Post by: renocat on June 11, 2017, 08:22:32 AM
This is worse than Hillary's deplorable comment about Christians. Bernie voted against a guy for OMB director because he is a Christian and would not conform his faith to align with political correct that have no God other than Humanism and it's Church of the Government. Vougt said he treats all people respectfully as required by his faith. Bernie called him a bigot.
Post by: puniraptor on June 12, 2017, 07:26:38 AM
Post by: camKSU on June 12, 2017, 08:09:32 AM
Bernie and some on the progressive left are fighting against extreme ignorance and literalism. If only there were more like them.
How much longer does Breitbart have? When 90% of your advertisers go elsewhere your days have to be numbered.
:clac:
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 12, 2017, 08:14:07 AM
Post by: camKSU on June 12, 2017, 08:42:34 AM
Jesus, Bernie's a quack.
Jesus, if real, is probably with bernie.
(Unless you subscribe to republican, gun-loving, low taxes, bigoted jesus)
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 12, 2017, 08:44:19 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2017, 08:50:03 AM
Post by: renocat on June 12, 2017, 01:32:25 PM
Bernie and his socialistic followers have no right to banish anyone from public service just because they are a principled Christian.
From the hearing:
Vought: “Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals…”
Sanders: “…Do you think that’s respectful of other religions?… I would simply say, Mr. Chairman that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”
Post by: michigancat on June 12, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
Post by: renocat on June 12, 2017, 01:54:25 PM
"I have friends who are gravely concerned about the future of religious liberty—the ability to hold the tenets of Christianity without being discriminated against. You might have very little sympathy for a group that has enjoyed all the benefits of a powerful majority for the history of our nation, but angry, animated insinuations that historical Christian beliefs are tantamount to bigotry and disqualifying for a federal department like the Office of Budget and Management are why some evangelicals fear a future onslaught on their beliefs."
Post by: star seed 7 on June 12, 2017, 02:27:14 PM
Post by: michigancat on June 12, 2017, 02:37:26 PM
My question is he going to apply the same test to a Muslim who believes their faith is the only true religion. The following quote captures the outrage of Christians
"I have friends who are gravely concerned about the future of religious liberty—the ability to hold the tenets of Christianity without being discriminated against. You might have very little sympathy for a group that has enjoyed all the benefits of a powerful majority for the history of our nation, but angry, animated insinuations that historical Christian beliefs are tantamount to bigotry and disqualifying for a federal department like the Office of Budget and Management are why some evangelicals fear a future onslaught on their beliefs."
Did Trump nominate any muslims? :dunno:
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2017, 03:07:51 PM
Post by: _33 on June 12, 2017, 05:09:39 PM
Post by: michigancat on June 12, 2017, 05:25:55 PM
I liked that Bernie was shocked and disgusted that a professed Christian would believe in the one thing that makes a person a Christian.I don't think considering Muslims to be "condemned" to be the one thing that makes a Christian a Christian.
Post by: SdK on June 12, 2017, 05:39:17 PM
Post by: _33 on June 13, 2017, 07:56:18 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 13, 2017, 08:18:28 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2017, 08:19:38 AM
How is Bernie like 90 years old and we just heard about him last year and now all libs think he's the saving grace to man kind? So weird and random. You say free crap and losers raise their ears everywhere. Pretty great platform if you ask me.
Hillary was just that bad.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 13, 2017, 08:29:09 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 13, 2017, 08:39:40 AM
Wackycat08, you're the only one who is has only recently heard of bernie sanders:lol: This might be the funniest thing I've read in a long time. 3/4 of the libtards on this board and beyond don't keep up with politics like you do, lib. Most of his voters like him because he looked like Larry David and he's going to give me free crap.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 13, 2017, 08:48:03 AM
Post by: puniraptor on June 13, 2017, 08:48:38 AM
Post by: sys on June 13, 2017, 09:07:53 AM
I don't think considering Muslims to be "condemned" to be the one thing that makes a Christian a Christian.
it's pretty damn core.
also i think pretty close to all religions believe that billions of people are clearly inferior*. it's almost impossible to be a religion without that.
* their beliefs
Post by: michigancat on June 13, 2017, 09:19:23 AM
I don't think considering Muslims to be "condemned" to be the one thing that makes a Christian a Christian.
it's pretty damn core.
also i think pretty close to all religions believe that billions of people are clearly inferior*. it's almost impossible to be a religion without that.
* their beliefs
Yeah it kind of is. But this guy specifically said Muslim beliefs aren't just inferior, but they're condemned because they're so bad. Like a level below your typical inferior believer. Not sure if that makes much of a difference or not! Regardless I think it's an interesting discussion.
Post by: renocat on June 13, 2017, 09:22:49 AM
Shock news! We are all condemned to go to hell.I liked that Bernie was shocked and disgusted that a professed Christian would believe in the one thing that makes a person a Christian.I don't think considering Muslims to be "condemned" to be the one thing that makes a Christian a Christian.
Post by: michigancat on June 13, 2017, 09:25:15 AM
I think you guys and Bernie are hung up on the word "condemned". What if the guy had said "I believe the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ." Would that have been objectionable to Bernie or was it the fact that he specifically singled out Muslims. Obviously you can read between the lines that since Muslims reject the divinity of Jesus they stand condemned but he wouldn't have come out and said it specifically.
Yeah singling out Muslims as being beyond inferior but condemned is totally different than the theoretical salvation quote. Conversely, would you have a problem if his Christian faith made him view blacks as condemned? I mean some version of that belief has been prevalent for most of our country's history.
He shouldn't have made that dumb blog post if he wanted to pursue a career in public service because words you choose matter.
Post by: camKSU on June 13, 2017, 09:25:53 AM
How is Bernie like 90 years old and we just heard about him last year and now all libs think he's the saving grace to man kind? So weird and random. You say free crap and losers raise their ears everywhere. Pretty great platform if you ask me.
Wacky... You're so rough ridin' stupid, it's honestly pretty funny and endearing. Like, you must be the hardest working, boot-strapper around to be able to overcome your insane level of stupidity.
Oh and BTW, Bernie is 75 (Trump, your hero, is 70) and has more stamina and intelligence in his pinky than trump does in his entire mushy blob.
Post by: sys on June 13, 2017, 09:39:11 AM
this guy specifically said Muslim beliefs aren't just inferior, but they're condemned because they're so bad. Like a level below your typical inferior believer. Not sure if that makes much of a difference or not!
condemned has a decent argument for being the opposite of saved. it's a far more precise word than inferior.
Post by: meow meow on June 13, 2017, 09:41:54 AM
How is Bernie like 90 years old and we just heard about him last year and now all libs think he's the saving grace to man kind? So weird and random. You say free crap and losers raise their ears everywhere. Pretty great platform if you ask me.
