>we must protect religious people because we are a nation that accepts and welcomes all faiths
>but you should not be appointed for government positions if you believe in hell or any other basic tenants of your religion as that would be intolerant to religious minorities
Is this kooky old Jew trying to make himself appear to be a hypocritical dumb ass? What he's saying doesn't make any sense.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
thegatewaypundit.com
slate.com
breitbart.com
slate
archive.is
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Corrected*
>If you promulgate inflammatory sentiments such as that everybody who dosen't share your faith will burn in hell.
Yeah, so what? I wouldn't be comfortable with a person of any faith believing that.
*...and serving in government. Sorry.
So you're okay with the government discriminating against religion?
Right, so only atheists should be in governmental positions huh? Makes sense.
Not sure if you got the memo user but we are not suppose to talk about Bernie as it might trigger what remains of the Democratic base to start focusing their attention and hate to the incompetent Democratic party rather than hating Trump 24/7.
The Dems hope to ride the Trump hate train until at least 2018 so no Democrats will pay any attention to how shitty the Dems really are.
>Dems
>hating Bernie
>for hating Christians
I don't even think it's possible to focus their attention on this since most are in full agreement with him.
No. A secular government isn't equal to an atheistic litmus test. You may hold certain beliefs, but if you wish to work in government, there are standards with regards to your background. The man believes that people of another sexual persuasion will burn in hell. That is problematic if you have a commitment to observe basic human rights. You have a right to hold those views, but that means that certain positions in society will be unattainable to you. He was not an elected politician, which would have been fine if a constituency felt that they wanted such views represented. Somebody who get's a taxpayer funded salary for being an administrative officer of the government is subject to a different kind of scrutiny. The standard is higher and different.
Your standards would literally disqualify nearly every single major religion on this planet seeing as though most of them do make special claims for themselves like believing in an afterlife they'll go to for having faith.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. all barred from government positions because somehow believing in your own faith is now intolerable to others who happen to not be of that faith. Do you seriously not understand the kind of bullshit quasi-Commie absolute shithole you're describing is literally the opposite of tolerance and acceptance? That's persecution and a highway for chaos.
>A secular government isn't equal to an atheistic litmus test.
Are you suggesting a don't ask/don't tell policy for the government regarding religion? Kek, listen to yourself you sniveling little pissant. Someone needs to knock some sense into that thick skull of yours.
yeah, nah. A muslim or jew would NEVER be subject to this kind of scrutiny.
>we should protect religeon because its in our constitution to do so.
>our public officials should not put their faith above their job because its in our constitution to seperate curch and state.
The point of contention had nothing to with the claim of there being an afterlife, but the claim of what CLEARLY falls under the preview under what is considered a discriminatory sentiment. Nice try though.
Once again, learn the difference between an elected politician and a government official. There are scrutinizing rules and protocols which do exclude you from holding certain views which are not in consonance with notions of basic human rights you illiterate peasant. You are confirmed on the merits which measure whether you are considered appropriate to represent the government in an ADMINISTRATIVE capacity, not POLITICAL. Politically appointed bodies have a right to SCRUTINIZE this and argue whether or not they consider you appropriate. Likewise you do not have an automatic right to work somewhere where you need a security clearance. The employer has a right to make a subjective assessment of personal suitability.
My principle is the same for those two.
>you're putting your faith above your job because you believe in things
>still doesn't realize how utterly hypocritical and dangerous the things he's say are
The point I already made what your own standard really leaves atheists the only ones with what you call "tolerable" views necessary to have those positions.
It doesn't make sense and you have absolutely nothing worth saying about it.
>comparing the private sector to governmental sectors
Do you actually want to try having your arguments make sense or are you just bored looking for (You)s? We've already established you're fine with the top three religions on this planet being barred from government positions which should realistically go against all your insane Swedish liberal principles.
>What he's saying doesn't make any sense.
Admitting ignorance is a good first step. Hell never existed until xtian sadists fabricated it.
Being ignorant to whatever hypocritical bs is oozing out of a spineless Jew's gaping jaws should be considered a good thing really.
