Politics Episode 7: Remake of Episode 4

[redneckdevil]

 

 

 

 

The fellow wrote that Muslims were lost and had not found God, something like that. There is every suggestion that this might pose a problem for his function as a civil servant. Now, the right answer would have been 'yes, I can separate the two, I will look after the interests of all Americans regardless of faith'. He couldn't do it. Every sentence was 'because I am a Christian ... such and such'. I'm sure his past experience has been that that kind of grandstanding goes over very well and he couldn't imagine anyone calling him out on it.

 

Everybody has said or written something at some point that I'm sure they regret, that's not the point. He wouldn't, or perhaps didn't know how, to address the issue.

I have a question, why is what he said wrong? Also the quote was taken from a religious piece to a religious school.

To a Christian, every other religion is wrong and inadequate.

To a Muslim, every other religion is wrong and inadequate.

Bernie condemning a person's belief to be Islamic phobic.....when again it's the very same damn shoe if someone is Muslim and thought about every other religion.

It raises questions around his objectivity and ability to do his job in a way that isn't biased

Who the man in question or Bernie by making Christianity inferior to Islam?

 

Because that can be said of both, imho moreso on Bernie because of WHERE it was said.

One was said in a religious piece to a religious school and one was said at a govt hearing.

Dont get me wrong, I dont dislike Sanders but Im not a big fan of his and I have always made that clear. He makes comments that are nothing short of left wing hubris, like when he wanted to break up all the US investment banks. That would have seriously negatively impacted the global economy

 

He is also a populist like Trump and some of his comments are unhelpful to achieve a more harmonious and tolerant society

 

But I was talking about the man

I hear ya. So with that line of thinking, it was justifiable the scrutiny that Obama got for being Muslim because of his biasedness towards Christian beliefs for Americans?

Equality.

Did Bernie in that video show equality or did he demostrate what u said of the other man as well?

He didn't demean the man because of what he believed in, he went against the man because his beliefs were considered islamiphobia, which means Bernie could a grilled and gave the same treatment to an atheist for saying Muslims won't go to heaven because all religions are a lie and they are only fooling themselves would be islamicphobia because your denying their faith....

Nevermind differences of religion, opinion, do not go against the belief of Islam or your islamicphobic.

Should we be okay with a Christian govt committee deny a Muslim nominee because his religious belief be seen as Christian phobic?

Bernie ****ed up bc his actions show an equality in treatment with religious beliefs when religion shouldn't have even been brought up.

Edited June 11, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Ben No.3]

 

It's important because Mr.As-a-Christian brings strong beliefs and values based on nothing but a book that might as well have the worth equivalent of fairytale. Imagine someone coming into office saying "I believe in the Lord of Light, thus, I find that all criminals sentenced to death should be burned, so that their souls may be purified." Indeed, a very odd argument to put up, no? I don't think this man would be elected. Now the only reason as to why hard core Christians are elected is that there are many Christians in America. But that doesn't make anything better... Politics and religion are to be strictly separated, especially if the religion in question has, historically speaking, been one of probably the two most hostile religions.

I agree with the sentiment but I believe your missing the point.

So it's bad for a Christian, okay but it's okay if your Muslim though?

That's the problem I have with what Bernie did, because just switch out Christian and replace with Muslim and Bernie would be okay because that's no longer being islamiphobia.

If so, that's some serious double standard and that's what I have a problem with.

2 religions with very extremely similar ideology and practices, but Islam is better because of islamiphobia? He's putting one higher than the other when BOTH Christianity and Islam should get the same treatment, which is practice whatever the hell you want to at home and outside of work/govt weither Christian or Muslim but at govt/work leave those beliefs at the door or at home.

The other hostile religion is Islam.

[Ben No.3]

 

Imagine someone coming into office saying "I believe in the Lord of Light, thus, I find that all criminals sentenced to death should be burned, so that their souls may be purified." Indeed, a very odd argument to put up, no? I don't think this man would be elected.

You got burned once and didn't learn your lesson, Bruce. You would be as surprised as when Trump got elected.

 

Now the only reason as to why hard core Christians are elected is that there are many Christians in America. But that doesn't make anything better... Politics and religion are to be strictly separated, especially if the religion in question has, historically speaking, been one of probably the two most hostile religions.

Now that's something strictly from a fairy tail book. As you said yourself there are religious people in every country (whatever the religion might be) and they elect people from among them. So there is no way you can separate religion from politics.

You can separate church and state, church being the structural religion institutions, but not the religion itself.