Wacky... You're so rough ridin' stupid, it's honestly pretty funny and endearing. Like, you must be the hardest working, boot-strapper around to be able to overcome your insane level of stupidity.
Oh and BTW, Bernie is 75 (Trump, your hero, is 70) and has more stamina and intelligence in his pinky than trump does in his entire mushy blob.
#triggered
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 13, 2017, 09:49:12 AM
:lol: So mad.How is Bernie like 90 years old and we just heard about him last year and now all libs think he's the saving grace to man kind? So weird and random. You say free crap and losers raise their ears everywhere. Pretty great platform if you ask me.
Wacky... You're so rough ridin' stupid, it's honestly pretty funny and endearing. Like, you must be the hardest working, boot-strapper around to be able to overcome your insane level of stupidity.
Oh and BTW, Bernie is 75 (Trump, your hero, is 70) and has more stamina and intelligence in his pinky than trump does in his entire mushy blob.
Post by: michigancat on June 13, 2017, 10:00:14 AM
this guy specifically said Muslim beliefs aren't just inferior, but they're condemned because they're so bad. Like a level below your typical inferior believer. Not sure if that makes much of a difference or not!
condemned has a decent argument for being the opposite of saved. it's a far more precise word than inferior.
Yes, "condemned" to me is much more harsh than "inferior" in addition to being more precise.
"Condemned" is also much more harsh than "not saved".
Also, could this guy have gotten away with his blog post if it had been about Jews being condemned? I doubt it.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2017, 10:08:45 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 13, 2017, 10:14:28 AM
Are you rough ridin' serious, or just bored? Do you really think bern made a point at all in that entire line of questioning?
I'm really enjoying watching the left become more and more fringe. Their understanding of freedom of religion is just juvenile.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 13, 2017, 10:30:34 AM
Nevermind their head-in-the-sand position on the kuran, it would be like a christian taking the position someone is unqualified for office because of their views regarding who is really to blame for the clone wars.
:lol:
Post by: camKSU on June 13, 2017, 10:46:18 AM
Sad.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 13, 2017, 11:13:24 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 13, 2017, 11:41:00 AM
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2017, 12:19:29 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2017, 12:23:06 PM
Good thing this country was founded as one nation under God.
Dwight added that to the pledge in the 50s.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 13, 2017, 12:25:42 PM
Christians really are the biggest snowflakes. So privileged and irreverent of other people. They legitimately believe the separation of church and state doesn't apply to them. For a group so afraid of sharia law they sure do force their beliefs into governance and legislation at any opportunity they get.
Sad.
See what I mean? Completely juvenile.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 13, 2017, 12:28:38 PM
Sad
Post by: camKSU on June 13, 2017, 12:58:10 PM
CAM just spews forth every conceivable form of broad brush prejudiceComing from you and FSD...
Sad
:ROFL:
Post by: camKSU on June 13, 2017, 01:03:26 PM
Good thing this country was founded as one nation under God.
Dwight added that to the pledge in the 50s.
As Rage, astutely (smartly, wacky) points out... "under god" and "in god we trust" didn't come around until the 50's. Capitalists, McCarthyists, and evangelical preachers teamed up to fight against multi-culturalism, atheism, and the new deal.
Why bother with facts or history tho?
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/396365659/how-one-nation-didnt-become-under-god-until-the-50s-religious-revival (http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/396365659/how-one-nation-didnt-become-under-god-until-the-50s-religious-revival)
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 13, 2017, 01:39:48 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 13, 2017, 02:03:40 PM
Good thing this country was founded as one nation under God.
wow
Post by: star seed 7 on June 13, 2017, 02:33:09 PM
Cam, the 1st amendment is about the gov not making any church or religion the official state religion. It means you can't force people to tithe or endorse one faith or another in order to hold office. Its also about the protection of worshipers of either Jesus or Alah or whomever can do so without government interference. It doesn't mean that if you hold the belief that one faith is more true than another then you cannot serve on as a public figure. That's where Sanders was treading on thin ice. He essentially said "your religion, do you believe it to be more true than others?" and if the answer was yes then he was going to go after him a bit.
Do you want a representative that believes (contrary to the constitution) that one person is inferior to another based solely on religious belief?
The "thin ice" is when you legislate legal discrimination under the guise of "religious liberty"
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 13, 2017, 02:40:42 PM
Cam, the 1st amendment is about the gov not making any church or religion the official state religion. It means you can't force people to tithe or endorse one faith or another in order to hold office. Its also about the protection of worshipers of either Jesus or Alah or whomever can do so without government interference. It doesn't mean that if you hold the belief that one faith is more true than another then you cannot serve on as a public figure. That's where Sanders was treading on thin ice. He essentially said "your religion, do you believe it to be more true than others?" and if the answer was yes then he was going to go after him a bit.
Do you want a representative that believes (contrary to the constitution) that one person is inferior to another based solely on religious belief?
The "thin ice" is when you legislate legal discrimination under the guise of "religious liberty"
of course not. I'm not sure where you're getting the word inferior from. If the conclusion that someone made was "my religion is more true, therefore other people are not due the the same rights etc. I am" then I would not want that person to serve.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 13, 2017, 02:51:53 PM
Cam, the 1st amendment is about the gov not making any church or religion the official state religion. It means you can't force people to tithe or endorse one faith or another in order to hold office. Its also about the protection of worshipers of either Jesus or Alah or whomever can do so without government interference. It doesn't mean that if you hold the belief that one faith is more true than another then you cannot serve on as a public figure. That's where Sanders was treading on thin ice. He essentially said "your religion, do you believe it to be more true than others?" and if the answer was yes then he was going to go after him a bit.
Do you want a representative that believes (contrary to the constitution) that one person is inferior to another based solely on religious belief?
The "thin ice" is when you legislate legal discrimination under the guise of "religious liberty"
See, really rough ridin' juvenile.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 13, 2017, 02:53:16 PM
Quote
3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Post by: michigancat on June 13, 2017, 03:24:32 PM
Cam, the 1st amendment is about the gov not making any church or religion the official state religion. It means you can't force people to tithe or endorse one faith or another in order to hold office. Its also about the protection of worshipers of either Jesus or Alah or whomever can do so without government interference. It doesn't mean that if you hold the belief that one faith is more true than another then you cannot serve on as a public figure. That's where Sanders was treading on thin ice. He essentially said "your religion, do you believe it to be more true than others?" and if the answer was yes then he was going to go after him a bit.
Do you want a representative that believes (contrary to the constitution) that one person is inferior to another based solely on religious belief?
The "thin ice" is when you legislate legal discrimination under the guise of "religious liberty"
of course not. I'm not sure where you're getting the word inferior from. If the conclusion that someone made was "my religion is more true, therefore other people are not due the the same rights etc. I am" then I would not want that person to serve.
