Bernie Sanders Was Wrong to Punish a Nominee for His Religious Beliefs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Bernie Sanders Was Wrong to Punish a Nominee for His Religious Beliefs
Hemant Mehta (www.friendlyath..., / hemant , / friendlyatheist )
www.patheos.com...
Bernie Sanders did something recently that really bothered me, and I don't say that lightly because I really like him as a politician. I like that he's not especially religious and that he's a liberal who makes other liberals look conservative. I voted for him in the Democratic primaries last year and I hope he moves the party more to the left.
But imagine this: You're an open atheist nominated to a high-level government position. You go in front of a Senate subcommittee for your hearing. And instead of asking you about your job qualifications or how you'd treat people you'll swear an oath to help, they just pick apart your atheism. They ask you if you think religious people are wrong, which you do, but who cares?
I think most of us would say our beliefs are irrelevant. We can uphold the Constitution and think we're right about the whole atheism thing. They shouldn't punish you for what you think. They should criticize you, if it's warranted, for how you act.
And yet Bernie Sanders basically said he wouldn't vote for a nominee because he was an evangelical Christian.
Let me explain what happened.
A couple of years ago, at Wheaton College, the evangelical school in Illinois, a professor got into a lot of trouble when she posted a picture of herself wearing a hijab, in solidarity with Muslim women whom she felt were oppressed. She also said Christians and Muslims worshipped "the same God." That was not okay to say, according to the administration -- and, I'm sure, a lot of donors to that school. They suspended her and began putting together a case to fire her.
And she wasn't just a typical professor, either. She was an African-American woman. You don't see a lot of those professors at evangelical campuses. So this wasn't just about theology, this got to the heart of how a well-known Christian school would treat a black woman who dared to push back against evangelical orthodoxy.
Well, a guy named Russ Vought graduated from Wheaton, and he felt the school was right to punish her. He wrote an article for a conservative website taking the side of the school, and he also used the opportunity to basically say evangelicals are right about God, and Muslims are wrong about God, and they are absolutely not the same God. In fact, he said Muslims have a "deficient theology." Weird wording, but I'm sure he thinks that about everyone who doesn't believe in his form of mythology.
That brings us to what's happening now.
Russ Vought was nominated by Donald Trump to be the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. That's a big deal. He was in his confirmation hearing when Bernie Sanders blasted him for what he said about Islam.
Let me quote you what Sanders asked him:
- Do you believe that statement [about Muslims have a deficient theology] is Islamophobic?
- Do you believe that people in the Muslim religion stand condemned?
- What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?
- Do you think that people who are not Christians are gonna be condemned?
- Do you think that’s respectful of other religions?
Vought kept giving him the same response: He didn't say yes to anything. He just said he was a Christian. An evangelical Christian. Which is to say of course he believes others are condemned.
And I can't believe I'm saying this, because I think Vought's ideology is harmful, but none of his personal beliefs matter here. Unless! Unless someone can show they'll impact how he does his job.
.
.
.
Join the conversation. Leave your questions and comments below and we'll try to address them in future videos. Don't forget to subscribe for more!
Also, follow us at ...
/ atheistvoices
/ theatheistvoices
plus.google.co...
/ theatheistvoice
www.theatheistv...
The Atheist Voice provides a platform for discussion for atheist leaders, authors, bloggers, activists, and everybody else who is passionate about atheism, and secularism. Join the discussion by commenting under the videos or submitting video responses. If you'd like to collaborate on this channel or if you'd like to appear in our videos please visit our website www.TheAtheistVoice.com
![How Evangelicals Betray Christians In The Holy Land [Pt. 2]](/img/1.gif)
Hemant is confused. Bernie has no problem with the fact that the nominee was Christian... he had a problem with public statements said by the nominee that suggested to Bernie that the nominee would not be impartial with respect to people of other religions. Bernie DID think that the nominee's statements would impact his work.
Also, having any belief you like is legal and protected.... but it doesn't entitle you to hold a public office that demands objectivity. Bernie has the right to vote no if he feels those beliefs will compromise that. As secularists, we must always demand that our leaders meet standards of impartiality when it comes to religion. And Bernie didn't believe that this man's public statements reflected that.
But what would Vought's inflammatory statements about Muslims have to do with his ability to do his job as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget? Bernie could have been a little clearer on that point. Would Vought be in as big a position to discriminate against non-Christians as Betsy DeVoes? I still understand where Bernie's coming from on his intended no vote, considering Vought did not answer to his satisfaction.
J: You are right...see my comment above.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I saw I came to the same conclusion that you did, but Bernie could have done a better job establishing that Vought was going to discriminate. It wouldn't have been hard to do.
*" the vast majority of religious people (any religion) are unfit for office."*
I don't think that's Bernie's position, but you have very clearly stated my personal opinion.
So, to address these comments here... the right to free speech is not the same as the "right" to hold public office. Vought was not "on trial," he was being considered for a position in the United States government.
If Vought were being tried for "bigotry," as you guys seem to be imagining it, then sure, the standard would be "innocent until absolutely proven guilty," and it would be up to Bernie to show evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is discriminatory...