Unless you want to ban all religious people and only elect atheists, but that would be a totalitarian state.

Heureka, we have an actual debate

 

Indeed making individuals atheist wouldn't work or would be justifiable. What would work and is justifiable would be to say prohibit religion as a reason for political action. Imagine please, we change the way our parliaments work in one fundamtel way: the question is now "who is against this". And whoever is against something would have to prove the validity of his veto. Maybe this could even help a bit with corruption (though I doubt it), but it would certainly lift political debate to new heights, since the necessity of justification would force politicians and perhaps even the media to handle things less... emotionally

[Guard Dog]

OK, for those who are missing what he means by "condemned" what he is saying is that he believes when Muslims die they are going to hell.  There is an unfortunate aspect to most religions in that they are "right" to the exclusion of all others. However, that "rightness" is enforced by God after everyone shuffles off this mortal coil.  Meaning there is nothing he can do about ti. But, does him thinking someone is going to hell make it so? Does one person believing something another does not make it real to the other person? If you believe in ghosts does that suddenly make them real? Does thinking something that can be neither proven nor disproven disqualify person from being the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget? Make no mistake here, Bernie Sanders and some of you here on this board are saying this man does not deserve to serve in a minor political office because of how he thinks about a subject no one can prove or disprove and changes nothing about his job. Sanders and all of you might as well disqualify him because he roots for a different sports team than you. Or that he prefers Memphis style BBQ over Carolina style. 

 

You are heading down a dark road when you start judging people on what is going on in their heads. I am a Christian. Does that make any of you think less of me?

[213374U]

OK, for those who are missing what he means by "condemned" what he is saying is that he believes when Muslims die they are going to hell.  There is an unfortunate aspect to most religions in that they are "right" to the exclusion of all others. However, that "rightness" is enforced by God after everyone shuffles off this mortal coil.  Meaning there is nothing he can do about ti. But, does him thinking someone is going to hell make it so? Does one person believing something another does not make it real to the other person? If you believe in ghosts does that suddenly make them real? Does thinking something that can be neither proven nor disproven disqualify person from being the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget? Make no mistake here, Bernie Sanders and some of you here on this board are saying this man does not deserve to serve in a minor political office because of how he thinks about a subject no one can prove or disprove and changes nothing about his job. Sanders and all of you might as well disqualify him because he roots for a different sports team than you. Or that he prefers Memphis style BBQ over Carolina style. 

 

You are heading down a dark road when you start judging people on what is going on in their heads. I am a Christian. Does that make any of you think less of me?

 

Maybe if he had allowed the guy to finish answering the question instead of constantly cutting him off, he would have received some much-needed context. I don't see anything wrong with stating that non-participants in your religion are in for bad stuff after they die, from the perspective of said religion, in the context of a religious discussion. I don't usually agree with you but this is a bit too close to ideological policing for comfort.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Sanders, but I wanted to throttle him after watching that. Behead all those who aggressively ask questions but prevent the other party from answering.

 

That being said, homeboy was a pushover. He could have explained himself much better than he did, when he was finally allowed to talk. "Do you consider this statement Islamophobic?" It is, if Christianity, like every other Abrahamic religion, in considering the others false and heretical is construed as "Islamophobic". Them's the breaks, Senator...

Edited June 11, 2017 by 213374U

[Gromnir]

OK, for those who are missing what he means by "condemned" what he is saying is that he believes when Muslims die they are going to hell. 

 

am preferring to watch rather than participate for the moment, but please observe your reading is based on assumption rather than what mr. vought said.  listen again to the actual quote. mr. vought specific distinguished the condemnation of non christians from their "deficient theology."  gd understanding is likely how mr. vought meant, but he did make ambiguous by removing taking theology outta the equation. 

 

question: is it appropriate to ask a devout catholic judge, who has public spoken 'bout immorality o' abortion, how she would have applied roe v. wade to specific past abortion cases? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

My problem is that Bernie Sanders basically turned that guy into a victim, which plays well into the persecution complex the Christian Right has been touting for years.

[Guard Dog]

 

OK, for those who are missing what he means by "condemned" what he is saying is that he believes when Muslims die they are going to hell. 

 

am preferring to watch rather than participate for the moment, but please observe your reading is based on assumption rather than what mr. vought said.  listen again to the actual quote. mr. vought specific distinguished the condemnation of non christians from their "deficient theology."  gd understanding is likely how mr. vought meant, but he did make ambiguous by removing taking theology outta the equation. 