I mean, this all started because the guy was arguing that a woman was justifiably fired solely because of her religious beliefs.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 13, 2017, 03:27:21 PM
Post by: camKSU on June 13, 2017, 03:32:46 PM
Cam, the 1st amendment is about the gov not making any church or religion the official state religion. It means you can't force people to tithe or endorse one faith or another in order to hold office. Its also about the protection of worshipers of either Jesus or Alah or whomever can do so without government interference. It doesn't mean that if you hold the belief that one faith is more true than another then you cannot serve on as a public figure. That's where Sanders was treading on thin ice. He essentially said "your religion, do you believe it to be more true than others?" and if the answer was yes then he was going to go after him a bit.
Do you want a representative that believes (contrary to the constitution) that one person is inferior to another based solely on religious belief?
The "thin ice" is when you legislate legal discrimination under the guise of "religious liberty"
See, really rough ridin' juvenile.
someone who makes me uncomfortable. :Crybaby:
:facepalm:
Post by: DQ12 on June 13, 2017, 03:33:07 PM
"I think my religion is right. I think others are wrong." - OMB guy
"Do you think that's respectful of other religions?" - Bernie
uh, what?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2017, 03:39:06 PM
michigancat i have no idea what you're referring to
He's referring to the article below.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/10/omb-top-post-nominee-berned-stake-christian-faith/
This is worse than Hillary's deplorable comment about Christians. Bernie voted against a guy for OMB director because he is a Christian and would not conform his faith to align with political correct that have no God other than Humanism and it's Church of the Government. Vougt said he treats all people respectfully as required by his faith. Bernie called him a bigot.
Quote
Sanders pointed to an article Vought wrote in January 2016 about Dr. Larycia Hawkins, a political science professor at Wheaton College, Vought’s alma mater, who was placed on administrative leave after wearing a hijab to support Muslims. Hawkins had consulted with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) prior to donning the hijab. In a Facebook post, she had also suggested that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
Vought took issue with Hawkins’ post in a piece at the Resurgent, from which Sanders quoted.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 13, 2017, 03:42:34 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2017, 03:47:40 PM
The Hawkins thing? That is a heck of a lot different for like, 1000 reasons.
Care to name a few?
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2017, 03:47:55 PM
Good thing this country was founded as one nation under God.
Dwight added that to the pledge in the 50s.
Go look at the Declaration then.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 13, 2017, 03:49:15 PM
The Hawkins thing? That is a heck of a lot different for like, 1000 reasons.
Care to name a few?
um, Wheaton College is a private school and not a part of the federal government, for starters.
Post by: DQ12 on June 13, 2017, 03:51:12 PM
The woman fired was a Christian professor at a private, Christian college. She wore a hijab in the aftermath of the Paris and San Bernadino shootings in an effort to show solidarity with muslims and suggested that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. She was apparently placed on leave because of her vague statement on the theological relationship between Christians and Muslims.Cam, the 1st amendment is about the gov not making any church or religion the official state religion. It means you can't force people to tithe or endorse one faith or another in order to hold office. Its also about the protection of worshipers of either Jesus or Alah or whomever can do so without government interference. It doesn't mean that if you hold the belief that one faith is more true than another then you cannot serve on as a public figure. That's where Sanders was treading on thin ice. He essentially said "your religion, do you believe it to be more true than others?" and if the answer was yes then he was going to go after him a bit.
Do you want a representative that believes (contrary to the constitution) that one person is inferior to another based solely on religious belief?
The "thin ice" is when you legislate legal discrimination under the guise of "religious liberty"
of course not. I'm not sure where you're getting the word inferior from. If the conclusion that someone made was "my religion is more true, therefore other people are not due the the same rights etc. I am" then I would not want that person to serve.
I mean, this all started because the guy was arguing that a woman was justifiably fired solely because of her religious beliefs.
In other words, it's not like her employer found out she was a Muslim and fired her for it. Her employer, a private religious college, disapproved of the message she vaguely sent which apparently contradicted the school's teaching.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2017, 03:51:42 PM
The Hawkins thing? That is a heck of a lot different for like, 1000 reasons.
Care to name a few?
um, Wheaton College is a private school and not a part of the federal government, for starters.
Wheaton College is allowed to fire her. That doesn't mean that they should or that somebody who supports them firing her should be involved in government.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 13, 2017, 03:53:32 PM
Quote
The mission statement of Wheaton College Graduate School is "To form servant scholars and leaders through exceptional graduate programs for Christ and His Kingdom. The vision statement is: God transforming the world through scholars and practitioners rooted in Christ and equipped for global leadership."
You can think they are intolerant, and you can think Hawkins was treated unjustly. I get that viewpoint, but the federal government should be run a little different than a private liberal arts college that is overtly religious.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2017, 03:56:07 PM
The woman fired was a Christian professor at a private, Christian college. She wore a hijab in the aftermath of the Paris and San Bernadino shootings in an effort to show solidarity with muslims and suggested that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. She was apparently placed on leave because of her vague statement on the theological relationship between Christians and Muslims.Cam, the 1st amendment is about the gov not making any church or religion the official state religion. It means you can't force people to tithe or endorse one faith or another in order to hold office. Its also about the protection of worshipers of either Jesus or Alah or whomever can do so without government interference. It doesn't mean that if you hold the belief that one faith is more true than another then you cannot serve on as a public figure. That's where Sanders was treading on thin ice. He essentially said "your religion, do you believe it to be more true than others?" and if the answer was yes then he was going to go after him a bit.
Do you want a representative that believes (contrary to the constitution) that one person is inferior to another based solely on religious belief?
The "thin ice" is when you legislate legal discrimination under the guise of "religious liberty"
of course not. I'm not sure where you're getting the word inferior from. If the conclusion that someone made was "my religion is more true, therefore other people are not due the the same rights etc. I am" then I would not want that person to serve.
I mean, this all started because the guy was arguing that a woman was justifiably fired solely because of her religious beliefs.
In other words, it's not like her employer found out she was a Muslim and fired her for it. Her employer, a private religious college, disapproved of the message she vaguely sent which apparently contradicted the school's teaching.
So being fired for your religious beliefs is ok as long as your beliefs don't completely match up with the church you belong to?
Post by: michigancat on June 13, 2017, 03:58:20 PM
the federal government should be run a little different than a private liberal arts college that is overtly religious.
Yeah, that's the point.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2017, 03:58:51 PM
I mean, you don't have to agree with it, but Wheaton is overtly Christian. Like everything on their website is Jesus this and Christ that and on and on and onQuoteThe mission statement of Wheaton College Graduate School is "To form servant scholars and leaders through exceptional graduate programs for Christ and His Kingdom. The vision statement is: God transforming the world through scholars and practitioners rooted in Christ and equipped for global leadership."
You can think they are intolerant, and you can think Hawkins was treated unjustly. I get that viewpoint, but the federal government should be run a little different than a private liberal arts college that is overtly religious.