But this isn't a free speech trial, nor is it a civil or criminal trial. This is a hearing to determine if someone is fit to hold a position that will grant him power in the U.S. government. If Bernie doesn't get the feeling that this man is willing to be objective based on his religiously motivated public statements, then he doesn't have to "prove bigotry" to vote no. In fact, it's the other way around... the burden is on the NOMINEE to convince the senate that he can be held to a higher standard.
Again, as secularists, we have to demand a much different standard for government officials than we hold for citizens on trial for crimes. When it comes to a criminal trial, then the standard is "innocent until proven guilty," and that goes for both regular citizens _and_ government officials.
But when it comes to determining whether someone is fit to serve in a government position, then the standard must be "guilty until proven innocent," because these are the people whose jobs affect our lives. They have to prove to US that we should empower them. And Vought didn't do that, at least not in the eyes of Bernie.
It wasn't a religious test. Vought defended the firing of a woman from Wheaton College, his and the woman's alma mater, based simply on her religious conviction that Christians and Muslims "worship the same god". If Vought justifies the firing of others based on their religious beliefs, then Sanders has every right to question him to determine if his own religious beliefs will interfere in future judgements, as they have in past judgements.
Wheaten College isn't the government. A Religious organization has the right to hire based off religious beliefs while the Federal government absolutely does not.
TheDark Nite Isn't that obvious?
He didn't really make that clear, when he focused disproportionately on Vought's view on the doctrine of salvation.
Everyone seems to forget that the rules apply differently to those that hold government positions. There's good reason for this. If you are to fulfill your duties in government to hand out marriage certificates, but your ideology tells you not to hand them out to gay people, your job is forfeit the moment you decline a marriage certificate to a gay couple. No one gives a shit about your beliefs. Just do your job. If you put your ideology ahead of a secular nations rule of law, you have no right to hold a position in government.
Bernie Sanders was actually asking the nominee if his religion was going to effect.his work, he wasn't slamming the guy's beliefs. In a way, Bernie was asking him if his religion was going to make guy in question treat others differently baised on religion. The guy never gave a straight forward answer and would start his statements with "as a christian, I..." I usually agree with the videos of this channel, but I feel this one took everything too literal and missed the point of Bernie's intention.
I'm glad you're a Bernie supporter. He's awesome 👍. To me, I'm an Agnostic-Atheist that aligns with the Progressive movement. God doesn't exist, thus that's the best way to govern society.
Not because he was an Evangelical Christian, because he believes non Christians are "condemned."
Would you ever vote for someone who's a nazi just because they say they'll keep their beliefs to themselves?
If I see a business advertising that they are christian or they have Any religion's symbols on their advertising, I will always steer clear of them... anyone that feels it necessary to link their religious position in their business is most apt to be a crook.
i do the same thing
No, he wasn't wrong. He didn't vote against him because he was christian, Bernie Voted against him because he didn't show any inkling of being anything but a christian. He didn't seem to want to do anything like what his job was.
I'm christian and your thinking is very atipic on atheist I now. Thank you for being different.
Um. Bernie Sanders is not a liberal. He is a democratic Socialist. You do realize the difference correct? He is more left than a liberal. To be fair though, Americans use the word liberal (which is actually in the center of the political graph) as meaning leftist because we are a very rightist country overall, especially with our history of mccarthyism.
Listen the main point is that a Muslim would by definition have the same views, and would think Christians would banish for eternity also
The Atheist Voice, the unspoken rule, that I think most will agree with, is that when a person with bad beliefs violates our laws, there is not much within the law we can do to stop it. We have to be pragmatic, we should pick the better thinker as well as one who would obey the law. Additionally, we need the better thinker to make the right choice, even if it's doing nothing, in areas that our laws do no effectively cover - in that sense the beliefs of a person play a huge role in their decision making. Bernie did the right thing, even if it wasn't videogenic. We are fighting a battle of ideas, and it's costing us so much. We need to win quickly or humanity will succumb to riptide of it's own bad ideas.
if you believe and support the worst parts of your beliefs system your aren't qualified to lead or represent us, the man clearly expressed he sees a class of condemned Americans for not sharing his belief. how can he represent me if he sees me as condemned?
"He's a liberal who makes other liberals look conservative." Funny, that's exactly why I DON'T like Sanders.
Maybe bernie felt that, that guys responces were clear enough proof that he wasn't going to treat everyone equally.
Indeed, but Bernie haven't stated that, which he should have
Not everything needs to be spelled out for people, some people are quite capable of understanding something without having it spelled out to them and in fact left it quite open for peoples own judgement, with that said the guys response was to always point back to "I'm a christian" as if that would explain everything, wasn't the article he wrote being critical of someone else also a christian? Oh of course, silly me, they weren't the right kind of christian, so they weren't really christian because they didn't believe what he believes.
I think more then anything Bernie was being critical of him to highlight Vought's clear bias.
I disagree with you on this one. What someone thinks will influence their decision making skills. If this guy have an option to defund a Muslim program or a Christian program he will most likely choice the Christian program since he thinks Muslims are damned. It's silly to think, for example a racist, would not let his racist thoughts influence his decision making skills when deciding what to with a bill that will defund minority programs.
