Bernie Sanders Shows How Religious Ignorance Breeds Progressive Intolerance...

Jesse Booth said:

What test is Bernie trying to pass into law?

Click to expand...

I always liked the one, where you hang them by there feet and dunk 'em in the river. If they survive, their God is a winner.

Remember:
1) As Americans, we are all entitled to hold our own moral beliefs and to act in accordance with our own moral compass. Vought did this when he agitated for the dismissal of a teacher for showing solidarity withy Muslims. In this he comported himself publicly in accordance with his own convictions. Likewise, Bernie has his own moral beliefs and convictions, and in voting "no" on Vought, he comported himself publicly in accordance with his own beliefs. This is not new, and it is a "feature, not a bug" in terms of our government. This is why we have human beings in power. We should not condemn our representatives for acting in accordance with their own humanity.

2) This is not about what Vought's beliefs and convictions are; it is about what Sanders believes. How many GOP Senators have voted down a nominee because they were pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage, or even gay themselves? How many Democratic Senators have voted no on nominees for the exact opposite reasons? It is their right to do so, Like them, Bernie has a right to vote yes or no based on his own moral convictions.

3) The "religious test" clause of the Constitution is an obvious reference to the Test Act that was in force in England at the time of the Founding. Under the Test Act, in order to hold public office in England, one had to be a member in good standing of the Church of England and to have publicly renounced the sacrament of Transubstantiation (what Catholics call Communion). The Founders obviously did not want such a rule to be implemented in the US. This has nothing to do with the moral convictions or decision-making of individual Senators.

4) We know that Bernie believes that a Budget is a "moral document" that reflects the conscience of the society. As a high level manager at OMB, Vought would have been able to dictate how and where funds were allocated, and to whom. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Bernie to have surmised that Vought would have been biased on his application of budgetary priorities.

5) Let us not forget that Bernie is a Jew, and when growing up in Brooklyn he met many holocaust survivors. It is only reasonable, then, that Bernie may have been wary of anyone who so virulently - AND PUBLICLY - denounced all non-Christians as standing "condemned." Not just Muslims, but Jews as well. I find it HIGHLY ironic that people criticise Bernie for supposedly judging someone who was only acting in accordance with their convictions, while steadfastly refusing to extend that right to the Senator himself.

reinoe said:

Where did Vought imply that Muslims are second class people? He condemned their religion.

Click to expand...

He said they have a "deficient ideology" and they stand "condemned". Like I said in my first comment, Vought should be able to get away with it by saying he is a Chrisitian, but I see where Sanders is coming from. I get tired of people casting judgment and then using their religion as shield for their claims too.

Beaudreaux said:

You see, here's the thing - that's what religion is - it's a belief system. Muslims believe that non-Muslims are doomed. Christians believe that non-Christians are doomed. And so on. If not, then there would be just one religion, or none at all. If you don't believe that your religion is the one and only religion, then why be a member of that religion, since at that point, you wouldn't have faith, especially faith in that religion?

Click to expand...

That's what makes it interesting isn't it? Sanders here is attacking Vought because of his views that Muslims are part of a "deficient ideology" and are "condemned". It just so happens that Vought can use Christianity as a defense to believe this about Muslims and he faces no repercussion for it. What if Vought had written that gays are condemned, and he justified that by just saying he's a Christian? What if he believed that women should be subservient to men and claimed to believe that as a Christian? I think it's fine to question someone's opinions on issues. People are acting like Sanders is calling out Jesus, or Christianity in general. He never did.

Jesse Booth said:

It forbids religious tests from being instituted, but says nothing about preventing anyone from criticizing or being criticized due to their religious beliefs. Regardless of the spirit of the law, which I do not believe was ever intended to prevent any government official from criticizing another official's faith, the letter of the law is more important to me, and the letter of the law says nothing about speech of any kind.

Click to expand...

