ha! Okay, you caught my typo, it’s now fixed…
That’s why you ask about policy not religious belief. Then you will know what they think about the policy you are worried about.
Perhaps we are expending way to much energy on this Bernie gaffe…
1 Like
I am torn on FDR. He did some good things, even brilliant. He war preparation and his foresight to know there is no way in hell we are going to skid past WW2 without getting involved was a good thing. Some of his stop-gap measures to prevent total economic collapse were necessary no matter what political position you hold, some things had to be done. But his social engineering maneuvers will forever haunt his presidency and that’s not easily dismissed, because we are still paying for it today. I only give him a pass because at that time, we haven’t seen socialist movements fail miserably as a historical example of what not to do.
I don’t know where to rank him. He was certainly influential, but some of his programs were pretty terrible. But also, he was dealing with a situation without precedence, I am not sure anybody really knew what to do.
1 Like
Agreed again that the question was asked incorrectly. I just (personally) see zero problem with asking what religion our elected officials represent. If they’re going to keep taking their religious beliefs with them into the voting chamber, they don’t get to keep those religious beliefs a secret.
2 Likes
It was an inappropriate question deliberately delivered for grandstanding value. It also presupposes a metric shitload of assumptions.
Let’s try this:
Is lying a sin?
How about jealousy/covetousness?
Gluttony?
The answer to all three is “yes”, so by that answer I can presuppose that you treat everyone who has lied, had problems with food, or exhibited jealousy as a 2nd class citizen. Because sin.
This is an obvious, OBVIOUS fallacy.[quote=“pfury, post:183, topic:231857”]
Agreed again that the question was asked incorrectly. I just (personally) see zero problem with asking what religion our elected officials represent.
[/quote]
That’s fine and I agree. However the question did not illuminate that, as pat and I and powerpuff have attempted to illustrate. Asking WHAT religion an elected official has is not the same as a gotcha question made for grandstanding.
1 Like
Have you read/heard the question? The question was whether or not his posted article from earlier in life was Islamophobic. The question was asked and 100% illuminated.
Sanders: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?
Asking a guy about whether or not he’ll be impartial after writing an article about how Muslims “stand condemned” doesn’t seem that out of place. Even if he had actually asked the man what religion he was (which he didn’t) STILL doesn’t seem wrong in any way to me. The GOP latched onto it because it was a good way to bash Bernie.
The question I was referring to was on homosexuality, not Islam.
What question was that? I didn’t see Bernie ask Vought any questions other than the Islam focused ones.
Homosexuality is really just the most recent shining example of the GOP taking their religion against the will of the people who elected them.
I there’s any confusion, it’s probably my fault. I was blending the question put to Farron in the UK with the questions put to Vought from Bernie because I see them as nearly the same.
Grilling someone about a doctrinal issue like salvation/ hell would disqualify literally MILLIONS of Americans from public service. Depending on how you ask that, it would disqualify Christians, Muslims, Jews. A lot of people who are doing a good job. You’ll find exclusionary claims in nearly all religious groups. So what? People act with kindness and respect for each other all the time while holding different religious views than their neighbors. For me, the same with the homosexuality question put to Farron in the UK. Many churches teach that homosexuality is wrong, while supporting anti-discrimination statutes, kindness, respect and compassion.
Bernie’s is more egregious because he’s an elected official grilling an appointee, and he should know better. Vought had written an essay or blog posts to a religious audience at a religious school. Agree with Aragorn, Bernie is just grandstanding to his own party there, signalling, and making the culture war worse in the process.
Same with the Farron and gay issue. Article VI is there for a reason, and the spirit of it is a very good thing. Yes, I see Bernie’s line of questions as violating it.
If Bernie wants people to believe that he’s motivated by compassion for Muslims, major fail. Picture the imaginary butt hurt Muslim voter with that question turned around. Are Christians and Jews and people with no religious belief going to heaven? Infidels? Now who’s offensive? Bernie is only signaling to his constituency. That’s it.
2 Likes
In what way is it disqualifying them? Public servants are elected. I don’t see a way where grilling someone on doctrinal issues disqualifies them. Are we ignoring the vast majority of this country would AGREE with most of those doctrinal questions? Is there a failing answer for these questions that disqualifies someone from holding office?
