even if Joseph Smith had decided to toss out the Bible in favor of Ben Franklin's Farmers Almanac, he would have been left alone to stew in his own heresy (as Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox would have viewed him at that time).

How do you explain Kirtland and Missouri?

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...