You're still missing it, because that's nothing but absolute double-talk bull****. Sanders is a Senator, a major part of the government. There are only 537 elected officials in the federal government. The Constitution governs them all in their official duties. The Constitution precludes the government (which includes him), from using a religious test as a reason to exclude a person from official office. He can feel or think whatever he wants as a private citizen, but as a Senator, he is constrained and limited in what he can do by the Constitution, which includes not being allowed to use religious beliefs as a test to confirm or not confirm a person appointed to official office.

Neither me nor the Constitution are talking about what a private person in their private life may think or act upon. In fact, with very limited exceptions regarding public accommodations, there is no law in the US that prevents a person from discriminating against a person for whatever reason. In fact, the Constitution protects a persons right to associate or not associate with whomever they wish.

However, the Constitution, in Article VI, both lays out the requirement of all federal officials to swear an oath to support, protect, and defend the Constitution and then goes further to prohibit those officials from using another persons religious beliefs as a reason to exclude that person from serving in official office.

What Bernie did was unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. And as I said before, it will haunt him from now on.

Jesse Booth said:

It enrages me as much as any ranting that has slightly less than a snowball's chance of hell in getting codified into law.

Click to expand...

Liberal apologism never losee it's entertainment value.

MrPeanut said:

That's what makes it interesting isn't it? Sanders here is attacking Vought because of his views that Muslims are part of a "deficient ideology" and are "condemned". It just so happens that Vought can use Christianity as a defense to believe this about Muslims and he faces no repercussion for it.

Click to expand...

The attack from Sanders is a repercussion. It was just an illegal repercussion.

MrPeanut said:

What if Vought had written that gays are condemned, and he justified that by just saying he's a Christian?

Click to expand...

There's no difference. If he said gays were condemned in his religion and religious beliefs, there's nothing wrong with that. If he said that gays (or Muslims) should not be allowed to be part of US society, then that would be a non-religious, secular belief which could be used to preclude him from official office.

MrPeanut said:

What if he believed that women should be subservient to men and claimed to believe that as a Christian?

Click to expand...

Again, no difference. As long as it is both believed and acted upon within his religion and not in the secular society. In other words, he can be a part of a religion, like former Vice President Joe Biden is, that believes that women are not allowed to be church leaders. He just can't have that same belief, nor act upon it if he did, that women should be subservient in our government or society.

MrPeanut said:

I think it's fine to question someone's opinions on issues.

Click to expand...

Of courses that's fine, just not for the government to do that in regards to religious beliefs and government office. Why? Because the Constitution precludes it, is why.

MrPeanut said:

People are acting like Sanders is calling out Jesus, or Christianity in general. He never did.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for others as to what they think or are acting like. I can only speak for myself. I'm extremely upset because what Sanders did was diametrically opposed to the US Constitution to which he swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend. Actually, the religious part of this argument is not a part of my argument. The Constitution and what it says is my only argument. I would be just as upset if the same happened to a Jew or Muslim.

IMHO, the only question that would be okay would be to ask if a person felt that their was a separation of church and state.

Beaudreaux said:

Up until this happened, I've said numerous times how "I like Bernie." But not any more.

Click to expand...

Perhaps this stuff (and the furor over his house(s) and Jane's business dealings and so on) will serve as a wake-up call to those on the left who thought the rightwing concern trolling and "gosh, I may not agree with him but I respect/like/appreciate the guy and he'd have my vote if he got the nomination" bait was sincere and would've lasted into a general election campaign.

Greenbeard said:

Perhaps this stuff (and the furor over his house(s) and Jane's business dealings and so on) will serve as a wake-up call to those on the left who thought the rightwing concern trolling and "gosh, I may not agree with him but I respect/like/appreciate the guy and he'd have my vote if he got the nomination" bait was sincere and would've lasted into a general election campaign.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. However, for the record: Although I did like Bernie as a person, there was no way possible for me to ever vote for a devout Socialist and closet Communist. The only difference now being, that he lost what little amount of personal respect I ever had for him by his purely Communist and anti-Constitutional treatment of Vought during his confirmation hearing.

IMO, this has ended any chance for Bernie to win a Presidential election, and probably not ever make it to the Democratic nomination because of alienating most of the black Christians with his statements.