• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should Democrats censor Bernie Sanders for grilling an appointee over his basic Chrisitan beliefs?

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Also, John 3:16 has provided sufficient discord of interpretation to tear the Christian nation apart.

But that's neither here nor there.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I believe that discovery is properly conducted when it reveals a religious bias.

This benefits not only the constitution but the people of the nation.

Violating the constitution benefits the constitution?

Believing John 3, the key verse of the new testament being John 3:16 is religious bias making one unfit for office or appointment?

It appears Bernie if not only applying an unconstitutional religious test for office but sadly he's Biblically illiterate not even knowing what he did. He thinks believing John 3 makes one unfit for office uy out?or appointment could not some Democrat 'man up' and straight the guy out?
 
Last edited:

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
But that's the point, he wasn't specifically questioning the candidate's religious beliefs, only his views towards Muslims--and being a candidate for public office and Muslims are a part of our American community, the question is very relevant. Constitutionally relevant even!

It's highly misplaced as far as attacks by Bernie, basically it's an attack on Jesus who is being quoted

John 3:16 was prominently cited by the famous computer scientist Knuth even... John 3 is central to the New Testament and Jesus first long teaching in the gospel of John.... why does Bernie hate it so?

see Wiki on John 3:16
Computer scientist Donald Knuth is the author of 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated, in which he examines the Bible by an analysis of chapter 3, verse 16 of each book. Each verse is accompanied by a rendering in calligraphic art, contributed by a group of calligraphers under the leadership of Hermann Zapf. 3:16 was chosen because of this key passage in John
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Violating the constitution benefits the constitution?

Believing John 3, the key verse of the new testament being John 3:16 is religious bias making one unfit for office or appointment?

It appears Bernie if not only applying an unconstitutional religious test for office but sadly he's Biblically illiterate not even knowing what he did. He thinks believing John 3 makes one unfit for office uy out?or appointment could not some Democrat 'man up' and straight the guy out?
It would rather seem that you are applying a religious test, one that I refuse to take.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
... but the wheels are flying off the the bus (on the left side of the road) if he runs around saying someone should never be appointed to a government post for believing a long held classic Christian view.
That depends entirely on the post and the view.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
He said billions of people are going to burn in hell and they deserve it.

Everyone dies and faces God. Is it more loving to pretend there is not judgement?
Muslims believe there is a judgement, Jews believe there is a judgement.... we get our word for crisis from the Greek word for judgement.

Some thoughts from 'a bringer of good news':
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
When Bernie effectively says you can't hold office if you believe John 3 and Democrats quietly nod in agreement the wheels flew off the bus

Oh good. Then you have no case since that is not what Bernie said or did.

You seem to have trouble understanding this. Bernie did not say or even imply that one cannot believe that verse.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Oh good. Then you have no case since that is not what Bernie said or did.

You seem to have trouble understanding this. Bernie did not say or even imply that one cannot believe that verse.

Actually he did he did a direct attack on Christian orthodoxy (with the blessing of other Democrats?)

The verse says people who don't believe in Jesus will perish. Both Christianity and Islam and other religions have elements of exclusivity. It doesn't mean they are phobic.

Bernie Sanders Attacks Wheaton Grad’s Stance on Salvation
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Actually he did he did a direct attack on Christian orthodox (with the blessing of other Democrats?)

The verse says people who don't believe in Jesus will perish. Both Christianity and Islam and other religions have elements of exclusivity. It doesn't mean they are phobic.

But there was some other issues
Bernie Sanders Attacks Wheaton Grad’s Stance on Salvation
It does not matter what it says. What matters is how one applies it. The candidate acted like a jerk and was caught. Then he tried to throw the Bible under the bus. Why are you not made at him?
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
It does not matter what it says. What matters is how one applies it. The candidate acted like a jerk and was caught. Then he tried to throw the Bible under the bus. Why are you not made at him?

As Russel More said

Senator Sanders’ comments are breathtakingly audacious and shockingly ignorant—both of the Constitution and of basic Christian doctrine. Even if one were to excuse Senator Sanders for not realizing that all Christians of every age have insisted that faith in Jesus Christ is the only pathway to salvation, it is inconceivable that Senator Sanders would cite religious beliefs as disqualifying an individual for public office in defiance of the United States Constitution. No religious test shall ever be required of those seeking public office. While no one expects Senator Sanders to be a theologian, we should expect far more from an elected official who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
As Russel More said

Senator Sanders’ comments are breathtakingly audacious and shockingly ignorant—both of the Constitution and of basic Christian doctrine. Even if one were to excuse Senator Sanders for not realizing that all Christians of every age have insisted that faith in Jesus Christ is the only pathway to salvation, it is inconceivable that Senator Sanders would cite religious beliefs as disqualifying an individual for public office in defiance of the United States Constitution. No religious test shall ever be required of those seeking public office. While no one expects Senator Sanders to be a theologian, we should expect far more from an elected official who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
LOL! An extremely biased and probably ignorant theologian? Is that the best that you can do? He won't let himself understand the error of the candidate either.

Please answer this question. A person takes literally the Bible verse "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and blows up a wiccan shop killing the owner and a couple of customers. Can he be prosecuted? His belief was legal after all.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
It does not matter what it says. What matters is how one applies it. The candidate acted like a jerk and was caught. Then he tried to throw the Bible under the bus. Why are you not made at him?

The candidate neither acted like a jerk nor threw the Bible under the bus.

The Atlantic article clarified the issue:
Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Christians in Public Office

It’s one thing to take issue with bigotry. It’s another to try to exclude people from office based on their theological convictions. Sanders used the term “Islamophobia” to suggest that Vought fears Muslims for who they are. But in his writing, Vought was contesting something different: He disagrees with what Muslims believe, and does not think their faith is satisfactory for salvation. Right or wrong, this is a conviction held by millions of Americans—and many Muslims might say the same thing about Christianity.

This is the danger of relying on religion as a threshold test for public service, the kind of test America’s founders were guarding against when they drafted Article VI. But that danger did not stop Sanders or Van Hollen from focusing on Vought’s religious beliefs during his confirmation hearing. It did not stop groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and Muslim Advocates from sending out press releases condemning Vought’s comments. The American Civil Liberties Union also weighed in, saying that it was Vought’s views which threatened the principle of religious freedom.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
LOL! An extremely biased and probably ignorant theologian? Is that the best that you can do? He won't let himself understand the error of the candidate either.

Please answer this question. A person takes literally the Bible verse "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and blows up a wiccan shop killing the owner and a couple of customers. Can he be prosecuted? His belief was legal after all.


Of course they can be prosecuted and that has no bearing on the issue at hand.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It’s one thing to take issue with bigotry. It’s another to try to exclude people from office based on their theological convictions.
That depends entirely on what those theological conventions are.

For instance, someone who, for religious reasons, would refuse to fund the beef or pork industry shouldn't be secretary of agriculture.
 
Top