How Religious Ignorance Breeds Progressive Intolerance

David French, writing at NRO, begins by saying that Bernie Sanders could profit from a remedial course in the text and meaning of the Constitution. Sanders took issue with a statement Vought wrote for the Resurgent, an Erick Erickson publication which describes itself as a home for conservative activists: “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.”

French says:

If your political sun has been rising and setting on the cage match between Donald Trump and James Comey, there’s an ominous little story that you might have missed. In an otherwise-uneventful Senate hearing for Russell Vought, Trump’s nominee to be deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Bernie Sanders launched a direct and aggressive attack on Vought’s religious beliefs.

...In the Senate hearing, Sanders called this statement “Islamophobic” and...concluded his remarks by declaring that, “This nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”

Sanders’s tirade was certainly outrageous: Article VI of the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, and he blatantly violated the language and spirit of that prohibition in Skewering Vought. But it was also instructive: This is what happens when our national polarization breeds both ignorance and intolerance, and when intolerance trumps even the rule of law.

Read more at: Bernie Sanders?s Russell Vought Questioning: Religious Ignorance Breeds Progressive Intolerance | National Review

Breaking News - Chicago Tribune
Wheaton College and the Preservation of Theological Clarity | The Resurgent

nota bene said:

David French, writing at NRO, begins by saying that Bernie Sanders could profit from a remedial course in the text and meaning of the Constitution. Sanders took issue with a statement Vought wrote for the Resurgent, an Erick Erickson publication which describes itself as a home for conservative activists: “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.”

French says:

If your political sun has been rising and setting on the cage match between Donald Trump and James Comey, there’s an ominous little story that you might have missed. In an otherwise-uneventful Senate hearing for Russell Vought, Trump’s nominee to be deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Bernie Sanders launched a direct and aggressive attack on Vought’s religious beliefs.

...In the Senate hearing, Sanders called this statement “Islamophobic” and...concluded his remarks by declaring that, “This nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”

Sanders’s tirade was certainly outrageous: Article VI of the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, and he blatantly violated the language and spirit of that prohibition in Skewering Vought. But it was also instructive: This is what happens when our national polarization breeds both ignorance and intolerance, and when intolerance trumps even the rule of law.

Read more at: Bernie Sanders?s Russell Vought Questioning: Religious Ignorance Breeds Progressive Intolerance | National Review

Breaking News - Chicago Tribune
Wheaton College and the Preservation of Theological Clarity | The Resurgent

Click to expand...

Holy ****ing ignorant! Why, oh why, oh why do people read National Review? It is like the home of some of the least intelligent articles. That people can actually read them and think there is anything rational in what they say is mind boggling. Let's look just at the quotes:

Article VI of the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, and he blatantly violated the language and spirit of that prohibition in Skewering Vought.

Click to expand...

No, you ****ing moron who wrote that idiotic article, saying your attitude towards a particular religion is bad is not a religious test for public office. In any possible way.

I guess I read National Review, Redress, because I am an idiot. Also because my father was one of its founding members.

But Sanders saying that Vought isn't fit to serve because of his religious beliefs and describing them as "Islamaphobic" is just wrong. Vought, a graduate of Wheaton (a Christian school) himself and writing about the termination of a problematic prof, is entitled to express his religious beliefs, and Sanders did misinterpret what he said anyway.

nota bene said:

David French, writing at NRO, begins by saying that Bernie Sanders could profit from a remedial course in the text and meaning of the Constitution. Sanders took issue with a statement Vought wrote for the Resurgent, an Erick Erickson publication which describes itself as a home for conservative activists: “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.”

Click to expand...

Those who promote magical thinking really should not be in the business of condemning others who believe in magical thinking.

The issue isn't Vought's faith, but his intolerance of the faith of others. He supported the firing of a christian woman for showing solidarity with Muslims. Because the woman didn't share his narrow view of Christianity, he supported a religious test himself for the position that woman held. If you love your neighbor, you're not a good Christian. That's not a religious belief, that's an ignorant stance born of conservative ideology.