 

question: is it appropriate to ask a devout catholic judge, who has public spoken 'bout immorality o' abortion, how she would have applied roe v. wade to specific past abortion cases? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

In the parlance of christian thought "condemned" only has one meaning. The meaning I described. As to the question you posed it would be completely appropriate to ask said judge. Because unless she was on or a candidate for or on the Supreme Court the precedents are pretty clear. It would be a gage not of her religious ideals so much as a gage on how much she is willing to buck precedent, challenge the status quo, and risk successful appeals.

[Guard Dog]

My problem is that Bernie Sanders basically turned that guy into a victim, which plays well into the persecution complex the Christian Right has been touting for years.

The problem should be that because this man "thinks" wrong to Sanders and a lot of other people he is not qualified to serve as the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. A post pretty far down the trough of the DC power pigsty. Had he been a Muslim and answered that all Jews and Christians were "condemned" for their "deficient theology" and Sanders treated him as disrespectfully everyone would be howling for his head rather than the candidate's.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn. Who he prays to when he bows his head has exactly nothing, nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job. Sanders is the one who made this an issue. It was an ugly tactic by an angry little man.

 

So he "thinks" non-Christians are all going to hell. Are they? No? Then who cares what he thinks. Don't believe in hell? Then who cares what he thinks. Can he crunch numbers and will he report any wrongdoing he sees? That is really all that matters.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

 

 

OK, for those who are missing what he means by "condemned" what he is saying is that he believes when Muslims die they are going to hell. 

 

am preferring to watch rather than participate for the moment, but please observe your reading is based on assumption rather than what mr. vought said.  listen again to the actual quote. mr. vought specific distinguished the condemnation of non christians from their "deficient theology."  gd understanding is likely how mr. vought meant, but he did make ambiguous by removing taking theology outta the equation. 

 

question: is it appropriate to ask a devout catholic judge, who has public spoken 'bout immorality o' abortion, how she would have applied roe v. wade to specific past abortion cases? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

In the parlance of christian thought "condemned" only has one meaning. The meaning I described. As to the question you posed it would be completely appropriate to ask said judge. Because unless she was on or a candidate for or on the Supreme Court the precedents are pretty clear. It would be a gage not of her religious ideals so much as a gage on how much she is willing to buck precedent, challenge the status quo, and risk successful appeals.

 

you see only one meaning, but a strict denotative reading doesn't support such. vought himself distinguished from theology in his quote, so why should only the christian understanding be applied, particular by a jewish senator?  clear folks in this thread alone were confused as to meaning and scope of "condemned."   

 

as to judges it would seems you see as wholly appropriate to question the impact religion would have on the fitness of an appointee to do their job. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

OK, for those who are missing what he means by "condemned" what he is saying is that he believes when Muslims die they are going to hell. 

 

am preferring to watch rather than participate for the moment, but please observe your reading is based on assumption rather than what mr. vought said.  listen again to the actual quote. mr. vought specific distinguished the condemnation of non christians from their "deficient theology."  gd understanding is likely how mr. vought meant, but he did make ambiguous by removing taking theology outta the equation. 

 

question: is it appropriate to ask a devout catholic judge, who has public spoken 'bout immorality o' abortion, how she would have applied roe v. wade to specific past abortion cases? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

In the parlance of christian thought "condemned" only has one meaning. The meaning I described. As to the question you posed it would be completely appropriate to ask said judge. Because unless she was on or a candidate for or on the Supreme Court the precedents are pretty clear. It would be a gage not of her religious ideals so much as a gage on how much she is willing to buck precedent, challenge the status quo, and risk successful appeals.

 

you see only one meaning, but a strict denotative reading doesn't support such. vought himself distinguished from theology in his quote, so why should only the christian understanding be applied, particular by a jewish senator?  clear folks in this thread alone were confused as to meaning and scope of "condemned."   

 

as to judges it would seems you see as wholly appropriate to question the impact religion would have on the fitness of an appointee to do their job. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

It depends on how you ask the question and to what end. You don't make the religion the point of the question so much as the willingness to check opinion at the door when the job requires it. Abortion, capital punishment, etc are legal. Unless you are on a high enough court to do something about that or a candidate for the legislature there is nothing to be done but apply the law no matter what you think of it. But I'd leave the religion aspect out of the question altogether. Judge Gromnir has publicly said he's Catholic. But that is irrelevant. Judge Gromnir opinions are what they are. Why or how he came by them is irrelevant. And none of it is relevant if it has nothing to do with the bench/office/position he is a candidate for.