You obviously didn't get what Bernie's problem with this man was. It wasn't his religion. It was his assertion that those who's religion doesn't agree with his had a deficient theology. The primary point was that those who's religion disagreed with his stand damned. Someone such beliefs, in the context of the GOP, is likely to treat those who belong to other religions or are not religious, poorly. Do you give him a pass and hope it turns out well while Republicans are calling for actions against those who don't ascribe to their beliefs at this specific time in history? Bernie's point was this man had already shown that he has no respect for the religious beliefs of others. I don't always agree with Bernie but in this instance I do.
Irrelevant. Most religious conservatives, Christians and Muslims alike that believe in Hell hold to this position. There are circumstances in which prejudice against Muslims exists and from what evidence I've seen it would not surprise me if such prejudices had an influence in this instance, but the doctrine of salvation is not evidence of that prejudice. This is the position the early church has held since its founding.
I think I disagree on this issue. People's religious convictions are a huge part of their decision making/morals, so I think it is fair to not want a particular subscriber to a religion voted into office.
Bernie didn't reject this guy because he was a Christian, or even because he was an evangelical Christian (which is not what Bernie said). It's because of the nominee's actions, because his writings reflect islamophobia and bigotry. And Bernie felt this would affect the guys decision-making if nominated. He was standing up for religious freedom and democracy. Well done Bernie!!
Repost/ Bernie challenged the nominee because he thought any person who didn't believe in Jesus was "condemned." You're telling me you wouldn't treat anyone different because you think that they're "condemned?" If Vought sees citizens lesser than others, he clearly won't be treating everyone equally.
I'm sorry, you are a bit confused. That's not the reason why he almost didn't get a job. He almost didn't get a job because the dude demonstrated he is islamophobic, which Bernie attacked. You saying that's just being a Christian is actually more insulting to Christians because you're implying that all Christians are islamophobic by nature of their beliefs.
I think it's time we stop saying "You can have your beliefs". I think insane, world-crippling god beliefs need to be confronted and ridiculed at all occasions. Enough of our tolerance.
I usually agree with Hemant and I understand the his point but Bernie was concerned about this man thinking a woman deserved to be fired for expressing solidarity with another religion. Should a man run a government agency if he's shown an intolerance for other religious beliefs? As head of a government agency he may feel the need to fire people who don't subscribe to his fundamentalist views so I think Bernie's questions were reasonable. People with rabid religious views need to be scrutinized more closely.
I disagree Mehta.
I agree with Sanders for calling out a bigot religious belief.
A bigot belief is a bigot belief, regardless if you slap it under a religious label.
I remember that hearing, and Bernie Sanders was absolutely correct. He isn't criticizing his religion, he is asking him about the words he said, because they indicate possible future discrimination against others who do not conform to his views.
I disagree, people are free actors and if you are appointing someone based on logic,reason and what they will do in office religion is important. Religion is not an immutable characteristic like being black or having a particular sexual orientation. Religion is based upon belief and whether their is convincing evidence to believe in god, so through the reasons you state for believing in god or lack of believe I can judge your intelligence. Just like I can judge your intelligence for the reasons you believe in everything, if you come up with convincing reasons for why god exists then you are a rational and highly intelligent and are fit for office, if you can't give any good reasons for believe why should I believe you are intelligent.
Religion is a hallmark of intelligence, regardless of whether you believe or not their are responses for both sides that can show evidence of human intelligence, but if you give the answer my parents raised me atheist so I am or I was raised catholic frankly I judge you for that. So there shouldn't be a religious test, but there can be a test based upon why you believe in a religion.
I love this channel, but I feel that Bernie asked relevant questions because he did believe that his beliefs would affect his work. He wanted to know if the guy looked down upon other groups.
You're missing Bernie's point completely. He didn't need to ask this clown if he'll treat others religious beliefs equally after he clearly pointed out the article in the first place and it's contents.
I see both sides. I think Sanders intentions where not to go after his religious beliefs but to go after a statement that was instrimigating against non Christans. It was a waterd down version of your going to hell.
He believes it's okay to fire someone for their religious beliefs, specifically solidarity with muslims. This is absolutely relevant to governing. If I am a white supremacist and I believe that non-white are "condemned", and you ask me the easy-out question "will that effect your governing?", I would say "Nope." The line of questioning was appropriate to establish whether or not it actually would effect his work, not whether or not he *says* it will effect his work. You're smarter than this.
That professor wasn't fired because she wanted to show solidarity with Muslims by wearing a hijab. The college board believed that her "same God" statement violated their Statement of Faith, which was a violation of their Code of Conduct. Their Statement of Faith requires the belief it The Trinity (That God is one entity, composed of three separate "persons"--the Father, the Son [Jesus Christ], and the Holy Spirit), and the belief that Jesus was the son of God. Islam rejects both of these concepts. Atheists may think this all sounds silly, but I'd say anyone who teaches at a private religious college should be prepared to follow their rules.