If you want the Federal Government run differently than Wheaton College, then it's probably a good idea to not put people who support the way the college is run into the Federal Government positions.
Post by: DQ12 on June 13, 2017, 03:59:57 PM
I think so. You tell me:The woman fired was a Christian professor at a private, Christian college. She wore a hijab in the aftermath of the Paris and San Bernadino shootings in an effort to show solidarity with muslims and suggested that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. She was apparently placed on leave because of her vague statement on the theological relationship between Christians and Muslims.Cam, the 1st amendment is about the gov not making any church or religion the official state religion. It means you can't force people to tithe or endorse one faith or another in order to hold office. Its also about the protection of worshipers of either Jesus or Alah or whomever can do so without government interference. It doesn't mean that if you hold the belief that one faith is more true than another then you cannot serve on as a public figure. That's where Sanders was treading on thin ice. He essentially said "your religion, do you believe it to be more true than others?" and if the answer was yes then he was going to go after him a bit.
Do you want a representative that believes (contrary to the constitution) that one person is inferior to another based solely on religious belief?
The "thin ice" is when you legislate legal discrimination under the guise of "religious liberty"
of course not. I'm not sure where you're getting the word inferior from. If the conclusion that someone made was "my religion is more true, therefore other people are not due the the same rights etc. I am" then I would not want that person to serve.
I mean, this all started because the guy was arguing that a woman was justifiably fired solely because of her religious beliefs.
In other words, it's not like her employer found out she was a Muslim and fired her for it. Her employer, a private religious college, disapproved of the message she vaguely sent which apparently contradicted the school's teaching.
So being fired for your religious beliefs is ok as long as your beliefs don't completely match up with the church you belong to?
If a Christian College wants to impart upon its students a classic protestant theological education, should the college have to employ a professor who is intent on teaching something other than classic protestant theology? That makes sense to you?
What if a Christian biology professor at K-State is intent on teaching creationism in his biology class? And when he's dismissed says "oh okay you're firing me because of my religion?"
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2017, 04:02:17 PM
I think so. You tell me:The woman fired was a Christian professor at a private, Christian college. She wore a hijab in the aftermath of the Paris and San Bernadino shootings in an effort to show solidarity with muslims and suggested that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. She was apparently placed on leave because of her vague statement on the theological relationship between Christians and Muslims.Cam, the 1st amendment is about the gov not making any church or religion the official state religion. It means you can't force people to tithe or endorse one faith or another in order to hold office. Its also about the protection of worshipers of either Jesus or Alah or whomever can do so without government interference. It doesn't mean that if you hold the belief that one faith is more true than another then you cannot serve on as a public figure. That's where Sanders was treading on thin ice. He essentially said "your religion, do you believe it to be more true than others?" and if the answer was yes then he was going to go after him a bit.
Do you want a representative that believes (contrary to the constitution) that one person is inferior to another based solely on religious belief?
The "thin ice" is when you legislate legal discrimination under the guise of "religious liberty"
of course not. I'm not sure where you're getting the word inferior from. If the conclusion that someone made was "my religion is more true, therefore other people are not due the the same rights etc. I am" then I would not want that person to serve.
I mean, this all started because the guy was arguing that a woman was justifiably fired solely because of her religious beliefs.
In other words, it's not like her employer found out she was a Muslim and fired her for it. Her employer, a private religious college, disapproved of the message she vaguely sent which apparently contradicted the school's teaching.
So being fired for your religious beliefs is ok as long as your beliefs don't completely match up with the church you belong to?
If a Christian College wants to impart upon its students a classic protestant theological education, should the college have to employ a professor who is intent on teaching something other than classic protestant theology? That makes sense to you?
The college hired her to teach political science. If she wants to wear a hijab while teaching the class and reveal that she doesn't agree with all of the school's teaching on her facebook page, I think the school should be ok with that.
Post by: DQ12 on June 13, 2017, 04:04:06 PM
Gonna have to agree to disagree here, Cam. We see this differently.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 13, 2017, 04:07:19 PM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 13, 2017, 04:35:10 PM
the federal government should be run a little different than a private liberal arts college that is overtly religious.
Yeah, that's the point.
Which is why Sanders was out of line
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2017, 04:41:44 PM
I would definitely have a problem with a biology teacher being fired for wearing a cross and expressing creationism views on a private Facebook account
I would, but I also wouldn't have a problem with a school seeing creationist posts and choosing not to hire that person to teach biology.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 13, 2017, 04:53:37 PM
I mean, you don't have to agree with it, but Wheaton is overtly Christian. Like everything on their website is Jesus this and Christ that and on and on and onQuoteThe mission statement of Wheaton College Graduate School is "To form servant scholars and leaders through exceptional graduate programs for Christ and His Kingdom. The vision statement is: God transforming the world through scholars and practitioners rooted in Christ and equipped for global leadership."
You can think they are intolerant, and you can think Hawkins was treated unjustly. I get that viewpoint, but the federal government should be run a little different than a private liberal arts college that is overtly religious.
If you want the Federal Government run differently than Wheaton College, then it's probably a good idea to not put people who support the way the college is run into the Federal Government positions.
You are missing the point
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 13, 2017, 04:54:16 PM
Post by: michigancat on June 13, 2017, 05:31:17 PM
the federal government should be run a little different than a private liberal arts college that is overtly religious.
Yeah, that's the point.
Which is why Sanders was out of line
Or, why he hit the nail on the head.
Post by: chum1 on June 13, 2017, 06:00:03 PM
Post by: SdK on June 13, 2017, 06:49:41 PM
Post by: renocat on June 13, 2017, 07:36:51 PM
I think condemned to a Christian means burn in hell.Christianity teaches when Adam and Eve committed the original sin, mankind was condemned to hell or separation from God for eternity. Jesus died on the cross as a penalty for sin that has been committed past, present, and in the future by mankind. Because of Jesus action, God forgives anyone who believes Jesus is their savior. Muslims don't believe this. So condemned just like anyone else who doesn't believe Jesus is their savior.
Sadly, some Christians do things in the name of Jesus that are not in line with his teachings. Example, Spanish insurrection.
Heathens bring their humanistic religious values with them when they serve in government, and cannot argue that these views shape their actions. Government reflects the mores and beliefs of all citizens. Excluding Christians is religious bigotry.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 13, 2017, 08:04:11 PM
A non-muslim teacher wearing a muslim costume the day after muslim terrorists kill a bunch of people in the name of islam cannot be a basis for firing said teacher from a privately funded religious university because religious intolerance (i.e., serial poor judgment).
However, a christian bureaucrat who does not think non-christians will go to heaven should be denied a post in the federal government because of his religious beliefs (i.e., religious intolerance), even though article vi, clause 3 of the constitution expressly forbids such person from being denied such post on said basis.