[Gromnir]

*shrug*

 

sounds as if your hard opposition to the kinda religious questioning directed at mr. vought is getting a bit fuzzier.  unlike a judge, many a high-level member o' the executive is gonna be applying fed law and rules on a daily basis, often w/o the benefit o' a law school education and clear precedent to guide decisions.  the impact religion could have on day-to-day decisions o' mr. vought would be significant but it would be far more difficult to predict such points o' conflict than with a judge. difficulty to anticipate makes questioning less or more appropriate?

 

also, once again, in the quoted material mr. vought noted that muslims "do not simply have a deficient theology," immediate before he went on to explain how all non-christians were condemned.  like it or not, and regardless o' gd's christian reading o' the material, mr. vought created an ambiguity.  unlike gd, mr. vought did not choose to be as forthright in his clarification.  am understanding why mr. vought didn't wanna explain how in his estimation all non-christians were doomed to burn in hell.  

 

as an aside, we did chuckle when mr. vought defended self by saying all peoples is worthy o' "dignity and respect."  many hunters use same turn o' phrase to explain what kinda treatment game deserves.  phrase don't mean anything w/o context, and mr. vought clear didn't wish to offer more... not that he need have done so.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps mr. vought does have a law degree.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Ben No.3]

 

It's important because Mr.As-a-Christian brings strong beliefs and values based on nothing but a book that might as well have the worth equivalent of fairytale. Imagine someone coming into office saying "I believe in the Lord of Light, thus, I find that all criminals sentenced to death should be burned, so that their souls may be purified." Indeed, a very odd argument to put up, no? I don't think this man would be elected. Now the only reason as to why hard core Christians are elected is that there are many Christians in America. But that doesn't make anything better... Politics and religion are to be strictly separated, especially if the religion in question has, historically speaking, been one of probably the two most hostile religions.

I agree with the sentiment but I believe your missing the point.

So it's bad for a Christian, okay but it's okay if your Muslim though?

That's the problem I have with what Bernie did, because just switch out Christian and replace with Muslim and Bernie would be okay because that's no longer being islamiphobia.

If so, that's some serious double standard and that's what I have a problem with.

2 religions with very extremely similar ideology and practices, but Islam is better because of islamiphobia? He's putting one higher than the other when BOTH Christianity and Islam should get the same treatment, which is practice whatever the hell you want to at home and outside of work/govt weither Christian or Muslim but at govt/work leave those beliefs at the door or at home.

I am making a statement, not defending Sanders. Of course it's the same for Islam

[Ben No.3]

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn. Who he prays to when he bows his head has exactly nothing, nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job. Sanders is the one who made this an issue. It was an ugly tactic by an angry little man.

 

So he "thinks" non-Christians are all going to hell. Are they? No? Then who cares what he thinks. Don't believe in hell? Then who cares what he thinks. Can he crunch numbers and will he report any wrongdoing he sees? That is really all that matters.

saying that you don't care about the ideology pursuited by a politician is dumb (sorry) and you know why. Edited June 11, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Bartimaeus]

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn. Who he prays to when he bows his head has exactly nothing, nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job. Sanders is the one who made this an issue. It was an ugly tactic by an angry little man.

 

So he "thinks" non-Christians are all going to hell. Are they? No? Then who cares what he thinks. Don't believe in hell? Then who cares what he thinks. Can he crunch numbers and will he report any wrongdoing he sees? That is really all that matters.

My response is exactly the same regardless of whether the candidate is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, or atheist: if the candidate is set on making a public statement condemning other groups on a total non-basis - if it's a Christian saying Muslims have a "deficient" theology or that all non-Christians are "condemned", or an atheist calling Christians "idiots" or "ignorant" and denouncing all religions, or a Muslim calling non-Muslims infidels or whatever - and then repeatedly reinforcing that statement when later questioned about it with the lame excuse of "Well, as a Christian...", it's going to raise some serious red flags for me on their ability to treat and serve all types of Americans equally. I one hundred percent agree with Bernie Sanders on his final statement: I'm not sure we need any more kinds of these candidates who evidently set on condemning and looking down upon entire groups of Americans for no other reason besides their stinking religion. As you literally just put it yourself a few posts ago, "[We] are heading down a dark road when [we] start judging people on what is going on in their heads." That's exactly what this candidate did, and it's why some of us would feel uncomfortable with him when it concerns a not insignificant amount of people on a total non-basis. He's the one that's making the public statements of condemnation, right? Maybe it actually doesn't have any bearing on his ability to do his job in a fair and competent manner...but nevertheless, it is rather gross and ill-appearing.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

 

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn. Who he prays to when he bows his head has exactly nothing, nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job. Sanders is the one who made this an issue. It was an ugly tactic by an angry little man.