I once applied for a teaching position at a Catholic university. As part of the application process, I was shown their Code of Conduct, and asked if I would be willing to abide by those rules if hired. Although I'm a non-denominational Protestant, I saw nothing wrong with those requirements, so I said yes, I would.
That's what I like about you, Hemant. You're consistent with your view on religious freedom whether you agree with it or not on a personal level. As a progressive and Bernie-supporter, I get tired of our country getting run by religious nuts just as much as you do but I understand that we can't automatically dismiss all Christians that are qualified to hold public office.
I'm not sure if I agree. what if he was a Nazi. would you argue that he's a Nazi but as long as it doesn't affect his ability to do the job what's the difference?
good point
Religion is an ideology.
Evangelical Christianity is also an ideology.
well it's different if there's murder involved...
If he was a nazi but wouldn't have that affect his politics (which would be weird) there wouldn't be much of a problem.
nah bro, a person like that should not have power in any government in America
Could not agree more. I love Bernie, but the Evangelicals have every right to denounce Bernie over this one. All the guy did was to state the tenets of his faith. He did not advocate for denying civil rights and liberties under the law to Muslims, so simply holding to the theology of Christianity should not bar him from public office. If I lived in a predominantly Muslim nation, I would be fully aware that most people consider me damned. As along as they don't persecute me under the law, I really don't care what people think about the state of my soul.
In 2016, an atheist in Saudi Arabia was given 50 lashes because he declared that he was an atheist on a social media site. If a "Friendly Atheist" in Saudi Arabia were ever to question Islam or the Quran in public, they would most likely end up dead. Is that the kind of persecution your talking about?
Bernie didn't say it was because he was an "evangelical Christian" It was because the nominee said "...Muslims stand condemned" and Bernie was waiting for the answer "I will treat everyone the same" but during the questioning Vought refused to say it, the man just said "I am a christian" over and over.
He refused to vote for him not because he was "mearly a christian:" but rather a christian who believed others were lesser, and deserved eternal torture, And more importantly wouldn't say "but I am not the judge and I will treat everyone the same"
Sanders record shows that he has voted for many christian for positions, so it wasn't the christian part which is why he didn't support this nominee
Graham Skelly that's not what Christians believe. Biblically consistent Christians believe in the one triune God, one being in three persons sharing all the attributes of the Godhead or Being of God. Islam does not believe this. They would say biblical Christianity is the unforgivable sin.
Islam says God does not have a Son.
Jesus says this in John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
So as you can see they do not worship the same God and stand condemned by God for rejecting the gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, no one is better all are condemned until you receive Jesus as Lord and Savior.
+strained Prune, So I can talk to about what the bible and koran says and what it means, but that isn't what the video or my post was about. I am not a judge of who is Christian, or who is a true Christian. The Nominee a self proclaimed christian said 'Muslims deserved eternal torture,. ' Bernie Sander was wanting the Nominee to say something like "I am not the judge of who God will eternally torture, and I will treat everyone the same" which he after given several opportunities to say, the nominee refused.
Graham Skelly did you see or hear Vought( the nominee) say that we are all made in the image of God and deserve dignity and respect? What does that mean? It means he believes, as the Bible says, we are made in the image of God and deserve dignity and respect! Watch the unconstitutional religious grilling Sanders put the guy through. He clearly said he is a Christian and apart from Christ there is no salvation open a Bible read John 3:36; 14:6;Acts 4:12 Without faith in Jesus the one who gave himself for an atoning substitutionary and propitiatory sacrifice for sin we are all condemned. Jew, pagan, Muslim, Atheist, Roman Catholic, nominal Christian or whoever. Article 6 of the US Constitution forbids a religious test and I would say Burnie was in violation with that line of questioning.
So let me just ask you; based on Acts 4:12 you believe Salvation is only through Jesus. What happens to you if you do not obtain salvation?
Thank you for your perspective Mr. Mehta. It makes me rethink my own.
"You have to show a link between thought and action"
Yay, you changed your shirt!
I am saddened you did think about the full context of what Sanders did. He for one was responding to the idea that the nominee claimed concerning Muslims stand rightly condemned. Sanders follows this logic by stating how can you lead a diverse group of people all the while you believe they are doomed to eternal punishment. I can see the temptation to compare this to someone grilling an atheist concerning his atheism...and honestly rightly so. There is a difference between an atheist and anti theist and an atheist who simply denies religion and yes might disagree with the religion wont let it concern his treatment of people vs an anti theist who totally wants to abolish and take down religion.
Now my point is, sub-consciously when you believe a certain segment of people are inferior to the point where they deserve nothing less than torture. That will affect internally you through process towards those people. Much like an anti-theist would as well in respect to people of faith. There are christians in office who are much like the atheist who are more live and let live. However, when your open thoughts honestly believe on segment is condemned and "less" than human, I believe Bernie was right. I would love to have a discussion on this..this is my take on it.
This, I agree, Sanders exposed Vought's bias and he had nothing to rebut with other then "I'm a christian" it was very telling of Vought's beliefs being a strong factor in influencing his decisions and actions, I also very much agree with you on the point that someone's thoughts/beliefs can and often will impact the actions they make, if you've already shown that someone who was Christian as well should be fired because they aren't the "right" kind of christian then you've proven to everyone what your bias is and how your actions are affected by your extreme beliefs and this has no place in any governmental position.