Your ignorance of that fact is a little telling tbph bud.
What do you mean dangerous!? That is literally how every western bicameral democracy works! What the hell is wrong with you? He is one of the many who's job it is to confirm appointees by the executive. He has a right to vote Yay or Ney based on his own assessment on the individuals suitability and character. Blocking a nomination is the prerogative of a body which has the authority to do so. What is that you're not understanding?
What do you mean "tolerable" ? No you can't say certain things which are obviously controversial and amount to that "people of other faiths and gays will burn in hell" and then cry about it is mentioned and used against you in a senate hearing when you are applying for a non-political job in the government as an official. It literally has NOTHING to do with the right of adhering to a faith and serving in government. The overwhelming amount of people in America already do.
>The man believes that people of another sexual persuasion will burn in hell
How is that a problem? I can think a faggot swede is likely to get his ass raped by somaliniggers, how is that problematic if its true?
What you're describing is quite literally a "don't ask/don't tell" policy for government positions. You're starting with a presupposition that a religion with certain beliefs about condemnation is somehow inflammatory because it discriminates against those who are not of that faith.
Do you want me to repeat that? You're starting with a presupposition and rolling on it. I don't play around with presuppositions, especially when you can't even argue or explain why.
>Swede wants atheists to run the country while Islamists fuck and blow up his girlfriend (male) in the streets
>Being ignorant to whatever hypocritical bs is oozing out of a spineless Jew's gaping jaws should be considered a good thing really.
I see his point and I would never vote for a "gas the kikes" Hitler Jr either. The Jews didn't have a hell, the Christians masturbate furiously over the thought of their eternal torture and the Muslims filled page after page of the worst atrocities that could ever be inflicted on their fellow men. Bernie was right - that shit needs to be check at the door, not made into secret government policy.
It's a shame your ignorance isn't as painful to you as it is to read.
Yes, people with beliefs needs to be kept away from government positions because their beliefs might be a problem to others that have different beliefs.
What people what what set of beliefs should be running the government?
So to summarize. A member of a politically appointed body has the right to scrutinize an appointee of the executive in a hearing in any way he or she deems fit and assess whether the appointee is suitable for a job as an official representative of the government. This is a key feature of democracy. It is not tantamount to a "don't ask don't tell principle". He is applying for a job which he knows will be subject to a hearing in which every member of the committee will scrutinize that applicant in their own way.
It may be that other on the committee do not share the same views as Sanders does, and are free to make their own judgments and vote Yes in opposition to those who choose to vote No. If they pass through this process they will be appointed anyway. I still don't see the problem. It is his job and prerogative to vote one way or another in a confirmation hearing. How someone votes is based on their own political leanings, yes that is true, as it is a political body which is tasked to represent the varying views within the legislature!
Yeah I get it, religion is bad and it would be better if everyone didn't follow it and lived together in sort of communities where everyone works for each other as a duty to the state.
No I didn't say that. Adherence to a religion implies within itself a subjective relationship with regards to doctrine. It isn't concretely prescriptive. It can range from the nominal to the dogmatic. Dude I just have you a defense of democratic representative government and you still take away from that a wish to leave in an uniform society without dissenting opinions... I just don't know how many other ways I can say what i've already said.
*fixed autocorrect
No I didn't say that. Adherence to a religion implies within itself a subjective relationship with regards to doctrine. It isn't concretely prescriptive. It can range from the nominal to the dogmatic. Dude I just gave you a defense of democratic representative government and you still take away from that a wish to live in an uniform society without dissenting opinions... I just don't know how many other ways I can say what i've already said.
...
So this particular guy Bernie got after, he shouldn't be in that position because why:
He expressed his views on his faith or he owns those views on his faith?
He let his anti-Christian bias. Bernie is nowhere near as not-Jewish as he claims to be as evidenced by his little meltdown in that New Hampshire town hall during the campaign when Israel was unfavorably mentioned.