Finally, bernie sanders is still a fucktard blindly defended by his pius socialist disciples.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 13, 2017, 08:21:07 PM
CSaCOTP
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 14, 2017, 07:56:20 AM
Post by: camKSU on June 14, 2017, 08:16:12 AM
Looks like another Federal investigation is headed towards ProgLib hero Bernie Sanders and family.
Where did you read that at, Dax?
Infowars? Breitbart? Some militant preppers facebook group?
:jeffy:
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 14, 2017, 08:26:55 AM
Looks like another Federal investigation is headed towards ProgLib hero Bernie Sanders and family.
Where did you read that at, Dax?
Infowars? Breitbart? Some militant preppers facebook group?
:jeffy:
Well CAMspittle Mrs. Sanders is already under Federal Investigation for her financial malfeasance at Burlington College.
Now it seems the daughter/stepdaughter benefited from another sweetheart deal involving the defunct Burlington College and a woodworking school the college "invested" in while Mrs. Sanders was lying about contributions etc etc.
You Bernie lovers will just have to see if the FBI expands their current investigation.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 14, 2017, 08:28:37 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 14, 2017, 08:32:53 AM
Hopefully Mrs. Sanders goes down.
Apparently the Sanderites are really hounding the college Pres who took over from Mrs. Sanders and unknowingly fell into the crushing debt Mrs. Sanders saddled the college with.
Not a very ProgLib ideal, but the quest for political power always comes first in ProgLib land.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 14, 2017, 08:36:48 AM
Hopefully Mrs. Sanders goes down.I highly doubt she does. Mr. Sanders looks like the crypt keeper. :Keke:
Post by: camKSU on June 14, 2017, 09:14:31 AM
Looks like another Federal investigation is headed towards ProgLib hero Bernie Sanders and family.
Where did you read that at, Dax?
Infowars? Breitbart? Some militant preppers facebook group?
:jeffy:
Well CAM... blah blah blah.... libtard... blah blah blah... SOCIALISTS!!!!!... blah blah blah... #chemtrails.... blah blah blah... #sandyhoax.
So you're not going to answer the question? You and Jeff Sessions. :shakesfist:
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 14, 2017, 09:38:21 AM
(https://media.tenor.com/images/d3ab39405ffb94d8494592324b63beb1/tenor.gif)
Post by: star seed 7 on June 14, 2017, 09:43:36 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 14, 2017, 09:48:35 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 14, 2017, 10:01:35 AM
Post by: sys on June 14, 2017, 10:08:19 AM
Which is why Sanders was out of line
Or, why he hit the nail on the head.
[/quote]
i'm pretty sure i recall you agreeing that religions mostly view non-adherents as consigned to a lesser spiritual path. so i don't see how you can now reconcile the position that people that think non-adherents are consigned to a lesser spiritual path shouldn't be government officials with the constitutional protection for government officials to practice the religion of their choice.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 14, 2017, 11:15:25 AM
https://vtdigger.org/2017/06/13/one-family-two-schools-questions-swirl-around-another-sanders-deal/
Post by: michigancat on June 14, 2017, 12:17:53 PM
[/quote]Which is why Sanders was out of line
Or, why he hit the nail on the head.
i'm pretty sure i recall you agreeing that religions mostly view non-adherents as consigned to a lesser spiritual path. so i don't see how you can now reconcile the position that people that think non-adherents are consigned to a lesser spiritual path shouldn't be government officials with the constitutional protection for government officials to practice the religion of their choice.
[/quote]
What makes this different than just having believing his faith is the right one is this guy has a blog post about how another religion is "condemned" and in the same article said it's OK to fire someone for their religious beliefs. Yeah, a christian college and the federal government are different, but this guy had an opportunity to differentiate the two and didn't.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 14, 2017, 12:32:48 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 14, 2017, 01:08:11 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 14, 2017, 03:29:43 PM
Rage is just a dumbfuck saying dumbfuck things "like religion means your more inclined to prejudice", which would of course implicitly disqualify virtually every politician ever from holding office.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 14, 2017, 03:32:33 PM
Rusty has walked into a logical dead end per usual, and has relegates himself to semantical arguments per usual.
Rage is just a dumbfuck saying dumbfuck things "like religion means your more inclined to prejudice", which would of course implicitly disqualify virtually every politician ever from holding office.
Religion doesn't make you more inclined to prejudice. I wouldn't believe this guy to be prejudiced if he didn't write a long blog post detailing how he is prejudiced.
Post by: michigancat on June 14, 2017, 04:15:53 PM
I think he is highly likely to discriminate against non-Christians, based upon what he wrote in his blog piece. I doubt he is dumb enough to fire a Muslim for being Muslim, but I think it's unlikely any Muslims will be getting jobs or promotions under him.
^yep
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 14, 2017, 04:22:10 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 14, 2017, 04:34:33 PM
That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.
No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.
Post by: DQ12 on June 14, 2017, 04:40:23 PM
There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing. It's a private religious school. They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share. If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her.That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.
No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.
I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 14, 2017, 04:47:40 PM
There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing. It's a private religious school. They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share. If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her.That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.
No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.
I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.
Well, I believe that discrimination is wrong even when it is legal, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 14, 2017, 04:58:53 PM
https://twitter.com/KassyDillon/status/875079423862726659
Post by: DQ12 on June 14, 2017, 05:02:06 PM
Yeah but I don't view that as "discrimination." At least not discrimination in any wrongful sense.There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing. It's a private religious school. They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share. If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her.That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.
No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.
I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.
Well, I believe that discrimination is wrong even when it is legal, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
I don't think a private institution should have to employ someone who is sending a different message than that private institution wants to send. That seems unfair. Maybe that's where we disagree.
Let me use an example that is extreme, but i think still analogous. Let's say we have a catholic high school math teacher who, one day, decides he wants to show his devotion to satan by getting a large visible forearm tattoo of Beelzebub himself, complete with "666" underneath and a nice big heart around it. Students can see the tattoo. It's wrong for the school to say "wtf" and part ways with him?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 14, 2017, 05:09:10 PM
Yeah but I don't view that as "discrimination." At least not discrimination in any wrongful sense.
I don't think a private institution should have to employ someone who is sending a different message than that private institution wants to send. That seems unfair. Maybe that's where we disagree.
Let me use an example that is extreme, but i think still analogous. Let's say we have a catholic high school math teacher who, one day, decides he wants to show his devotion to satan by getting a large visible forearm tattoo of Beelzebub himself, complete with "666" underneath and a nice big heart around it. Students can see the tattoo. It's wrong for the school to say "wtf" and part ways with him?