Indeed, that is the thing ultimately we need people who can govern. In my honest opinion psychological and neurological tests should be used more than religious or philosophical. At least we can start catch sociopaths before they get into office...which studies have show such behavior is in alot of the 1%ers.
He never said muslims are less than humans. Get your facts right.
I'm a rightwing Atheist it would be good for you to talk about rightwing Atheists.
All that needs to be said about them is that they're idiot shitlords. They deserve no further platform.
These days the left has gone over a cliff to the point that almost all rational minded liberals from just a few years ago would be considered "right wing" so you aren't alone lol
Khaine's Lair Economically and I'm a Social moderate.
damlurker I'm a Nationalist and I voted for Trump
There are plenty of people on youtube who are atheist and afraid of other races, genders, etc. The problem is Hemant is the "friendly" atheist. Doesn't tie in well to the Trump mind set.
More political content! Fresh perspectives are incredibly helpful!
Hemant I love you man but you are so freaking wrong here. Bernie WAS asking because of his job. Watch the whole thing.
I disagree, I think you're the one who's wrong and Hemant does a great job explaining why. If you agree with Sanders reasoning you won't have a leg to stand on when it's used to discriminate against what you believe
If this can fall under "religious faith," then what else can? Would you be defending Vought if he had written that black people were deficient? Many people may claim religious motivations for bigotry, but we generally don't tolerate that. I thought you were against the Hobby Lobby ruling, for example.
The transcripts seem to clearly indicate that Sanders framed this as intolerance and Vought tried to frame it as religious freedom. Is this really the angle you want to be taking, Hemant?
no. you are wrong. perhaps take a second look. It wasn't only about his repetitive "I'm a Christian", there was a whole lot made loud and clear with what he WOULDN'T answer... He kept saying it, He's a man of god, that's his ultimate commander n chief... When it really comes down to it, do you really, honestly believe that man would stand up and defend, or fight for a gay atheist over a mild mannered good god fearing Christian woman, who's just a tiny bit wrong, not a lot....nope. He could have spoken up, and clearly stated "I WILL NOT ALLOW MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTERFERE WITH MY ROLE IN GOVERNMENT!" REAL EASY....
I agree with you. However there was a certain satisfaction seeing this happen. Hopefully he will see how this feels and it will stop him from making judgements from now on. Nah, I doubt it
If you have a link or a clip, I would like to see it, so that I can see the context of what you heard Bernie say and just how he said it. However, as for Bernie or anyone else stating that they wouldn't vote for someone and why, it would seem to me that's about a personal decision which the individual has the right to decide based on personal reasons. That's not the same as making laws or setting policies. Edit: I also wonder if perhaps he was trying to show those who condemn other belief systems openly how it feels to be called out on what's wrong with their own belief system. Don't know... but I wonder.
You're are confused Hemant. Being religious leads to making decisions based on your religious values. There is no comparison to putting an atheist in the situation because there wouldn't be any decisions negatively affected by that title.
Hemant for "Christian Apologist 2017". Dude you are so wrong. SO WRONG on many levels. I hope more politicians confront an argument regarding religion.
Here's how democratic policies work: I live in a city, where I bought a house last year. Thanks to the progressive city government, my property tax increased by $3,000 a year. I could have put that into the bank.
If you want to stimulate the economy, give power back to the people. It's the income tax, and propert tax, that's killing the middle class.
If you make $50,000 a year, the government will tax, roughly, $10,000 of it. At the end of the year, if you're married and have kids, you could get around $5,000 back in a rebate. If you're single, you're shit outta luck.
If this country is going to increase prosperity, they need to eliminate the income tax. That way, the consumer keeps his entire paycheck. That guy who makes $50,000 can put that $10,000 into savings, or even use it as a downpayment for a house.
Income tax is theft.
I understand what you say, because it is true in every other career position. Although, what made him different were expressions of inequality and defending that might mean we should defend atheists and agnostics as well for some being impartial with religious people as well. Respect for all should be ensured. But you have a point in the sense that the words this guy said were adhered to his religion and part of the nonsense they spout in churchs on a daily basis.
I dont recall the nominee ever once trying to explain how his actions in his life prove that he will leave religion out of the equation when he performs his duties as a public official....
.....perhaps that was why Bernie asked him the questions that he asked him.....
And perhaps thats why this hemant mehta person didnt bother to provide any of the information that he critivized others for not presenting....
.....hmmmmmmm......
Productive narrative video, or shallow contrarian video?
When I first looked at this I was fine (I hadn't Told you) but Do you Realize that what that Nominee does when he Believes in the way he does? Just Research him more and you'll understand, Try thinking for yourself
I believe in you and we Do make Mistakes
Remember, You can Believe in Whatever you want unless they Don't become to harm to Others
I know what Nominee your talking about and I totally Hated him, Bernie Sanders was Right
Although i agree with Hemant on principal, i think it's pretty widely understood that Evangelical Christians believe the USA is a "Christian nation" and that the "word of god" should be the law of the land. That's contrary to the Establishment Clause. On the other hand, would denying him the position have violated the "No Religious Test" clause? It's a judgement call either way. I'd say we'd have to look back at his prior actions and decide from those. If he has a history of being actively anti-Muslim (or against any other faction of society) then i'd say he's unsuitable.
