Politics Episode 7: Remake of Episode 4

[213374U]

If you make a point to insult and condemn groups of people for no other reason besides that you can, I'm sorry, but I'm naturally (and I think pretty darned justifiably) going to have concerns about your character.

 

But that's not how it went down at all. He's neither insulting nor condemning anyone by himself, "because he can". He was simply restating what's a pretty central tenet of Christianity: you don't believe in JC, you are ****ed. I mean, it's right there in the name. By definition, any theology that acknowledges the One God but not the Trinity and JC is deficient, from the point of view of Christianity.

 

I think it pays to read the original piece the guy wrote to understand what's he really talking about: http://theresurgent.com/wheaton-college-and-the-preservation-of-theological-clarity/

 

He was making those statements in the context of a theological discussion, in response to *someone else's* re-interpretation of Christian dogma. In a broader sense, he was supporting a private, Christian school's motion to fire her over her statements and heterodox views. "Islamophobia" was only introduced in the matter by Sanders' contextomy.

Edited June 12, 2017 by 213374U

[Bartimaeus]

Thanks. That would've been very good context to have about 2 pages ago, so thank you for digging it up. I still stand by my previously stated general position, but given that what he said was at the very least in a mostly theological context, it would be extremely silly to hold those statements to that general standard, and I am disappointed that Sanders did, especially providing virtually no context for it as he did (just a nondescript footnote at the beginning).

 

(e: context context context)

Edited June 12, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

 

you aren't being reasonable.  same as those prospective judges you see no issue with confronting 'bout religion, is it less reasonable to ask the public figures you mention 'bove what they meant by asking them questions?  bernie asked mr. vought questions and mr. vought had a chance to clarify his meaning o' "condemned." mr. vought chose not to do so. 

 

 

be honest.  have same quote made by mr. smith, a prospective appointee with a kkk affiliation. would you be rushing to defend? got equal valid Constitutional protections o freedom o' expression and association.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I didn't say it would be ok to ask the judges about their religion. I said it would be ok to ask them if their personal opinions, however they came by them, could be checked if their responsibilities required them to rule in a contrary way. For example, suppose you had chosen to be a prosecutor but were opposed to capital punishment. It would be fair for a DA to ask if you could set that aside and pursue the DP for defendants when appropriate because California has the DP. If you were opposed to the DP because of your religious back ground or for any other reason makes no difference. Being Catholic should be a non-issue even if that is the reason why you oppose the DP. It should not even come up in the context of a job interview.

 

In Mr. Smith's case under the same circumstances if he posted his words in a KKK publication then yes I would still say "so what, it's a non-issue". The practice of Mr. Smith's religion is his own affair as long as he does no harm to anyone else. Of course his association with the Klan in the first place is wide open for question. No anti-discrimination law I've ever heard of protects people from the consequences of freely associating with groups like the Klan, or Aryan Nation, or whatever.

 

I suspect I'm doing a poor job getting the ideas in my head onto the screen today. To me this just makes sense.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

My own opinion on this is a little complicated. As I posted earlier I am a Christian of no particular denomination. It's been a very long time since I was sighted near a church. I was raised Baptist but drifted away from it when I left home for the military. But there have been two incidents in my life separated by more than 10 years that convinced me beyond doubt that God, and Jesus, are real. I have read the Bible probably more than once piecemeal. To be honest besides the four gospels and six of the letters that make up the New Testament none of it was written by anyone who actually knew Jesus or spoke to God personally. So while there may be value in finding truth in allegory they only parts of the Bible I take at face value as literal truth are the four gospels. That is a rather unorthodox way to look at it I know.

 

I do believe there is a heaven and a hell. I have no idea who get's into each and thank God it's not up to me. I don't think I'm up to that task. For one person to tell another they are going to hell is absurd. You don't know that. No one does. And it's not up to them either. Jesus told us to "love one another as I have loved you". Step 1: Don't tell people they are going to hell.

 

Someday I will meet God I expect. Maybe I'll find out then my own interpretation is all wrong. Well, at least I stuck with it. I wasn't a hypocrite.

[Bartimaeus]

It sounds like you may be a form of Christian agnostic (not what you might think it would be if you're looking only at the "agnostic" part). I'd say I'm halfway between that and just agnostic.

[Volourn]

No one is 'going' to hell. We're already there.