Yes. If he uses his classroom time to try to convert the students to satanism, refuses to participate in any religious activities that might be a condition of his employment, etc, then I think the school would be right to fire him. Firing him for having a tattoo so that the someone who makes me uncomfortable parents can send their kids to a safe space is wrong, though. I do agree that it is legal for the school to fire him and support their right to do so. I just wouldn't support the school actually firing him.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, imo. I can't justify something being wrong for one person to do and right for somebody else only because the other person happens to be a Christian employer.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 14, 2017, 05:21:11 PM
Post by: michigancat on June 14, 2017, 05:26:59 PM
Yeah but I don't view that as "discrimination." At least not discrimination in any wrongful sense.There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing. It's a private religious school. They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share. If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her.That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.
No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.
I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.
Well, I believe that discrimination is wrong even when it is legal, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
I don't think a private institution should have to employ someone who is sending a different message than that private institution wants to send. That seems unfair. Maybe that's where we disagree.
Let me use an example that is extreme, but i think still analogous. Let's say we have a catholic high school math teacher who, one day, decides he wants to show his devotion to satan by getting a large visible forearm tattoo of Beelzebub himself, complete with "666" underneath and a nice big heart around it. Students can see the tattoo. It's wrong for the school to say "wtf" and part ways with him?
taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 14, 2017, 08:24:11 PM
All you've done is tacitly admit you're prejudiced against all Christians by taking these absurd conjectural positions to create a pretext to advance your deep seated belief that Christians are inellectually inferior and predisposed to prejudice. Which means, by your own standard, you and bern and every other like minded cognitive dissonance ignorant nut is not fit for office.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 14, 2017, 08:28:29 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 14, 2017, 09:44:25 PM
Post by: michigancat on June 14, 2017, 09:47:06 PM
It's a mirror, you dolt
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 07:16:01 AM
Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?
I don't know how catholic schools operate, but if the teacher had signed a moral clause to remain celibate then the school would be within their rights to fire her. There are churches where you have to sign agreements not to drink alcohol etc. I doubt those clauses exist for catholic schools, but if the requirement to work there is stated clearly then the school is within their rights.
taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?
I think that is a stretch and a different scenario, because you are then talking about a people group and not a faith system. Those are very different. But if you sign up to teach at KKK University and then are fired for that blacks are not inferior, yeah, I'm fine with KKK University firing you. Why the eff would you want to teach at a private school that's core value system is based upon something you feel is oppressive or untrue or immoral?
Vought's position is one based on faith, not race, and therein lies the difference.
I guess I draw the line in that a religious organization that employs people to teach a specific theology and dogma has the right to expect teachers they employee to adhere to that dogma and theology. An Islamic school who employed a teacher who started wearing a cross and stating that Jesus is Lord or whatever would be 100% justified in firing that person. I mean, if you agree to a standard of living as part of your employment that's part of a job. Sure you have a legal right to grow a beard or get a face tattoo and are free to do so as your expression, but certain jobs forbid that as a clause to employment.
Post by: renocat on June 15, 2017, 07:47:57 AM
"I’m not the most religious of folks. I don’t know if heaven exists. But if it does, then everybody has the right to eternal life there. Nobody should be “condemned” just because he doesn’t have enough money or the right skin color or doesn’t believe in the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whoever God is, I am certain that he/she/zir will save everyone, and nothing will ever convince me otherwise, not even God explicitly telling me that those who reject the salvation of Jesus will not be saved.?
Post by: michigancat on June 15, 2017, 08:02:54 AM
Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?
I don't know how catholic schools operate, but if the teacher had signed a moral clause to remain celibate then the school would be within their rights to fire her. There are churches where you have to sign agreements not to drink alcohol etc. I doubt those clauses exist for catholic schools, but if the requirement to work there is stated clearly then the school is within their rights.taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?
I think that is a stretch and a different scenario, because you are then talking about a people group and not a faith system. Those are very different. But if you sign up to teach at KKK University and then are fired for that blacks are not inferior, yeah, I'm fine with KKK University firing you. Why the eff would you want to teach at a private school that's core value system is based upon something you feel is oppressive or untrue or immoral?
Vought's position is one based on faith, not race, and therein lies the difference.
I guess I draw the line in that a religious organization that employs people to teach a specific theology and dogma has the right to expect teachers they employee to adhere to that dogma and theology. An Islamic school who employed a teacher who started wearing a cross and stating that Jesus is Lord or whatever would be 100% justified in firing that person. I mean, if you agree to a standard of living as part of your employment that's part of a job. Sure you have a legal right to grow a beard or get a face tattoo and are free to do so as your expression, but certain jobs forbid that as a clause to employment.
You're totally missing the point. No one is saying Wheaton or KKKU didn't have the right to fire this woman - they absolutely did. The issue is whether or not you let someone who shares that philosophy and went on the record supporting it hold an appointed position of power in government.
Also I was thinking more of the Mormons who banned black clergy until 1978. They used their faith to justify it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_priesthood_(LDS)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 08:07:46 AM
Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?
I don't know how catholic schools operate, but if the teacher had signed a moral clause to remain celibate then the school would be within their rights to fire her. There are churches where you have to sign agreements not to drink alcohol etc. I doubt those clauses exist for catholic schools, but if the requirement to work there is stated clearly then the school is within their rights.taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?
I think that is a stretch and a different scenario, because you are then talking about a people group and not a faith system. Those are very different. But if you sign up to teach at KKK University and then are fired for that blacks are not inferior, yeah, I'm fine with KKK University firing you. Why the eff would you want to teach at a private school that's core value system is based upon something you feel is oppressive or untrue or immoral?
Vought's position is one based on faith, not race, and therein lies the difference.
I guess I draw the line in that a religious organization that employs people to teach a specific theology and dogma has the right to expect teachers they employee to adhere to that dogma and theology. An Islamic school who employed a teacher who started wearing a cross and stating that Jesus is Lord or whatever would be 100% justified in firing that person. I mean, if you agree to a standard of living as part of your employment that's part of a job. Sure you have a legal right to grow a beard or get a face tattoo and are free to do so as your expression, but certain jobs forbid that as a clause to employment.
Cartier, do you think a good person would ever fire a woman because she got pregnant?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 08:34:28 AM
Post by: meow meow on June 15, 2017, 08:39:54 AM
If Donald Trump appoints Fred Phelps to a cabinet position, is it religious discrimination to bring up his hatred of gay people as a reason you won't be voting for him?
i would lmao if Trump appointed a dead person to a cabinet position
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 08:41:39 AM
I forgot he died.
Post by: meow meow on June 15, 2017, 08:44:37 AM
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 15, 2017, 08:46:00 AM
Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?
I don't know how catholic schools operate, but if the teacher had signed a moral clause to remain celibate then the school would be within their rights to fire her. There are churches where you have to sign agreements not to drink alcohol etc. I doubt those clauses exist for catholic schools, but if the requirement to work there is stated clearly then the school is within their rights.taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?