He's wrong about everything. Specially trying to do magic with money.
I don't understand people. When they're not in one ideology, they are in another. Doesn't matter if political or religious. Can't people just live free? Always need something to "believe".
People inside ideologies can use logic against others ideology, but never against themselves.
I agree and i disagree with you Hemant... and i apologize for the length of this..
Yes, Sanders should have moved on from that and focused on questioning the man on how he would construct policy and what those would entail. And true, just because the person is of one particular faith, or what have you, doesn't mean they won't actually treat others fairly. I even know this from personal experience, with various friends of varying faiths. Including my own family (they don't have a high view of anyone who isn't christian, straight,and so on. but I know they would and have treated others fairly and pleasantly, for the most part).
However, given the track record of this administration, these kinds of christians (evangelicals, fundamentalists, etc.), republicans, and conservatives... I wouldn't be surprised if this man did in fact make policies that... negatively impact muslims, and anyone who isn't christian. And we can safely assume that he inevitably would, or at least try. Whether he told Sanders, or anyone, or whether he didn't. Hell, the man couldn't even start a sentence without saying he was christian. combine that with the facts that he wrote that article bashing muslims, this woman, etc. and the fact he attended this "school", and was nominated by trump.... it makes all the red flags go up. and I'm assuming he was raised this way through his life, but only a likely assumption..
Regardless, this man isn't fit or deserving of the position he has been nominated for. (neither isanyone in this administration, honestly..)
As for Sanders... to throw him a bone here...
He was actually trying to show the man's thoughts on policy and such he would make.. trying to show this man was biased and so on... but it was more implied rather than straight-forwardly stated or asked. In an odd way, Sanders was trying to use this tactic to try and... bait the answers out of him, so to speak. Because if it was asked directly, the man could have simply just lied, and kept lying to any further hammering from sanders on what he said. So.... I don't think Sanders was wrong, nor do i think he was entirely right.
Yes, it did give conservatives, christians, etc. "proof" of their... "persecution" they go on and on about.. but I feel like that was inevitable either way. No matter what Sanders tried to do. However, it also gave us proof... well, more proof.... of the bullshit that deeply religious people constantly spew and give us at every turn. I feel like this was a good little nugget of that for us to use. Because the man did the most typical tactic of constantly cycling through the whole "Well, I'm a christian.." rhetoric we always see. Unfortunately, given the current situation we can't use it in any effective way, but we still have it regardless.
Idk. I see good and bad to this situation. But mostly I'm seeing it more as a slight boon for Sanders. Slight, mind you.
Ultimately, we just have to make sure if they try and use this against him, we turn it back around and use it against them. That's just what I'm saying we do with this situation. My opinions on best action going forward with it, when it comes up.
Sanders punished him because he had certain beliefs. We should be able to discuss beliefs in a safe environment away from persecution.
I listened to Bernie's comments. What he criticized was the "Christian's:" condemnation of Musilims. I felt it was appropriate.
Beliefs inform your actions.
If you believe god gave his word he wouldn't kill the world again, you're less likely to "believe" in climate change.
Peace
Really Hemant? It's called a litmus test. No one is going to admit to being discriminatory. Bernie Sanders questions showed that Vought isn't able to separate his beliefs from his actions. Other politicians that are religious have answered questions like this before with better answers than "I'm a Christian", and that's because those politicians can actually separate person belief from action. Vought can't.
You are making political commentary but without any evidence.
Why should we believe anything you say without any evidence?
Given the president's stated interest in and goal of oppressing Muslims, I believe it is of great importance to press people on whether they are Islamophobes. I think of a lot of Islamophobia in the US is driven by religious beliefs; for example, my grandparents hear a lot about the dangers of Islam and creeping Sharia at their church. Unfortunately, I don't know that it is possible to fully separate conservative evangelical Christianity from Islamophobia in this country.
I don't know, there is definitely some gray area in this case. I do fully agree with Hemant's hypothetical case of an atheist being questioned and disregarded for simply believing that religious people are wrong. But that's just it -- an atheist believes religious people are wrong. They don't believe they are inferior, they don't believe that they are "condemned" or should/will receive some kind of punishment for their beliefs -- atheists just think that religious people are wrong. There is a difference between that and someone saying that someone with different beliefs from them are "condemned", and that a Christian teacher should not have shown support or compassion for those with different beliefs. In an ideal world, I would hope that no matter what someone's personal beliefs are, they would not affect their job performance, however given this individual man's history of publicly stating that Muslims are wrong and should not be shown support by Christians does paint a pretty strong picture of the way he may treat those with different beliefs if he were working in a public office. That was the point Bernie was trying to make -- not simply "are you a Christian", but "do you feel people with different beliefs are inherently more or less deserving of support", which is completely relevant to how he would perform his job. Now going back to the hypothetical case of this happening to an atheist, if the individual atheist in question had made the same remarks about Muslims or any other religion, then I would feel those kinds of questions would be valid. Whether someone is religious or not, if they have publicly stated that people who believe differently than they do deserve different treatment, then I think those particular personal beliefs would be relevant to how they would serve in a public position. This most certainly is not a case of "Christian persecution".