[Gromnir]

 

 

you aren't being reasonable.  same as those prospective judges you see no issue with confronting 'bout religion, is it less reasonable to ask the public figures you mention 'bove what they meant by asking them questions?  bernie asked mr. vought questions and mr. vought had a chance to clarify his meaning o' "condemned." mr. vought chose not to do so. 

 

 

be honest.  have same quote made by mr. smith, a prospective appointee with a kkk affiliation. would you be rushing to defend? got equal valid Constitutional protections o freedom o' expression and association.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I didn't say it would be ok to ask the judges about their religion. I said it would be ok to ask them if their personal opinions, however they came by them, could be checked if their responsibilities required them to rule in a contrary way. For example, suppose you had chosen to be a prosecutor but were opposed to capital punishment. It would be fair for a DA to ask if you could set that aside and pursue the DP for defendants when appropriate because California has the DP. If you were opposed to the DP because of your religious back ground or for any other reason makes no difference. Being Catholic should be a non-issue even if that is the reason why you oppose the DP. It should not even come up in the context of a job interview.

 

In Mr. Smith's case under the same circumstances if he posted his words in a KKK publication then yes I would still say "so what, it's a non-issue". The practice of Mr. Smith's religion is his own affair as long as he does no harm to anyone else. Of course his association with the Klan in the first place is wide open for question. No anti-discrimination law I've ever heard of protects people from the consequences of freely associating with groups like the Klan, or Aryan Nation, or whatever.

 

I suspect I'm doing a poor job getting the ideas in my head onto the screen today. To me this just makes sense.

 

bernie didn't actual ask 'bout mr. vought's religion.  review the video.  'course is a silly distinction, 'cause just as the hypothetical catholic judge is facing a moral dilemma regarding abortion in large part 'cause o' his religion, so too is mr. vought's views regarding muslims having, 'ccording to his own admission, religious origins. 

 

and actually, the first amendment very much protects your right to be associated with the kkk.  is some situations where the Court has decided strict scrutiny test is met when police keep records o' associations with various gangs AND fringe christian groups, but is same level of protection.  christianity don't get a free pass.  for the purposes o' the Constitution, christianity is no more special than the kkk.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Chilloutman]

Well according to all 3 Abrahamic religions we all going to hell, depends who you ask What I found most funny is that even people who never heard about these religions going to hell. Pretty bad plan to put billions of people who doesn't got chance to get converted if you ask me xD

[Gfted1]

Stop poking holes in the hokum, Chilloutman.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

. 

 

and actually, the first amendment very much protects your right to be associated with the kkk.  is some situations where the Court has decided strict scrutiny test is met when police keep records o' associations with various gangs AND fringe christian groups, but is same level of protection.  christianity don't get a free pass.  for the purposes o' the Constitution, christianity is no more special than the kkk.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

The 1st Amend protects the freedom to associate. It does not shield from criticism for associations. No one can stop Mr. Smith from joining the Klan. But we can sure rake him over the coals for it. Or they could kiss his butt and fall all over themselves explaining it away like they did for a certain Senator I remember.

[Guard Dog]

This is a surprise. Puerto Rico voted to become the 51st State: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CB_PUERTO_RICO_STATEHOOD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-11-17-26-34

 

Usually the mood there has been to maintain the status quo. It sounds like the election had a really low turnout with some factions asking their folks to boycott. I know a lot of Puerto Ricans have been moving to the US for work and because their economy is a mess. I expect this won't be well received in congress fir a couple of reasons both political and practical. But this starts a process that will take a long time no matter how it turns out.

[Malcador]

Well according to all 3 Abrahamic religions we all going to hell, depends who you ask What I found most funny is that even people who never heard about these religions going to hell. Pretty bad plan to put billions of people who doesn't got chance to get converted if you ask me xD

Vaguely recall that not being true in Catholic dogma. Invincible ignorance I believe it is called.

[Chilloutman]

https://euobserver.com/migration/138133

 

come at us, bruh!

 

''The most recent report, published mid-May, had already flagged up the Czech Republic – along with Austria, Hungary, and Poland – as having major problems.''

 

O rly? I thought UK lately having 'major problems' xD

Edited June 12, 2017 by Chilloutman

[Guard Dog]

Just my own observation but Europe is like this really big family where most of the members really don't like each other. And the EU us like Christmas dinner at grandma's house. Everyone is just trying to fake a smile and get along for grandma's sake.