I think that is a stretch and a different scenario, because you are then talking about a people group and not a faith system. Those are very different. But if you sign up to teach at KKK University and then are fired for that blacks are not inferior, yeah, I'm fine with KKK University firing you. Why the eff would you want to teach at a private school that's core value system is based upon something you feel is oppressive or untrue or immoral?
Vought's position is one based on faith, not race, and therein lies the difference.
I guess I draw the line in that a religious organization that employs people to teach a specific theology and dogma has the right to expect teachers they employee to adhere to that dogma and theology. An Islamic school who employed a teacher who started wearing a cross and stating that Jesus is Lord or whatever would be 100% justified in firing that person. I mean, if you agree to a standard of living as part of your employment that's part of a job. Sure you have a legal right to grow a beard or get a face tattoo and are free to do so as your expression, but certain jobs forbid that as a clause to employment.
Cartier, do you think a good person would ever fire a woman because she got pregnant?
I think a good person could, depends on the woman. Christianity espouses forgiveness. If the woman was repentant I think it would be Christian to forgive.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 15, 2017, 08:50:22 AM
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 15, 2017, 08:53:26 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 08:56:27 AM
all i can picture now is dead corpse Freddy Phelps sitting in a nice chair at the capitol and Trump behind him moving Fred's arms and lips and talking out of the side of his mouth
I think Donald would be having a nice conversation with him about how much he loves evangelicals while somebody else (probably Spicer) got weekend at Freddy's duty.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 08:58:11 AM
I think a good person could, depends on the woman. Christianity espouses forgiveness. If the woman was repentant I think it would be Christian to forgive.
It would be Christian to forgive, regardless.
Post by: Gooch on June 15, 2017, 09:00:43 AM
Good way to double down on a mistake.Or simply make a choice about your body and correcting what you feel was a mistake.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 09:02:44 AM
Good way to double down on a mistake.Or simply make a choice about your body and correcting what you feel was a mistake.
In this case, it would be more about making a choice so the assholes you work for don't fire you.
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 15, 2017, 09:08:24 AM
I think a good person could, depends on the woman. Christianity espouses forgiveness. If the woman was repentant I think it would be Christian to forgive.
It would be Christian to forgive, regardless.
I think a good person could personally forgive her and still do their job and fire her.
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 15, 2017, 09:09:17 AM
Good way to double down on a mistake.Or simply make a choice about your body and correcting what you feel was a mistake.
Murder is never correct.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 09:09:39 AM
I think a good person could, depends on the woman. Christianity espouses forgiveness. If the woman was repentant I think it would be Christian to forgive.
It would be Christian to forgive, regardless.
I think a good person could personally forgive her and still do their job and fire her.
I don't think so, Emo. There are no good nazis.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 09:14:02 AM
Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?
I don't know how catholic schools operate, but if the teacher had signed a moral clause to remain celibate then the school would be within their rights to fire her. There are churches where you have to sign agreements not to drink alcohol etc. I doubt those clauses exist for catholic schools, but if the requirement to work there is stated clearly then the school is within their rights.taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?
I think that is a stretch and a different scenario, because you are then talking about a people group and not a faith system. Those are very different. But if you sign up to teach at KKK University and then are fired for that blacks are not inferior, yeah, I'm fine with KKK University firing you. Why the eff would you want to teach at a private school that's core value system is based upon something you feel is oppressive or untrue or immoral?
Vought's position is one based on faith, not race, and therein lies the difference.
I guess I draw the line in that a religious organization that employs people to teach a specific theology and dogma has the right to expect teachers they employee to adhere to that dogma and theology. An Islamic school who employed a teacher who started wearing a cross and stating that Jesus is Lord or whatever would be 100% justified in firing that person. I mean, if you agree to a standard of living as part of your employment that's part of a job. Sure you have a legal right to grow a beard or get a face tattoo and are free to do so as your expression, but certain jobs forbid that as a clause to employment.
Cartier, do you think a good person would ever fire a woman because she got pregnant?
I don't like the phrasing of "good person" because the question of morality in this scenario is on the action, not the person.
Do I think firing a woman for getting pregnant would be immoral? Probably yes, but not absolutely. I mean what if that person is a professional nun or something. Like, I don't understand how the catholic church works, but if a nun got pregnant I don't think it would be immoral to say she can't be a nun anymore, but to offer her another job or role which she could transition to.
Would I ever fire a woman for getting pregnant? No, and I wouldn't ever take a job where that would be asked of me.
Post by: yachtbroker on June 15, 2017, 09:17:54 AM
Yeah but I don't view that as "discrimination." At least not discrimination in any wrongful sense.There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing. It's a private religious school. They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share. If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her.That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.
No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.
I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.
Well, I believe that discrimination is wrong even when it is legal, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
I don't think a private institution should have to employ someone who is sending a different message than that private institution wants to send. That seems unfair. Maybe that's where we disagree.
Let me use an example that is extreme, but i think still analogous. Let's say we have a catholic high school math teacher who, one day, decides he wants to show his devotion to satan by getting a large visible forearm tattoo of Beelzebub himself, complete with "666" underneath and a nice big heart around it. Students can see the tattoo. It's wrong for the school to say "wtf" and part ways with him?
taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?
The Supreme Court has settled this from a purely legal perspective. It's called the ministerial exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_%26_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission
Post by: Tobias on June 15, 2017, 09:19:28 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 09:27:49 AM
Isn't a person defined by his or her actions?
I don't like the phrasing of "good person" because the question of morality in this scenario is on the action, not the person.
Quote
Do I think firing a woman for getting pregnant would be immoral? Probably yes, but not absolutely. I mean what if that person is a professional nun or something. Like, I don't understand how the catholic church works, but if a nun got pregnant I don't think it would be immoral to say she can't be a nun anymore, but to offer her another job or role which she could transition to.
Would I ever fire a woman for getting pregnant? No, and I wouldn't ever take a job where that would be asked of me.
Would you want somebody who has fired women for getting pregnant based upon his faith to have a cabinet position?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 09:31:11 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 09:40:22 AM
Isn't a person defined by his or her actions?
I don't like the phrasing of "good person" because the question of morality in this scenario is on the action, not the person.
I guess, but the action is still the question. If you're asking if the hypothetical firing of a pregnant woman in some scenario that I'm not even 100% sure exists is the defining action between being a good or bad person, then no I don't think that action is the tipping point of the scale.
I mean, I don't know. Probably not, but I'm not going to make some absolute statement about that.
Would you want somebody who has fired women for getting pregnant based upon his faith to have a cabinet position?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 09:41:57 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/catholic-religious-schools-fired-lady-teachers-being-pregnant/
Post by: michigancat on June 15, 2017, 09:45:33 AM
Yeah but I don't view that as "discrimination." At least not discrimination in any wrongful sense.There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing. It's a private religious school. They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share. If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her.That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.
No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.
I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.
Well, I believe that discrimination is wrong even when it is legal, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
I don't think a private institution should have to employ someone who is sending a different message than that private institution wants to send. That seems unfair. Maybe that's where we disagree.