Ha! The Trump Administration respectful? That's more likely than a giant magical dude floating in the sky dictating whom is worthy enough to spend eternity in "heaven" based on what he determines is good and bad.
This guy would be dealing with civilians he was not voting for someone because he has made bigoted statements against Muslims I don't give a damm if he was Christian Muslim Jew hell even Scientology. As long as they treat other people equally but he clearly doesn't. If he was being assigned to let's say chief of staff that's ok. But this position can cause him to treat people different
(0:17 - 0:22 Typed then as well, I might edit afterwards) I have an open question to you:
What does "And I hope he moves the party more to the Left", or at least the concept of "more to the Left" mean, to you personally?
Is it about money and economics and wealth equality or about values and attitudes and policies that are not Conservative or Traditionalist?
Those two things do not necessarily go together but are often vaguely lumped together as "The Left"?
Here's the thing anyone critical of Bernie calling this guy out needs to consider. Imagine a muslim who came out supporting another muslim being fired for showing solidarity with christians. He'd be crucified.
I am not sure that Bernie came at the issue from the best angle. I would rather that he hammered the guy on would he hire someone that had a "deficient theology." I mean, to state the guy's religious beliefs broadly, he thinks muslims are inherently bad people. That's problematic. In a hiring situation, he either has to hire someone that he sees as having a deep character flaw or he can hire only christians.
While I agree that we shouldn't require someone to adhere to some progressive orthodoxy, I think in this case very likely Bernie was assuming that Vought would discriminate, and I think that was a leap that needed to be established, but I also think Vought probably _would_ have. I don't think Sanders apparent assumptions were incorrect.
How can we be sure that someone who so obviously looks down on Muslims wouldn't let that effect his job. I mean the guy supported the termination of teacher who simply stood in solidarity with Muslims. I don't think the questions were framed well at all by Senator Sanders but I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether or not this man is openly biased against Muslims and if this bias could effect his job. I don't think for a second we would give this man the benefit of the doubt if he supported the firing of a teacher who's only crime was standing in solidarity with Jews. On the contrary, if that were the case, most people would agree that someone so obviously antiemetic should not hold public office.
While I agree that government should be impartial with respect to religious beliefs, when someone has a record of acting on their bigotry, they are not fit for office. It's true that the conservatives can now play the victim card, but (as usual) it is misguided and self-serving.
All of our actions and feelings are based on what we believe yup be true about the world.
If you believe, truly believe, that you're right and that people who don't believe you are wrong, so wrong that they are going to be punished for eternity for it, then you have to accept that is what drives them and will influence their decisions.
If I believe one of my kids are about to die, say I get a phone call or something, my actions will change. same if I think I won the lottery.
those examples are both possible in the realm of reality.
I think you are giving too much benefit of the doubt because you, personally, wouldn't let it impact your judgement. But you, and most skeptics, spend a lot of time considering their own motives and rationale. In pretty sure most religious fundamentalists don't share our ideals about truth and fairness.
I disagree. Bernie challenged the nominee because he thought any person who didn't believe in Jesus was "condemned." You're telling me you wouldn't treat anyone different because you think that they're "condemned?" If Vought sees citizens lesser than others, he clearly won't be treating everyone equally.
There's no such a necessity that you have to treat some people differently if you believe they're condemned. It's the God's matter (after death), it doesn't have to have an influence on the mortal life and everyday life and views.
DuchAmagi That's true, but it's not about "necessity," it's about doubt. If Bernie has doubts that this nominee will be objective, then he has an absolute right to vote no.
HornyJesus Your username and profile pic choice are very strange together.
Jesse Cole
That's ok.
I couldn't find a picture that was small enough for you to see Jesus getting sucked off by a kid. So until then, the eye will have to do.
Hemant, I agree with your point. As atheists we often are confronted with the dilemma of having to trust religious people who believe in wildly irrational things, but we almost always find that they are perfectly competent and trustworthy in other respects. So, naturally, we hope and expect that religious people would find the same in us. I personally didn't hear about what Bernie did or said and I'm unhappy to hear that he violated that expectation. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Even Bernie can have a bad day.
Dude, Bernie didn't discriminate against the guy for being a Christian, he challenged him because he clearly has bigoted positions and would be impartial. If I as an atheist were to apply for public position and I publicly stated very bigoted things against religion then yeah I would need to be challenged... fundamentalism of any ideology is dangerous in positions of power, is not a matter of freedom of religion but the real potential of impartial policy based on clear bigoted statements. Just replace muslims for balcks and see how it reads.
As someone who has studied the evolution topic very well, these answers do not tell me anything. You accuse christians always saying rhetoric, but you turn around and do the same. Give me a reason that you are right and thoroughly explain. And also, you are not very friendly. If you want christians to understand, explain what you say. What you are doing is the equivalent as a christian quoting the Bible. You have to understand that there are intelligent christians, and there are dumb athiests. Thank you.
