It was not professional--that's a point for Bernie's argument.It was a religious view not professional. It was a religious test.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It was not professional--that's a point for Bernie's argument.It was a religious view not professional. It was a religious test.
No, the candidate used his religious beliefs as an excuse fir his bad behavior. Sanders did not accept that excuse.It was a religious view not professional. It was a religious test.
It was not professional--that's a point for Bernie's argument.
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.He was working at a religious school... his religion.
If you want to be in government, at least in the West, you (should) have to demonstrate that you can wear the secular hat.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.
So what? That was not why Sanders tore him a new one.He was working at a religious school... his religion. Sanders is just using PC babble to cover for his religious test.
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.
I don't know what that means.This is just PC babble.
Having only seen a fraction of the hearing taken out of context, I can't really comment any further.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.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.
I don't know what that means.
Having only seen a fraction of the hearing taken out of context, I can't really comment any further.
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.
Where was the religious test? You need to be specific. An inability to show that one exist belies your claim.
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.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.
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.
Pity that your beliefs are just that - mere beliefs - and have no real application in the modern world.In context ALL WERE CONDEMNED in John 3:16-18 and Jesus took the condemnation of some....