• 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
Even those professions have hats, although less strict than the one you have to show that you can wear if you want to be in government.
If you want to be in government, at least in the West, you (should) have to demonstrate that you can wear the secular hat.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Even those professions have hats, although less strict than the one you have to show that you can wear if you want to be in government.

This is just PC babble. Anyone that bothers to look into mainstream Christian would know the view he expressed. It was a religious test not evidence of any misconduct as a professional towards a person that is not a Christian. His religious view offended someone. They can get over it.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
This is just PC babble.
I don't know what that means.

Anyone that bothers to look into mainstream Christian would know the view he expressed. It was a religious test not evidence of any misconduct as a professional towards a person that is not a Christian. His religious view offended someone. They can get over it.
Having only seen a fraction of the hearing taken out of context, I can't really comment any further.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is just PC babble. Anyone that bothers to look into mainstream Christian would know the view he expressed. It was a religious test not evidence of any misconduct as a professional towards a person that is not a Christian. His religious view offended someone. They can get over it.
Where was the religious test? You need to be specific. An inability to show that one exist belies your claim.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Yes, personal views, as opposed to professional views. When the profession is about freedom of religion and separation of Church and State, as lawmakers' and politicians' (state) jobs are, then so are the professional views.

If his professional views were that people believing differently should be legally discriminated against I would agree with you.

That is not the case here as in context ALL STAND CONDEMNED BEFORE GOD in the verse in the original as Jesus said it and those believing in the Son pass from death to life receiving mercy. Even our government allows a reprieve for some and not all. A governor or president might reprieve some and let the sentence of the others stand and so they 'stand condemned'
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Where was the religious test? You need to be specific. An inability to show that one exist belies your claim.

He merely in context was agreeing with a Christian school's doctrine on the subject in support of their dismissal of a faculty that did not agree with the school doctrine statement. A professor in such a school has to support the school doctrine statement and agrees to typically to work there. It's part of an immersive Christian Ed experience.

Bernie made it out to be a violation of equal opportunity... it was not.

Sadly the doctrine at issue was a direct quote of Jesus which makes Bernie and opponent of the free exercise of religion effectively by saying anyone speaking of such is not fit to work in government effectively. Really Bernie? Jesus statement in John 3:16-18? Really? A view Christians held for thousands of years?

(Mankind are all condemned but) God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son that whoever believed in Him should not perish but have eternal life. He who believes (has been pardoned) is not condemned He who does not believe (has not been pardoned) and stands condemned....

Bernie was bent out of shape over Jesus words in John 3:18 and of course all Christians believe this for thousands of years It is not discrimination as ALL ARE CONDEMNED and SOME GET A REPRIEVE.... just like Obama reprieved some... is that discrimination ... nope but the not reprieved still STAND CONDEMNED
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
If his professional views were that people believing differently should be legally discriminated against I would agree with you.

That is not the case here as in context ALL STAND CONDEMNED BEFORE GOD in the verse in the original as Jesus said it and those believing in the Son pass from death to life receiving mercy. Even our government allows a reprieve for some and not all. A governor or president might reprieve some and let the sentence of the others stand and so they 'stand condemned'
I wasn't taling about his view, which would be a personal view, but the view of the profession. The current political climate supports the constitution, so being questioned about whether their behaviors as a politician would stem from their personal or professional beliefs is valid.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I wasn't taling about his view, which would be a personal view, but the view of the profession. The current political climate supports the constitution, so being questioned about whether their behaviors as a politician would stem from their personal or professional beliefs is valid.

Professionally, there is not to be a religious litmus test for office (as per article 6).
Hence Bernie who swore to uphold the constitution just violated it.

The question on the table is whether Bernie wittingly or unwittingly insulted all classical Christians who believe John 3:16-18. Seems inappropriate byBernies own standard as a politician that Bernie do that, that is by the standard he claimed to hold Vaught to in bot insulting large number of people's beliefs.

By Bernie's own sentaments and under his own standards such a person is not fit to work in government, yet by his own standard that applies to him in his belittling of John 3:16-18 effectively, a quote of Jesus believed on by millions and millions of classical Christians for thousands of years, by his own standards.
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
I wasn't taling about his view, which would be a personal view, but the view of the profession. The current political climate supports the constitution, so being questioned about whether their behaviors as a politician would stem from their personal or professional beliefs is valid.

He wasn't a politician. He was going to be a bureaucrat for an office that has nothing to with the religious nor even judging individuals. He is a glorified accountant.
 
Top