 

So he "thinks" non-Christians are all going to hell. Are they? No? Then who cares what he thinks. Don't believe in hell? Then who cares what he thinks. Can he crunch numbers and will he report any wrongdoing he sees? That is really all that matters.

My response is exactly the same regardless of whether the candidate is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, or atheist: if the candidate is set on making a public statement condemning other groups on a total non-basis - if it's a Christian saying Muslims have a "deficient" theology or that all non-Christians are "condemned", or an atheist calling Christians "idiots" or "ignorant" and denouncing all religions, or a Muslim calling non-Muslims infidels or whatever - and then repeatedly reinforcing that statement when later questioned about it with the lame excuse of "Well, as a Christian...", it's going to raise some serious red flags for me on their ability to treat and serve all types of Americans equally. I one hundred percent agree with Bernie Sanders on his final statement: I'm not sure we need any more kinds of these candidates who evidently set on condemning and looking down upon entire groups of Americans for no other reason besides their stinking religion. As you literally just put it yourself a few posts ago, "[We] are heading down a dark road when [we] start judging people on what is going on in their heads." That's exactly what this candidate did, and it's why some of us would feel uncomfortable with him when it concerns a not insignificant amount of people on a total non-basis.

 

I genuinely do not understand why everyone is up about this. So he thinks everyone who does not believe like he does is going to hell when they die. So f-----g what? Does it magically become true just because he thinks so? Does thinking that impede his ability to execute the duties of a mid level bureaucrat? Should people be denied employment in the public sector because of their religion? If he really believed Santa Claus was real and won't bring toys to bad children you might think he's a silly but he certainly would not deserve the treatment he got from Sanders.

[Guard Dog]

 

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn. Who he prays to when he bows his head has exactly nothing, nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job. Sanders is the one who made this an issue. It was an ugly tactic by an angry little man.

 

So he "thinks" non-Christians are all going to hell. Are they? No? Then who cares what he thinks. Don't believe in hell? Then who cares what he thinks. Can he crunch numbers and will he report any wrongdoing he sees? That is really all that matters.

saying that you don't care about the ideology pursuited by a politician is dumb (sorry) and you know why.

 

OK, this is a good point. He's not a politician. He's a political appointee and a pretty low one at that. The only thing this guy will ever do is help figure out how the White House staff spends it's budget. However if he were a politician running for a public office I would have no problem with a voter taking his religion into account when they are deciding to vote for him or not. But this is a man applying for a job that now a lot of people don't want him to get because he has a different opinion about something completely inconsequential than they do.

[Guard Dog]

*shrug*

 

sounds as if your hard opposition to the kinda religious questioning directed at mr. vought is getting a bit fuzzier.  unlike a judge, many a high-level member o' the executive is gonna be applying fed law and rules on a daily basis, often w/o the benefit o' a law school education and clear precedent to guide decisions.  the impact religion could have on day-to-day decisions o' mr. vought would be significant but it would be far more difficult to predict such points o' conflict than with a judge. difficulty to anticipate makes questioning less or more appropriate?

 

No I'm still opposed to questioning someone about who they pray to, if anyone, when they bow their head at night. You can be an atheist and be opposed to abortion. It does not matter how someone arrived at the positions they hold. It IS fair to ask if the post you are applying for requires you to do something counter to those positions will you be able to do it?

[Bartimaeus]

No, you already said it: in our heads vs. not in our heads. 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. No, if he believed Santa Claus was real, I wouldn't have the same type of concern, because it doesn't actually concern anyone but himself (...unless he started announcing to the world that all people who didn't similarly believe in Santa Claus were ignorant fools that weren't going to ever get any presents on Christmas, I guess). The reality of the matter, though, is that he's being appointed to a public sector job, where he's supposed to deal with and treat everyone with the same amount of respect, including the types of people he's called as having a "deficient theology" and "being condemned to hell" - the latter might literally be one of tenants of his faith, but you don't see every other Christian candidate making a point of it to announce it to the world. I just don't know, man - why wouldn't this concern you? If you're saying that you wouldn't be concerned with a candidate who is a militant atheist that publicly announces that all Christians are ignorant, then O.K., that's fair: clearly you're much more concerned about them doing just their job competently rather than any beliefs or ideology they may or may not have that may or may not affect how they look at and treat people on a basic level, and I can respect that. For me, this theoretical candidate would appear ill-intentioned and no, I don't want them anywhere near a public sector job where they're supposed to treat all Americans equally. Their previous treatment of certain types of Americans (even if it's just verbal!) calls that part of their job into question for me. Can you explain to me why it wouldn't for you? That is not a sarcastic question: I'm genuinely curious.