No you've misunderstood me. The appointee has a right to hold whatever views he wants. He wrote something very controversial with regards to his faith some time ago. He is now an appointee of the executive and is now in the process of a confirmation hearing. That promulgation is now used against him in favor of a dissenting argument against his appointment by somebody who does not share his views. The argument is that it makes him unsuitable to be an official of the government. That is a valid argument against his appointment whether you agree with it or not. I happen to agree while you disagree. Fine. That is how that process works. There are Republicans which most certainly will vote Yes. His confirmation isn't predicated on whether Bernie votes No, but if a majority does. Seeing as how Republicans control both houses he's probably safe. Bernie has the right to dissent and question him any way he deems fit and make his own judgment on suitability. That is his job and the prerogative of a political committee which is tasked with conducting an inquiry. He has no right to cry about how something like that could be used against him in a political hearing. It is standard procedure. He is the applicant with a record to defend.
>He wrote something very controversial with regards to his faith some time ago.
See this is what I'm trying to tell you, it's not controversial or inflammatory. Those are his beliefs that are structured in Christian theology and the Bible itself.
He believes he's going to a place which has yet to be proven to exist for the reason that his paradise was created by a god who favours Christians. All religions make special claims for themselves. So since right there you're again, falling on your presupposition of "religious beliefs are inflammatory" the rest of your argument is absolutely shit. You have no right to cry about "INFLAMMATORY OPINIONS!" if you can't even properly explain why what he said especially is inflammatory.
>He wrote something very controversial with regards to his faith some time ago.
There's literally nothing controversial about Christian doctrine stating you can only be saved through accepting Jesus Christ. You make it sound like a fringe belief when it's taken directly from the New Testament. By your logic every Muslim should be questioned on if they consider Islamic doctrine on dhimmis or kafirs to be accurate and to what extent when this would obviously not fly and would have the entire establishment up in arms on religious tests.
Yeah but from his perspective he thinks Trump is encouraging violence.
>sodomy is a basic human right
Ok fine, I get that you don't agree that it is and I'm sure that there are Republicans on that committee who share your views on the matter and how it pertains to the scriptures. But that does not mean that there can't be a dissenting opposition to your opinion as exemplified by Bernie's statement.
You have to be able to separate the procedural aspects of a political hearing and notions of your own personal preferences. It does not take away from the legitimacy of such an inquiry. He said something which despite your own beliefs is a controversial statement and isn't shared by most nominal and mainstream chipstians. It is now being used against him in a dissenting argument. I am saying that he has no right to cry about that a statement like that from his past is now being used against him in a political hearing. Of course it is. Republicans would do the same if the shoe was on the other foot. That is their job. All the members of that committee are making a personal call in consonance with their own ideologies. That is what they are elected to do.
Once again, it is not a religious test. His right to practice his religion isn't being hindered or obstructed. It is an oral debate in which a controversial statement is being used against his confirmation. On the muslim part I agree with you. I would use the same arguments against a muslims if similar statements were made about christians and jews.
>I would use the same arguments against a muslims if similar statements were made about christians and jews.
And then the only people with viable chances for having government positions are atheists and agnostics. You really are a dumb fuck.
Get sorted.
Oh for fucks sake why are you selectively reading what I am writing just to construct this phony straw man? It is not about his religion. It about a viewpoint which in todays society most people would be find controversial irregardless whether or not it just justified as being part of ones faith or not. That does not take away from its content and implications and does not grant it any privilege from being scrutinized. Are you really that much of a blind follower?
He is the one with the record to defend, do you understand that? Members of the committee have a right to conduct an inquiry on a confirmation any way they please. That is not synonymous with a religious test. Most people in America who serve in government are christians, what the hell are you talking about?
I'm not a practicing Christian.
The issue here is Sanders at a minimum skirted dangerously close to a religious test if not edging his toes over the line. Vought's beliefs fall perfectly in line with a significant majority of Christians in the United States. To question him on believing what hundreds of millions of people in the country believe is very close to simply questioning his religion.
Religious tests for office are illegal. You can't preclude someone from taking office because of their beliefs and what he said is an accepted belief. Telling Christians that they are not allowed to believe that you can only achieve salvation through Jesus Christ is a blatant violation of freedom of religion and telling them they can't hold office because of their beliefs is an illegal religious test.