Bernie isn't give a religious test, because hating Muslims isn't apart of being a Christian. And supporting the firing of a Christian woman because she donned a hijab, and claimed Muslims believed in the same god, is hating Muslims and being petty. Last I check Christians believed in tolerance, not intolerance.

He can claim that it's his religious belief that Muslims don't worship the same god, but that's just an excuse to punish someone for an opposing political ideology, as all Christians, Jewish people, and Muslims worship the god of Abraham. And Muslims consider Jesus a prophet of the Lord destined to slay the antichrist. Bernie is testing his intolerance of others who think differently than him, not what he believes. And if any Christian on here actually believes that Muslims don't worship the same god, and that someone should be fired for saying so, then I will call bull****. And use your partisan hackery as an example of what using religion to sway the stupid masses looks like.

The hatred of Islam, is not a tenet of Christianity, and pointing out that Vought is just another islamaphobe hiding behind his convenient "religion" is not a test of faith.

RickJames3000 said:

Those who promote magical thinking really should not be in the business of condemning others who believe in magical thinking.

Click to expand...

You should write Senator Sanders and tell him so.

nota bene said:

You should write Senator Sanders and tell him so.

Click to expand...

Sanders wasn't the Christian condemning Muslims for their magical thinking.
It appears you are confused.

ThoughtEx. said:

The issue isn't Vought's faith, but his intolerance of the faith of others. He supported the firing of a christian woman for showing solidarity with Muslims. Because the woman didn't share his narrow view of Christianity, he supported a religious test himself for the position that woman held.

Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that you didn't read the Chicago Trib link that I posted. This is the fourth time she has presented a problem.

RickJames3000 said:

Sanders wasn't the Christian condemning Muslims for their magical thinking.
It appears you are confused.

Click to expand...

And I'm going to guess that you didn't read what French said either. Here, I'll help you:

Sanders isn’t just ignorant of the orthodoxy of Vought’s argument, though. He’s also ignorant of its religious, cultural, and political implications. He sees a statement that any person “stands condemned” perhaps as license to discriminate against or oppress unbelievers. But properly understood Evangelical Christian belief dictates that a person should love, respect, and, if necessary, even die for the lost, as Christ Himself did.

Sanders’s ignorance then leads directly to intolerance. He personifies the arrogant contempt for Evangelicals that so often marks the secular American elite. They don’t understand Protestant Christian theology. They read the worst stories of Christian behavior and presume that those stories fairly represent Evangelical beliefs. So they try to drive Evangelicals from the public square, and in so doing they become the intolerant scolds they imagine their foes to be. They hate Christianity, and use political power to try to suppress its influence. They presume that their Christian opponents would do the same. Thus, they spark the exact kind of religious conflict that the founders sought to avoid.

Read more at: Bernie Sanders?s Russell Vought Questioning: Religious Ignorance Breeds Progressive Intolerance | National Review

The title of the article is "Bernie Sanders Shows How Religious Ignorance Breeds Progressive Intolerance." THIS is French's argument. His point isn't about the woman; it's about what Sanders said about Vought and what Sanders doesn't understand.

nota bene said:

I'm going to guess that you didn't read the Chicago Trib link that I posted. This is the fourth time she has presented a problem.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what problems she had, or even that she was fired. It only matters that someone that wishes to be involved in our government has showed a willingness to punish someone for thinking differently than himself. And used his religion to justify it. It's not his or anyone else's place to tell Muslims what god they believe in. And doing so is not defending one's own faith, but demonizing another for being different. You can't define your own faith by defining another. It just doesn't work that way. And if he thinks he can defend his or anyone else's actions against someone for believing differently with religion, he has no place in our government.

nota bene said:

And I'm going to guess that you didn't read what French said either. Here, I'll help you:

Sanders isn’t just ignorant of the orthodoxy of Vought’s argument, though. He’s also ignorant of its religious, cultural, and political implications. He sees a statement that any person “stands condemned” perhaps as license to discriminate against or oppress unbelievers. But properly understood Evangelical Christian belief dictates that a person should love, respect, and, if necessary, even die for the lost, as Christ Himself did.