 

Except the Brits. "Sod you all we're going to the pub for Christmas dinner!"

 

[BruceVC]

This is a surprise. Puerto Rico voted to become the 51st State: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CB_PUERTO_RICO_STATEHOOD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-11-17-26-34

 

Usually the mood there has been to maintain the status quo. It sounds like the election had a really low turnout with some factions asking their folks to boycott. I know a lot of Puerto Ricans have been moving to the US for work and because their economy is a mess. I expect this won't be well received in congress fir a couple of reasons both political and practical. But this starts a process that will take a long time no matter how it turns out.

oh yes, enjoy helping solve the massive Puerto Rico debt crisis   

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/puerto-rico-ten-year-deficit-forecast-raised-to-68-billion

[BruceVC]

https://euobserver.com/migration/138133

 

come at us, bruh!

 

''The most recent report, published mid-May, had already flagged up the Czech Republic – along with Austria, Hungary, and Poland – as having major problems.''

 

O rly? I thought UK lately having 'major problems' xD

According to the link

 

 " The Czech Republic has so far only relocated 12 people last year and none since. There is a big scope for the Czech Republic to do more," he said.

The Czech Republic had committed to take in 2,691 " 

 

 

That seems like an appallingly low number ? Surely your government can do more or at least move quicker....2.700 is not a high number. Relocate them and then pull out so you have  at least committed to the original objective...that way you avoid much of the criticism

Edited June 12, 2017 by BruceVC

[Hurlshort]

Maybe those 12 people had a lot of stuff?

[Chilloutman]

we have done more, but they run back to Germany xD

 

besides, we have many asylum seekers, but they are from Nam and Ukraine

[Raithe]

[BruceVC]

Maybe those 12 people had a lot of stuff?

Hurlshot are you cracking a joke about immigrants .....you bad boy, you normally never joke about people less fortunate than you 

[Ben No.3]

My own opinion on this is a little complicated. As I posted earlier I am a Christian of no particular denomination. It's been a very long time since I was sighted near a church. I was raised Baptist but drifted away from it when I left home for the military. But there have been two incidents in my life separated by more than 10 years that convinced me beyond doubt that God, and Jesus, are real. I have read the Bible probably more than once piecemeal. To be honest besides the four gospels and six of the letters that make up the New Testament none of it was written by anyone who actually knew Jesus or spoke to God personally. So while there may be value in finding truth in allegory they only parts of the Bible I take at face value as literal truth are the four gospels. That is a rather unorthodox way to look at it I know.

 

I do believe there is a heaven and a hell. I have no idea who get's into each and thank God it's not up to me. I don't think I'm up to that task. For one person to tell another they are going to hell is absurd. You don't know that. No one does. And it's not up to them either. Jesus told us to "love one another as I have loved you". Step 1: Don't tell people they are going to hell.

 

Someday I will meet God I expect. Maybe I'll find out then my own interpretation is all wrong. Well, at least I stuck with it. I wasn't a hypocrite.

Do you know Feuerbach? Or Freud, for that matter? Edited June 12, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Guard Dog]

 

Do you know Feuerbach? Or Freud, for that matter?

 

Yes and yes. Feuerbach had an interesting notion that man created God rather than than the reverse. That people see good in themselves and project it outwardly in our minds as coming from a benevolent supreme being. Not a theory I'd buy into myself.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

. 

 

and actually, the first amendment very much protects your right to be associated with the kkk.  is some situations where the Court has decided strict scrutiny test is met when police keep records o' associations with various gangs AND fringe christian groups, but is same level of protection.  christianity don't get a free pass.  for the purposes o' the Constitution, christianity is no more special than the kkk.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

The 1st Amend protects the freedom to associate. It does not shield from criticism for associations. No one can stop Mr. Smith from joining the Klan. But we can sure rake him over the coals for it. Or they could kiss his butt and fall all over themselves explaining it away like they did for a certain Senator I remember.

 

similarly, we can rake mr. smith over the coals for arguably bigoted statements, regardless o' whether or not he uses christianity as his defense.  bernie did not ask 'bout religion.  again, review the video.  mr. vought used religion as the only explanation for his comments w/o actual explanation or illumination.  take the same exact situation but replace with mr. smith.  have mr. smith make the exact same statement.  mr smith notes the deficiency of muslim faith.  mr. smith observes the problem w/the islamic faith is Not simple one o'  deficient theology and that muslims is "condemned." mr. smith defends his actions and words, as do many kkk members, by invoking christianity.  simple invoke religion should have senators falling over themselves in an effort to kiss mr. smith's butt? 