Wow... You really think there is no link between thoughts and actions? Didn't your thoughts lead to this action of you making a video about it? So I can't say I agree with that at all, of course there is a link between thoughts and actions, you have to think on an action to take action, your thoughts play a role in how you will act, if you believe something to be true it will affect how you will act.
Thoughts and beliefs lead to action, if you think something is an issue, based on what you think or what your beliefs are, your action will reflect what you think or what your beliefs are, clearly Hemant your thought of this being wrong lead you to make this video, your thoughts and personal beliefs lead you to make a video to explain how and why you think this was wrong to hold someone else's thoughts and personal beliefs accountable, because (according to you) it doesn't mean they will take action on them, but you just did based on those same factors, why should anyone think that such factors won't cause a person to take some type of action based on what they think or believe?
Hell even my own thoughts and beliefs lead me to take an action, to comment.
Hemant I have something that you could talk about in a blog at friendly atheist or something. I am an atheist in my teens, however I live in one of the most religious places in the Bible Belt, however I would love to talk more about atheism with other people. I have two friends who are atheists, and I've lost quite a few friends for being atheists. Any advice for how to talk to more people about atheism?
I agree on principal but not in practice; we're not talking about a guy who happens to just be a practicing Christian. The person being questioned showed bias against other belief systems and THAT is a problem; not his faith but the actions that are rooted in his faith.
Bernie is rad, but I agree. He was definitely wrong to criticize someone for their religious beliefs, concidering the position he’s in. I feel bad for that professor. Hopefully she decides to apply for a better school next time.
I think it would be pretty obvious if Sanders just never voted for anyone who declared themselves a Christian. If there is no pattern of him not voting for Christians, then it's silly to say that he didn't vote for the guy just because he said he's Christian.
Of course they impact his job! Your personal beliefs should be kept in your personal space. If you are a person who defends the public policies of a public institution like a school not on the basis of a secular argument but a personal faith argument then of course it impacts his work.
OMFG! You're fucking wrong as hell!!!
Why wait for this guy to discriminate against non-Christians AFTER he's already in the job when it would be impossible to try to get him out of the position? The fact that he believes all Muslims are going to hell, and all Muslims are wrong, and therefore lesser than him/Christians, is sufficient reason to vote against him. His discriminatory belief against other Americans is antithetical to the secular principles of this government, and I am delighted that Bernie did the correct thing in voting against his approval.
I am a fundamentals Christian and I totally agree with you. Christians and Atheist ought to stick together to defend the rights of others to think as they will. The value of religious freedom is to respect freewill and the rights of others to believe as they chose. You are awesome, great video!
what you say burnie should have asked, why didn't you ask that to mike pence? he believes horrible stuff. it does not mean he will act upon them
Question for The Atheist Voice: Should religion be a protected class? Unlike race, national origin, age, sex and arguably sexual orientation, religion is not an innate characteristic. Religion is essentially a set of ideas and associations. What legally and morally distinguishes religion from any other set of ideas and associations and grants its status as a defining characteristic that cannot be discriminated against?
I love you vids on atheism but I really think that you should stay out of politics it them. Atheism isn't a political view and we all came here to know more about atheism. Hope you take this into consideration!
Isn’t Condemning a man because of his Christian belief a form of bigotry?? Yes
Bernie didn't lose because he was up against a Christian, he lost because he is a supporter of Socialism and wanted to incorporate that into our government.
i never ask to the mechanic who is about to fix my car in what he does believe, i expect him to be qualified to fix the car and to be qualified for the job. And that bring us to the point, if he or she is qualified for the job, his/her beliefs are not important for the job.
I disagree perhaps if you look at it from an analytical perspective, you would notice that since he looks at Islam as a deficient society and had at the same time published an article about it then that says enough about the potential acts that he's willing to commit in the future, and that is to discriminate.
I think the main idea of all the debates on this topic is on the extent of beliefs informing ones' actions, i personally believe that what a person believes have a strong impact on their decisions therefore if a person believes that god favours a certain group of people i dont see them not trying to favour that group of people as well, at least thats how i see it from a outsider's view.
do you actually believe that her colour or her sex had to do with her firering or was it just what she said?
should she have been judged differently because of her sex or colour?
If I can put a law in the law, I will put Forcing religion will get you in jail, ahahahaha........maybe no
Those are fair questions. And yes they do because they will carry over into his job.
So when are you gonna talk about linda sarsour?
Some of those who work forces
are the same who burn crosses.
Yes, with a super religious person in office his beliefs will impact
his job.
Very well written. This is probably one of the best videos I've watched. Rational and logical. Love it! Keep up the good work.
Is that a yellow buckyball above your right shoulder?
Can someone post a timestamp to the part of this video where the guy discusses this particular nominees history and actions related to an indication of how he might perform his duties as a politician?
No? No timestamp?
I'm a simple Person, I see Bernie Sanders in the Title, I watch.
Very dissapointed in your opinion in this video you are taking this as out of context as the conservatives shame on you