Sanders’s ignorance then leads directly to intolerance. He personifies the arrogant contempt for Evangelicals that so often marks the secular American elite. They don’t understand Protestant Christian theology. They read the worst stories of Christian behavior and presume that those stories fairly represent Evangelical beliefs. So they try to drive Evangelicals from the public square, and in so doing they become the intolerant scolds they imagine their foes to be. They hate Christianity, and use political power to try to suppress its influence. They presume that their Christian opponents would do the same. Thus, they spark the exact kind of religious conflict that the founders sought to avoid.

Read more at: Bernie Sanders?s Russell Vought Questioning: Religious Ignorance Breeds Progressive Intolerance | National Review

The title of the article is "Bernie Sanders Shows How Religious Ignorance Breeds Progressive Intolerance." THIS is French's argument. His point isn't about the woman; it's about what Sanders said about Vought and what Sanders doesn't understand.

Click to expand...

I don't need your help, as I read your own OP., exactly as you constructed it.
If you wanted to elaborate on the point, you should have done so before and I could have replied to it.

Evangelical Christians are not monolithic, and there are many evangelicals who actively condemn non-believers.
Perhaps you are having difficulty with the word "condemn" and its connotations.

The author is simply drawing his own ridiculous generalizations about "secular elites".
French labors under delusions of persecution.

Anyone who believes that our nation's "elites" are trying to "drive Evangelicals from the public square" is foolish, ignorant, and deserving of a breezy dismissal, if not outright condescension.

I think I need to withdraw from the field here and allow the rest of you to carry on...and go read up in the Abortion forum, where there is just as much likelihood of a reasonable discussion.

Jews also reject Jesus. Does that mean they don't know God either?

That would be a logical conclusion.

Parrish said:

Jews also reject Jesus. Does that mean they don't know God either?

That would be a logical conclusion.

Click to expand...

Sanders asked the same question.

Vought defended his article, but Sanders continued to press the nominee over another article in which he wrote that Muslims “stand condemned."

“Are you suggesting that all of those people stand condemned?” Sanders asked Vought. “What about Jews? They stand condemned, too?”

Click to expand...

Those who claim to be strict Constitutionalists now support a religious test, Nota Bene? I thought the 1st Am. protected us against intolerance such as Vought's.

nota bene said:

I think I need to withdraw from the field here and allow the rest of you to carry on...and go read up in the Abortion forum, where there is just as much likelihood of a reasonable discussion.

Click to expand...

You are certainly free to run and hide from people who do not blindly accept poor logic, but that won't change what Sanders did or did not do. While Vought can believe as he chooses and the government cannot discriminate against him for it, if he becomes part of that government, the same standard would apply to him. That was what Sanders was going for with his questions.

Redress said:

No, you ****ing moron who wrote that idiotic article, saying your attitude towards a particular religion is bad is not a religious test for public office. In any possible way.

Click to expand...

You really shouldn't be calling anyone else an moron after what you just wrote. It blatantly does violate the Constitution as Sanders went on to not recommend him for office due to his religious beliefs.

nota bene said:

David French, writing at NRO, begins by saying that Bernie Sanders could profit from a remedial course in the text and meaning of the Constitution. Sanders took issue with a statement Vought wrote for the Resurgent, an Erick Erickson publication which describes itself as a home for conservative activists: “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.”

French says:

If your political sun has been rising and setting on the cage match between Donald Trump and James Comey, there’s an ominous little story that you might have missed. In an otherwise-uneventful Senate hearing for Russell Vought, Trump’s nominee to be deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Bernie Sanders launched a direct and aggressive attack on Vought’s religious beliefs.

...In the Senate hearing, Sanders called this statement “Islamophobic” and...concluded his remarks by declaring that, “This nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”

Sanders’s tirade was certainly outrageous: Article VI of the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, and he blatantly violated the language and spirit of that prohibition in Skewering Vought. But it was also instructive: This is what happens when our national polarization breeds both ignorance and intolerance, and when intolerance trumps even the rule of law.