Which is great. However politicians rarely work that way. The GOP voted no nearly across the board on gay marriage until the SCOTUS had to stop the mouth breathing and intervene. While churches may support the gays while not approving of them, senators don’t.
Only if he agrees with your concept of asking religious questions. Clearly he does not, therefore “know better” is a matter of perspective on gray issues.
I would wholeheartedly agree if politicians voted on behalf of their constituents and left religion at the door.
1 Like
I’ll agree to disagree. Bernie’s acting as a representative of the government. His line if questions makes every religious person vulnerable to that same test. I think you are fine with that, since you’re defending him. Ok, but I think you’re wrong. Respectfully. If Muslims or people of no faith can’t imagine that they are more vulnerable if that kind of inquiry about religious doctrine (or lack of it) becomes common, then they aren’t very imaginative.
Let’s say an atheist writes an article that casts religious people as somehow wrong. Are we going to assume that they can’t be fair or respectful to their religious neighbors, so they can’t serve in government?
Personally, I don’t want to get into that. We’re a diverse nation. I don’t think this will help us work together. It’s likely to just create more of a divide.
1 Like
But again, the people decide if he/she can serve in government. If the people hear the answers to these questions revolving around faith, they’re statistically more likely to agree with those having Vought’s Christian faith than not. By a mile.
Not only do these questions (not Bernie’s particularly, due to how poorly he presented it) give much needed answers to the voters, it increases the transparency level of the opinions of these politicians. The voters have every right to know how these people are sorting right and wrong as much as humanly possible.
Should I assume that all of the atheists here At TN, if they were serving in a political office, would discriminate against me because I’m religious? That they could not protect my religious freedoms? I don’t assume that. It’s the same principle.
Maybe you would assume that? You want to ask them all if they think I’m backward or foolish, or misguided, or wrong?
You’re talking about questioning people about doctrines that are held by mainstream Catholics and Protestants. You need to vet them out?
1 Like
Yep, it was only Republicans. Nevermind that in the early 2000’s only 30% of people supported same sex marriage. Obama is a member of the GOP now?
In August 2008, he told Southern California megachurch Pastor Rick Warren his definition of marriage: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
He later added: “I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.”
2 Likes
Nowhere close to being the best. By far the worst. He won’t make it till the mid terms. As of today he is asking his lawyers about his pardon powers for his staff his family and himself. Sounds like he is guilty of something.
And as time went on, he came to realize the error of his ways regarding gay marriage. Difference being the GOP failed to have that realization.
Only if you assume there’s a right and wrong answer to the “what religion are you” question. I don’t believe there’s a harm in asking a politician a question that directly gives voters insight to the type of person they are and will vote as.
You just stated that churches are capable of being anti gay, while supporting anti discrimination. Are the rest of us not allowed to fall in that category? Are we to believe that because religious questions are asked, that somehow Christians will be persecuted (after they run on the campaign of being Christian)?
You may not, but I sure do. Catholics aren’t any more infallible than any other group of people. Insight into the way a politician will govern this country is a great thing.
I’m not surprised. As I said earlier, lot of people share your ideology. It scares the hell out of me. Frankly. Lets ferret people out and have an inquisition over religion. That will fix things. Intolerance and contempt for anyone who doesn’t share your views personally, no matter what they do in the public sphere. Let’s out the bigots.
You’re wrong, and your ideology is going to damage this country, maybe irreparably. The SJW’s like to pretend that they’re about compassion, but their motto is really, “They had it coming.” You’re acting like that’s your thinking.
Sorry if that’s harsh. You scare the hell out of me. That people think like this makes me really sad for our country. I won’t be responding anymore on this thread. I’m sure we’ll agree about other things, but it won’t be here. I will never agree with your thinking on this because it’s un-American, and dead wrong.
2 Likes
[quote=“magnumd, post:195, topic:231857”]
"…As of today he is asking his lawyers about his pardon powers for his staff his family and himself. Sounds like he is guilty of something…[/quote]
This would be a new development.
With all of the False reports flying around…where did you read this?
[quote=“Mufasa, post:199, topic:231857, full:true”]
I have only seen Slate, Jezebel, Mother Jones, WAPO, et al talking this as of last night. Speaking for myself not OP.