 

(e): various fixes

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Looking into this, the statement on question comes from defending a school for firing a professor for wearing a hijab and saying "muslims and christians worship the same god". The professor is a christian as well, in case any one was wondering. Now I would wager this wouldn't be an issue with the school or the guy we're talking about if you replaced hijab with the funny jew hat and muslims with jews, but maybe I'm just assuming zionism is standard for christian republicans for lack of a better term.

 

With all that bull**** out of the way, I'm gonna agree (I think) with gromnir and barti on this. Sure this guy doesn't believe in stuff like polygamy or virgin sacrifice and he's got a fairly minor role, but it would seem he holds beliefs that would cause him to favor christians over others and that could be an issue. Bernie certainly didn't come over well, but Vought was awful at explaining his position and there is some doubt about his neutrality.

[Bartimaeus]

I have no problem with his beliefs, per se. If he thinks Islam is barbaric, if he believes all non-Christians are condemned to an eternity of hell - that's all more or less fine. Many people think those sorts of things already, including probably a majority of the people elected throughout this country. The difference, I feel, is when it begins to seep into your actual behavior, how you treat people, and the things you say to them. Biases, prejudices, and stereotypes - moral or immoral, rational or irrational, justified or unjustified - are all things we're subject to, and subconsciously (or consciously) subject other people to. If you stick around certain people or groups/types of people for too long, there's a certain tendency to unconsciously notice patterns with those or other types of people, and that's exactly what biases, prejudices, and stereotypes are born from. I can't blame people for doing that, especially when I know it's something that I struggle with myself. So where I draw the line, personally, is when people start treating people differently as a result of them: in other words, when it stops becoming a matter of "just" thinking and a matter of actually discriminating against or between people in a patently unfair manner. If you're elected/appointed to a position in the public sector, I'm not going to feel particularly comfortable with you if you've previously done things that support the notion of you possibly unfairly discriminating against or between others when you're supposed to be serving a large variety - all varieties, actually - of Americans equally. I feel as though publicly announcing a certain religion as being, again, "deficient" kind of qualifies for that: for me, it clearly signals that it's no longer something that you merely think, but is now instead a prejudice that you're actually acting upon and modifying your behavior as a result of - otherwise, why would you be telling the whole world about it?

 

I don't think we should be subject to a thoughtpolice, but I don't know, this entire sort of public and denigrating proclamation stinks of unfairness to me. (e): Additionally, I think people would be better served by criticizing specific issues involving groups of people, not the entire group in a blanket statement overall, particularly when there are so many different sub-groups who may not even be party to the things that you think are wrong with them. This guy did the latter. I think Bernie put it best when he was running for president: let's focus on the issues.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

 It IS fair to ask if the post you are applying for requires you to do something counter to those positions will you be able to do it?

 

so, just 'bout every position?  after same-sex marriages were made legal nationally, a woman whose job it were to provide marriage licenses refused to do so... on religious freedom basis. christian. is many religions, including christianity, which appear to condone or even demand otherwise illegal misogyny and/or bigotry.  like it or not, the bible is filled with wackiness if folks read everything literal, and deciding what to read literal as 'posed to metaphor seems to be subjective art rather than science.

 

would be different if were klu klux klan or crips membership which were being questioned? why? such memberships is similar constitutional protected.  same Amendment in fact. have an appointee need explain away seeming bigotry or religious intolerance. tell us instead his views were first amendment protected KKK views, but while he nevertheless saw blacks and jews as "deficient," he would nevertheless treat such peoples with "dignity and respect." is different 'cause those groups is not religious?  is different 'cause gd sees those groups as bad, but christianity as good? 

 

once again, mr. vought espoused a belief which arguable demanded for secular condemnation of muslims as he specific distinguished from theology.  coulda' easily clarified.  didn't wanna clarify.  

 

btw, am not suggesting bernie were right.  am not offering our own pov.  am suggesting that gd position, whether he will admit or not, appears to be on shaky logical ground.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[Guard Dog]

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.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

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.

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!