>I would use the same arguments against a muslims if similar statements were made about christians and jews.
Then you would very likely be accused of issuing a religious test. You'd be hard pressed to argue in the current political climate that they should be excluded from their office for that particular belief despite it obviously not being compatible with the basic tenets of American government and society at large.
Why is it a controversial belief and if it offends people why does that matter? Again, you're arguing for an exclusively atheist government.
Why is Amy Schumer trying to box?
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN. IF YOU MAKE A STATEMENT WHICH IS LEGITIMATELY OPEN TO SCRUTINY DURING A POLITICAL HEARING, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMEONE ON A POLITICAL COMITTEE DEEMS "MUH RELIGION" A VALID ARGUMENT AND DEFENSE OF THAT STATEMENT. HE HAS A RIGHT TO DISSENT AND VOTE NO. HIS JOB. HIS PREROGATIVE.
Fucking civics 101.
It is precisely the opposite. His christianity wasn't in question, his views of other faiths was.
Why is it a controversial thing to say?
>His christianity wasn't in question, his views of other faiths was.
If you're questioning the exclusivity of someone's faith you're questing their faith. As I said before forcing religions to peach that salvation is universal is a clear violation of freedom of religion.
Some professor had been fired from a school for writing some fluffy PC piece on standing in solidarity with muslims, a decision which this person agreed with on the premise that muslims "stand condemned" for not being christians. You don't have the privilege as a government official to represent other religions as "deficient". His faith was his business until he made it everybody's business on facebook. It is now being used against him by a person who disagrees with him politically. WOW WHAT A SHOCK EH!?
They don't get to enter Christian heaven because they're not Christian, I don't see the issue here. They have their own paradise to go to that kaffir can't, don't they?
>You don't have the privilege as a government official to represent other religions as "deficient".
Deficient of the qualities needed to enter Christian heaven, i.e being a Christian. WOWEE FRIEND, APPEARS TO BE A BIG SHOCK HUH?
Allowing religions to market themselves using public funds (including tax exemptions) is an establishment of religion.
He's there to work in government, not to proselytize. If he wants to do that he can stay in his Christian "university". The controversy is that he wrote a post defending a firing at a university of somebody who wrote some PC shit about muslims on the merits that they "STAND CONDEMNED". That is it. Inquiring and dissenting on that premise is still a right of said committee member seeing as it is a political hearing. So you tell me what the problem is.
I used to respect Bernie before he outed himself as just another transparent hypocrite and Clinton sellout.
Essentially every religion considers others deficient as a matter of doctrine, whether it's explicitly stated by a practitioner or implicit through their participation isn't relevant. As long as religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution then his beliefs can't be used to prevent him from holding office regardless of how public he makes them.
The topic of religious groups having tax exempt status isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
>He's there to work in government, not to proselytize
And wow look at that, another presupposition that he's there to proselytize in a government position due to the fact he expressed his freedom of thought and expression in an opinion piece defending his alma mater.
He didn't. When did he sell out? When he followed the customs of a political race and endorsed his competitor because the alternative would be 100000x times worse which it has proven to be? Fuck is wrong with you?
come'on /nupol/ i thought you were redpilled
Are you a leaf or a snowflake? What's the problem? You have still not been able to provide a single argument for why inquiring and dissenting on that premise is illegitimate.
So wait, a history of child abuse to inculcate counterfactual sentiments gives me license to transmit what are either actionable threats or frauds, just because of muh ghost landlord is real?
That shit has no place in the workplace.
>You have still not been able to provide a single argument for why inquiring and dissenting on that premise is illegitimate.
I've asked you probably close to 5 times now why holding the opinion that only Christians can go to Christian Heaven is an "inflammatory comment" because you've been saying that for a while without actually backing it up with anything substantive.
thegatewaypundit.com
If after listening to this direct soundbite you still believe Bernie should hold hold office. You need to read you fucking Constitution
*your* sorry for misspelling
It is pretty cut and dry, why is there any debate?
I'm honestly not in the mood to listen to the arguments militant atheists have been throwing around for years for the umpteenth time right now. If you want to bitch about the evils of the Vatican go find someone else to do it to.
Christfag gtfo
How is this not a Happening? For you Sup Forumsacs? You have a direct link with zero bias, this needs to be seen
I was talking about Protestants, actually.
The sentiment stands: actionable threats or frauds have no place in the workplace, especially not coming from the candidate for chairman of a budgetary office.
Corporate Republicans basically need to be killed to the last man.
The inflammatory part had to do with him saying that they are "condemned" for not being christians. You may disagree or agree with whether that really is inflammatory, but it still does not take away from it being a legitimate point to raise. From that point on it is subjective whether or not you believe that disqualifies someone to be a government official.
Fuck this kike, not only is it a religious text, he's trying to force the guy to deny his beliefs. Yes, any real Christian believes Muslims and Jews will go to hell unless they accept Jesus as their savior.
OP, I know what you're trying to do, but you made your post sound like the Constitution.
So to hold that government position he must be forced to either lie about his true faith (under oath) or to pick a more "tolerable" sect of Christianity.
Makes a whole lot of sense from your perspective, Sven.
Put the booze down and go take a nap, don't know what else to tell you.
The the constitution lays the framework for an acceptance of all religions as well as a separation of church and state so the church doesn't meddle in the affairs of policy.
No it is up to him to defend his record. Whether "it being a part of his faith" is a legitimate argument a defense is for respective member of the committee to decide upon individually. The viewpoint stands on its own merits. If you have to legitimize it by arguing that it is part of your faith than you may as well argue that the part of the bible which argues for killing homosexuals also is "part of your faith". Doesn't make it morally defensible. Just give it up. You lost the argument a long time ago.
This wasn't an argument because you apparently forgot yours at the door. It really has yet to begin since you can't explain why it's inflammatory.
Trump: "I'm a nationalist and globalist. im both"
I'm just reminding it to you that trump made this comment during his campaign, since no one remembers the first 100 retarded things trump said
slate.com
breitbart.com
Shekel status: denied
>slate com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/28/donald_trump_now_says_he_s_a_nationalist_and_a_globalist.html
archive.is
>dude just reduce carbon emissions by 30%
Fuck Bernie
Leave it to a Jew rat from Israel to use slate as there source
what hes saying shouldnt fucking matter
He's a scumbag and also senile.
If that religion wants to create laws based on their religious beliefs, or is a religion whose core tenants require believers to infringe on the rights of others (Islam for example), I absolutely think the government should discriminate against them.
Intolerance, authoritarianism, and religious fascism should not be tolerated. Look at countries where religious totalitarians have been allowed to take control of the running of the country, they're hellholes.
>it's in our Constitution to separate church and state
It literally isn't though.
So you're not comfortable with 85% of the world then? You racist momoogylistic bastard.
Or decline to state.
Bearing false witness against your neighbor, little man? 85% of the USA is NOMINALLY Christian. Why aren't you drinking bleach right now in atonement?
I don't think you understand the U.S. Constitution and how it applies to religion
You need to listen to Bernie 's words, this is a blatant affront on the Constitution. If you still support this man, after hearing his own words, you are the problem
Sauce?????
Really!!! When the pure truth is being handed to you, Bernie should not hold his Senatorial position after he said that! No Fucking Debate.
>if you aren't an atheist or a universalist faggot
This is mainstream and every single church in his country believes it, as do serious jews about most people there, and as muslims certainly do, but this faggot defends them
>feelings matter more than the law
In other words, you care so much about he believing you'll go to hell he should unconstitutionally be made into a second class citizen
My mistake it was actually in Vermont.
youtube.com
REALLY. YOU FUCKING BERNIE SUPPORTERS AFTER HEARING WHAT HE SAID, IF YOU STILL SUPPORT HIM YOU ARE THE MOTHERFUCKING PROBLEM YOU STUPID IGNORANT BITCHES!