 

change situation. political appointee mr. asfour makes comments which suggest women is a deficient gender and as such require the protection of men. bernie questions mr. asfour 'bout statements. mr. asfour observes how women is 'posed to be treated with "dignity and respect."  when bernie asks what mr. asfour meant 'bout the deficiency o' the feminine gender, all mr. asfour will respond with is a declaration o' his islamic faith.

 

can  keep this up all day.

 

religion is not quite the sacred cow gd believes it to be. we frequent question Prospective public officials 'bout specific religious beliefs which might make them unfit to do their jobs.  invoke catholicism, judaism, branch davidianism, or satanism as an explanation for any questionable behavior or action does not have those with questioners necessarily falling over themselves.  sure, Congressmen do often fall over themselves when christianity is invoked, but reason is 'cause most voters is christian. the logical gymnastics is political rather than Constitutional. 

 

is some logic gymnastics being performed here as well.  not wanna see folks fall over themselves for christianity when they clear would not do so for other belief systems. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

. 

 

and actually, the first amendment very much protects your right to be associated with the kkk.  is some situations where the Court has decided strict scrutiny test is met when police keep records o' associations with various gangs AND fringe christian groups, but is same level of protection.  christianity don't get a free pass.  for the purposes o' the Constitution, christianity is no more special than the kkk.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

The 1st Amend protects the freedom to associate. It does not shield from criticism for associations. No one can stop Mr. Smith from joining the Klan. But we can sure rake him over the coals for it. Or they could kiss his butt and fall all over themselves explaining it away like they did for a certain Senator I remember.

 

similarly, we can rake mr. smith over the coals for arguably bigoted statements, regardless o' whether or not he uses christianity as his defense.  bernie did not ask 'bout religion.  again, review the video.  mr. vought used religion as the only explanation for his comments w/o actual explanation or illumination.  take the same exact situation but replace with mr. smith.  have mr. smith make the exact same statement.  mr smith notes the deficiency of muslim faith.  mr. smith observes the problem w/the islamic faith is Not simple one o'  deficient theology and that muslims is "condemned." mr. smith defends his actions and words, as do many kkk members, by invoking christianity.  simple invoke religion should have senators falling over themselves in an effort to kiss mr. smith's butt? 

 

change situation. political appointee mr. asfour makes comments which suggest women is a deficient gender and as such require the protection of men. bernie questions mr. asfour 'bout statements. mr. asfour observes how women is 'posed to be treated with "dignity and respect."  when bernie asks what mr. asfour meant 'bout the deficiency o' the feminine gender, all mr. asfour will respond with is a declaration o' his islamic faith.

 

can  keep this up all day.

 

religion is not quite the sacred cow gd believes it to be. we frequent question Prospective public officials 'bout specific religious beliefs which might make them unfit to do their jobs.  invoke catholicism, judaism, branch davidianism, or satanism as an explanation for any questionable behavior or action does not have those with questioners necessarily falling over themselves.  sure, Congressmen do often fall over themselves when christianity is invoked, but reason is 'cause most voters is christian. the logical gymnastics is political rather than Constitutional. 

 

is some logic gymnastics being performed here as well.  not wanna see folks fall over themselves for christianity when they clear would not do so for other belief systems. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Gorgon]

My position is untenable if his use of the word "condemned" is taken in a literal way. Maybe Sanders believes he will use the awesome political power of the White House Office of Management and Budget to round up all non believers and burn them at the stake. Or maybe he's never heard of the EEOC. I remember Enoch once or twice criticizing me for automatically assuming that a public figure's words should be construed in the worst conceivable way. Perhaps there is a bit of that going on here. You are correct, he did let the conversation end with ambiguity over the comment. But I look at it this way. This is a man applying for a job that has nothing to do with religion who was told during the interview process that his religious convictions disqualify him.

 

Hurlshot pointed out how this will only feed the growing Christian persecution complex. And he's right. But it also bears keeping in mind that complex didn't just spring up from thin air.

 

For the record, he's wrong. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do all stem from the same beginning. Abraham.

He had to eat his pride for two seconds and he couldn't do it.