Read more at: Bernie Sanders?s Russell Vought Questioning: Religious Ignorance Breeds Progressive Intolerance | National Review

Breaking News - Chicago Tribune
Wheaton College and the Preservation of Theological Clarity | The Resurgent

Click to expand...

IMO, it is the epitome of arrogance to say someone does "not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son," and therefore, "they stand condemned." Sanders was right to call out Vought. He's an intolerant douche bag of the highest order.

ThoughtEx. said:

The issue isn't Vought's faith, but his intolerance of the faith of others. He supported the firing of a christian woman for showing solidarity with Muslims. Because the woman didn't share his narrow view of Christianity, he supported a religious test himself for the position that woman held. If you love your neighbor, you're not a good Christian. That's not a religious belief, that's an ignorant stance born of conservative ideology.

Click to expand...

It's a conservative religious institution. They can't have someone violating basic premises of their institution.

Bernie isn't give a religious test, because hating Muslims isn't apart of being a Christian. And supporting the firing of a Christian woman because she donned a hijab, and claimed Muslims believed in the same god, is hating Muslims and being petty. Last I check Christians believed in tolerance, not intolerance.

Click to expand...

Of course you're making the same strawman as Bernie. No one said anything about hating Muslims. There are certain doctrines surrounding salvation among many groups and you can't have someone teaching different beliefs on the most integral part of their belief. Bernie gave a no vote based on this person's religious beliefs. That's a violation of the Constitution.

He can claim that it's his religious belief that Muslims don't worship the same god, but that's just an excuse to punish someone for an opposing political ideology, as all Christians, Jewish people, and Muslims worship the god of Abraham. And Muslims consider Jesus a prophet of the Lord destined to slay the antichrist. Bernie is testing his intolerance of others who think differently than him, not what he believes. And if any Christian on here actually believes that Muslims don't worship the same god, and that someone should be fired for saying so, then I will call bull****. And use your partisan hackery as an example of what using religion to sway the stupid masses looks like.

Click to expand...

Sorry, it's not a political belief, it's a religious belief. And it doesn't matter that Muslims believe that Jesus is among the highest prophets, Christians believe He is God and that it was through what He did on the cross is the path to salvation. A Muslim would reject that Jesus is God and guess what?...it wouldn't be intolerant of them to say it. That's their religious beliefs and religious beliefs are different.

The hatred of Islam, is not a tenet of Christianity, and pointing out that Vought is just another islamaphobe hiding behind his convenient "religion" is not a test of faith.

Click to expand...

Of course that's not what is going on here but your obvious bigotry is clouding your ability to process reality.

ThoughtEx. said:

Doesn't matter what problems she had, or even that she was fired. It only matters that someone that wishes to be involved in our government has showed a willingness to punish someone for thinking differently than himself. And used his religion to justify it. It's not his or anyone else's place to tell Muslims what god they believe in. And doing so is not defending one's own faith, but demonizing another for being different. You can't define your own faith by defining another. It just doesn't work that way. And if he thinks he can defend his or anyone else's actions against someone for believing differently with religion, he has no place in our government.

Click to expand...

Your statement is ridiculous. Should a Catholic school keep someone who teaches the Pope is a charlatan? How about a Muslim institution getting rid of someone who says that Jesus was actually God and Christian are correct?

Of course they should be fired.

Parrish said:

Jews also reject Jesus. Does that mean they don't know God either?

That would be a logical conclusion.

Click to expand...

Jews who reject Christ would be condemned.

Parrish said:

Those who claim to be strict Constitutionalists now support a religious test, Nota Bene? I thought the 1st Am. protected us against intolerance such as Vought's.

Click to expand...

You're confused. Bernie is the one who's implementing a religious test.

fishking said:

jews who reject christ would be condemned.

Click to expand...

huh????????????????

calamity said:

IMO, it is the epitome of arrogance to say someone does "not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son," and therefore, "they stand condemned." Sanders was right to call out Vought. He's an intolerant douche bag of the highest order.

Click to expand...

Why say you're any particular religious beliefs at all if all of them are correct?

Fishking said:

Jews who reject Christ would be condemned.

Click to expand...

:roll: