Earlier this week, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) grilled Russell Vought, President Donald Trump's nominee for the position of Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, during Mr. Vought's confirmation hearings. Was it over Mr. Vought's economic views? Not really. The most significant grilling was over Mr. Vought's religious views, specifically his views regarding salvation for those outside of the Christian faith.
In early 2016, Mr. Vought's alma mater, Wheaton College, was rocked by controversy when one of its professors said Christians and Muslims worship "the same God." Mr. Vought defended Wheaton's statement of faith and its handling of the situation, saying (in an article for Resurgent magazine) that Muslims have a "deficient theology" and "do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned." Now this is certainly offensive talk in our postmodernist age of political correctness, but it's hardly surprising.
What Vought said is basic Christian doctrine. Doubt me? Read the New Testament. Let's start with John 3:18, where Jesus tells Nicodemus (and us): "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." There's also John 3:16, John 14:6, Romans 10:9-10 and 13, and on and on and on and on. The Bible is certainly offensive to many people. That's why many people have tried to destroy it (unsuccessfully) over the years, but the Bible (and Christianity) have been around for 2000 years. Vought's beliefs are well within the mainstream of Christian thought.
What's most distressing for our purposes, however, is that this line of questioning even came up! Has Senator Sanders not read the Constitution? Who cares what Vought believes regarding heaven, hell, salvation, and the like? It doesn't matter! The only vested interest the government has in someone's religious beliefs are whether those beliefs will drive a person to commit violence (that's actual violence, not the verbal hurt-your-feelings, micro-aggression nonsense so many college campuses are worried about) against their fellow citizens or call for some kind of insurrection against the government. That's it. A person can believe (and express his belief) in God, Allah, or the atheists' favorite "Flying Spaghetti Monster," and it shouldn't be a matter of consideration for the U.S. Senate.
The U.S. Constitution clearly states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article VI, Section 3). That means it's unconstitutional for a sitting U.S. Senator to consider an executive branch nominee's religious beliefs when deciding whether to consent to that person's nomination. For a senator to do otherwise shows (at best) ignorance of or (at worst) defiance of the Constitution of the United States. It also smells, in this case, of anti-Christian bigotry.
Are we going to respect that part of the Constitution or not? Clearly, Senator Sanders is not. And, for that reason, this American is glad he is not our President today.
14 comments:
The edited clip that you cite removes the opening part of the statement that Sanders was making. The original and fuller clip from the Huffington Post is at the link below.
Sanders is addressing the concerns raised in a letter sent by three organizations: 1) the Africa-America Institute, 2) Bend the Arc Jewish Action, and 3) the Muslim Advocates. The gist of the concern is Christian bigotry against minority American religions (not to mention agnostics and atheists) – a religious freedom issue (see Constitution).
As a representative of the American people in an openly pluralistic nation the notion of exceptionalism and exclusion by the majority against the minority is as old as the American Revolution and the Constitution. That a dominant religion, or practitioner, can fairly accommodate minority religious positions as a government official is a fair line of questioning. The broad arc of Christianity also includes more liberal positions than Mr. Vought expreses, that being that there is only one God and that all religions are expressions of that one God. The early church father, Justin Martyr, even believed that the Pagan philosopher Aristotle was describing the same God of New Testament Christianity.
Sanders was doing his sworn duty to “protect and defend” the Constitution in looking out for his constituent’s interests as equal citizens under the law. He was also being mindful of a religious pluralistic tradition that has kept religious wars and violent discriminatory actions from invading America’s soil (for reference see Old Europe). The kind of violent actions imparted to minority sects such as Baptists, among others, in Colonial America.
Also too, Atheists don’t believe in an actual “Flying Spaghetti Monster” in the sense of a God. That would make no sense. But, I guess, it’s a good laugh line.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-trump-nominee-muslims_us_59386779e4b0c5a35c9b9eb0
Let me add that I respect your conviction that Christian doctrine teaches Jews and Muslims worship different gods. By way of necessity your logic implies that Jews who don't believe Jesus God's Son worship a different god, just like Muslims.
However, when I note that folks like the key Founders believed Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God, I've been challenged when I intimate such conflicts with traditional Christian doctrine. And I have come to respect the challengers' assertions. Many traditional Christians, even if they are mistaken, do believe Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God, just like John Adams did.
"It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world."
-- John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.
Sanders is addressing the concerns raised in a letter sent by three organizations: 1) the Africa-America Institute, 2) Bend the Arc Jewish Action, and 3) the Muslim Advocates. The gist of the concern is Christian bigotry against minority American religions (not to mention agnostics and atheists) – a religious freedom issue (see Constitution).
Wonderfully obtuse.
Being theologically "bigoted" against other religions is part and parcel of the freedom of thought, freedom of belief, and free exercise of religion. As long as it doesn't cross into action there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.
By inquiring into privately held beliefs, Sanders certainly was flirting with the constitutional ban on imposing religious tests.
If Sanders was grilling a hostile Muslim, Jew or atheist, who was being considered for public office, about personal statements hostile and bigoted toward Christianity, you'd be cheering.
I accept your surrender of the actual argument.
If Sanders was grilling a hostile Muslim, Jew or atheist, who was being considered for public office, about personal statements hostile and bigoted toward Christianity, you'd be cheering.
And you're also misrepresenting the actual controversy, as was the witch-hunting Senator Sanders. It was Sanders who was hostile. Voight's remarks were specifically directed toward a theological controversy at Wheaton College, not even generally directed at Muslims [or Jews] themselves.
This is closer to the McCarthy hearings, poking through old blog writings: do you now or have you ever believed non-Christians will not be saved?
Disgraceful, but what we have come to expect from the anti-religious left. They know nothing of religion and why it was specifically protected in the Bill of Rights.
______________
Ultimately, Sanders announced he wouldn’t vote for Vought because Vought wouldn’t renounce his Christian faith. That’s a religious imposition — a religious test.
And it’s one that Sanders imposed.
Here’s how the fireworks went down.
Back in 2016, Vought wrote in the Resurgent, a conservative blog: “This is the fundamental problem. Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”
Sanders dragged that out and set it on the confirmation table as proof positive Vought was anti-Muslim.
He asked Vought if he thought that statement was Islamophobic. And Vought’s reply?
“Absolutely not,” he said. “I’m a Christian and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post … was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation.”
In other words: Hey Bernie, you’re not only taking the quote out of context. But you’re taking the quote out of context and trying to plop it into a a more general discussion about Islam as a whole.
The Atlantic — the left-leaning Atlantic, no less — put it this way: “Quoted in the context of his piece, Vought’s statement about Muslims carries a different meaning from what Sanders was implying: He was deconstructing [fired professor Larycia] Hawkins’ theological claims about the relationship between Islam and Christianity.”
Vought, as the Atlantic pointed, was simply trying to show Hawkins’ pro-Islam statements “created ‘serious theological confusion’ about ‘what it means to be in relationship with or know the one, true God.”
Sanders, of course, didn’t take that context into consideration and simply pulled out the part where Vought described the basic tenets of Christian belief — which as put forth in John in the Bible, where Jesus tells that “the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Sanders demanded explanation. And again, Vought explained, “Again, Senator, I’m a Christian and I wrote that piece …”
Annoyed, Sanders cut him off and asked whether he thought Jewish people ought to be condemned as well.
“Senator, I’m a Christian …” Vought said, again interrupted.
“I understand that you are a Christian,” Sanders yelled. “But this country is made up of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?”
The exchange went on for a bit, with Sanders thundering and Vought meekly replying — but in the end, the senator suggested that the belief that those who reject Jesus stand condemned is not “respectful of other religions.”
http://truthfeed.com/bernie-sanders-loses-his-sht-and-shreds-christianity/80371/
and Sanders DID yell
blob:http://video.foxnews.com/438d3f7a-2def-44b3-97f6-7277461219a6
“…witch-hunting Senator Sanders…”
Interesting. You know who actually hunted down and killed witches for century upon century?
“ “…and Sanders DID yell…”
Onward to the fainting couch.
Mr. Vought was not being responsive and was trying to run out the clock by endlessly repeating his prepared statement. Mr. Vought very easily could have demonstrated an understanding of his soterioloical beliefs as being independent from his secular obligations to all of the American people if confirmed to an office of the government. Sanders did not dismiss him for being Christian or orthodox, per se, but apparently judged Vought as someone that could create a hostile environment for minority religious positions based on an extremely rigid theological interpretation. We are in a period of expanding intolerance of Muslims, Jews and non-Christians generally, and as a legislator in the temporal realm Sanders has to be mindful of his role to protect the minority from the potential wrath of the majority.
Broadly speaking this is not a religious test but an individual judgement by an experienced legislator between two competing religious concerns. There is no broad-based or specific legislative religious test being imposed. I’m sure that Mr. Vought will do just fine if the majority of the committee judges him to be qualified.
And, Mr. Vought had exceeded a privately held belief and entered into the action of public debate.
You don't seem to understand what "free exercise" of religion means. Of course that means opining--on a blog--your theology!
And I wanted to make sure to make clear that the admittedly right-wing account didn't exaggerate. Sanders DID yell.
Mr. Vought very easily could have demonstrated an understanding of his soterioloical beliefs as being independent from his secular obligations to all of the American people
That is far more the hostile Senator Sanders' responsibility. A disgrace to his office.
Bible-believing Christians who express their theological beliefs in articles or blogs are NOT practicing any kind of legal or even political "exceptionalism and exclusion by the majority against the minority." It's frankly absurd to say otherwise.
Christians believe Jesus is God. Muslims do not. Ipso-facto, the Muslim conception of Allah is very different from the Christian understanding of God. How anyone can object to this observation or claim that it's somehow inappropriate for Mr. Vought to make in an article for a RELIGIOUS magazine is beyond me.
And for anyone to claim that Senator Sanders was right to question Mr. Vought's Christian beliefs (even his publicly expressed Christian beliefs - which he has a First Amendment right to do) shows how far we've descended as a society.
Well, the one thing JRB got right is it's a question of soteriology--since it was Muslims and Jews complaining, the controversy isn't really about God or who God is.
And the key historical fact being missed here by Sanders and anyone making excuses for him is that even among Christians, for example the Calvinists/Reformed believe in election, indeed "double predestination," which means some or even most putative Christians are going to hell too! Vought's theology dates to well before the Founding, it's not just some recent Rushdoonian "Christianist" innovation.
Sanders' inquisition could have taken place and would have been just as out of place in 1787! America has been living with people believing the other fellow's going to hell for centuries. We have all agreed to not let it affect how we go out the business of the state. Since at least Locke's elegant observation that the government can't save anyone's soul, government is to be concerned only with the concerns of this world and the concerns of the next must be left to the individual, or God Himself, as the case may be.
Post a Comment