Let me use an example that is extreme, but i think still analogous. Let's say we have a catholic high school math teacher who, one day, decides he wants to show his devotion to satan by getting a large visible forearm tattoo of Beelzebub himself, complete with "666" underneath and a nice big heart around it. Students can see the tattoo. It's wrong for the school to say "wtf" and part ways with him?
taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?
The Supreme Court has settled this from a purely legal perspective. It's called the ministerial exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_%26_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission
That's different from what I'm saying. If a guy writes a blog post in favor of Fred Phelps' stance on homosexuality, citing his faith, should he be considered unfit for a position of government? Or is his belief that homosexuals are inferior considered "freedom of religion" and therefore shouldn't be questioned?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 09:49:36 AM
It's a scenario that exists, Cartier.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/catholic-religious-schools-fired-lady-teachers-being-pregnant/
I mean, its the Catholic Church. It ain't some big secret what you're signing up for. If you don't want to embrace the sexual ethics of the Catholic Church I don't think working for them is a great idea. I think there's probably a healthy middle ground where the school could change your role or something like that and keep your job.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 15, 2017, 09:52:07 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 09:52:37 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 15, 2017, 09:58:10 AM
Post by: michigancat on June 15, 2017, 10:02:51 AM
It's a scenario that exists, Cartier.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/catholic-religious-schools-fired-lady-teachers-being-pregnant/
I mean, its the Catholic Church. It ain't some big secret what you're signing up for. If you don't want to embrace the sexual ethics of the Catholic Church I don't think working for them is a great idea. I think there's probably a healthy middle ground where the school could change your role or something like that and keep your job.
What if you don't want the federal government to embrace the sexual ethics of the Catholic Church? Maybe you could avoid it by not hiring folks who fully support firing women for being pregnant.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 10:05:06 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 10:08:20 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 10:09:13 AM
Post by: michigancat on June 15, 2017, 10:11:05 AM
Michigancat where do you draw the line about a claim of one faith being more true than another being a deal breaker for public office? If someone claims that Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu etc is the true way to eternal life or something similar to that is that person then unfit for public office?
I really don't know, and that's what makes this such an interesting discussion and one we should be having.
Where do YOU draw the line? I think it's obvious you think it's OK to say Christianity is the only path to salvation. You think it's OK to say Muslims and Jews are "condemned" because they don't consider Jesus a god. But what about someone's faith saying blacks have the curse of Cain and therefore can't be clergy or that God Hates mommies?
Post by: star seed 7 on June 15, 2017, 10:12:01 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 10:14:09 AM
Its just such a massive leap to assume that someone would hold a public government worker to the same theological/sexual ethic/philosophical standard that they hold someone employed by the church or private evangelical college or whatever to.
I really don't think it is. People who perform evil acts while standing behind their faith are still performing evil acts and should not be considered for public employment. At the very least, it should be perfectly ok for somebody to use that as a basis for voting to not confirm them.
Post by: michigancat on June 15, 2017, 10:15:47 AM
so no catholics allowed to hold office then?
Plenty of Catholics disagree with the policy. I mean, read the first line from the article RATM linked.
Its just such a massive leap to assume that someone would hold a public government worker to the same theological/sexual ethic/philosophical standard that they hold someone employed by the church or private evangelical college or whatever to.
Your faith is so strong that you think it's acceptable to fire the pregnant woman from the church, but not important enough to fire the pregnant woman from government? How strong is your faith, in that case, really?
Post by: _33 on June 15, 2017, 10:22:12 AM
Michigancat where do you draw the line about a claim of one faith being more true than another being a deal breaker for public office? If someone claims that Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu etc is the true way to eternal life or something similar to that is that person then unfit for public office?
I really don't know, and that's what makes this such an interesting discussion and one we should be having.
Where do YOU draw the line? I think it's obvious you think it's OK to say Christianity is the only path to salvation. You think it's OK to say Muslims and Jews are "condemned" because they don't consider Jesus a god. But what about someone's faith saying blacks have the curse of Cain and therefore can't be clergy or that God Hates mommies?
The line you're talking about has 99.999% on one side and .001% on the other.
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 15, 2017, 10:31:34 AM
I think a good person could, depends on the woman. Christianity espouses forgiveness. If the woman was repentant I think it would be Christian to forgive.
It would be Christian to forgive, regardless.
I think a good person could personally forgive her and still do their job and fire her.
I don't think so, Emo. There are no good nazis.
I certainly do believe there were good men who served in the Germany military in WWII. Statistics would tell us that to a certainty.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 10:32:48 AM
Michigancat where do you draw the line about a claim of one faith being more true than another being a deal breaker for public office? If someone claims that Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu etc is the true way to eternal life or something similar to that is that person then unfit for public office?
I really don't know, and that's what makes this such an interesting discussion and one we should be having.
Where do YOU draw the line? I think it's obvious you think it's OK to say Christianity is the only path to salvation. You think it's OK to say Muslims and Jews are "condemned" because they don't consider Jesus a god. But what about someone's faith saying blacks have the curse of Cain and therefore can't be clergy or that God Hates mommies?
I dunno man. People in peaceful churches or religious groups are fine with me.
so no catholics allowed to hold office then?
Plenty of Catholics disagree with the policy. I mean, read the first line from the article RATM linked.Its just such a massive leap to assume that someone would hold a public government worker to the same theological/sexual ethic/philosophical standard that they hold someone employed by the church or private evangelical college or whatever to.
Your faith is so strong that you think it's acceptable to fire the pregnant woman from the church, but not important enough to fire the pregnant woman from government? How strong is your faith, in that case, really?
I read the link, and I'd side with the not firing crowd too. As far as the second comment. I'd assume a person could separate the decision to hire a person to be a catholic school teacher who's job it is to make the kids educated in Catholicism and the decision to hire a person to like, oversee the sewer system or something.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 15, 2017, 10:35:54 AM
lib7, RATM, abe, WC08, dax, etc how do you guys do this all day. the pit is exhausting.Some days you just have to take a breather. Yesterday was not the day however.
Post by: michigancat on June 15, 2017, 10:38:28 AM
I dunno man. People in peaceful churches or religious groups are fine with me.
As far as I know, Fred Phelps was never violent.
I read the link, and I'd side with the not firing crowd too. As far as the second comment. I'd assume a person could separate the decision to hire a person to be a catholic school teacher who's job it is to make the kids educated in Catholicism and the decision to hire a person to like, oversee the sewer system or something.
Why would you assume that? Wouldn't you assume SOME of that faith would carry over? And what if the job is to educate children in physical education?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 10:48:02 AM
I dunno man. People in peaceful churches or religious groups are fine with me.
As far as I know, Fred Phelps was never violent.I read the link, and I'd side with the not firing crowd too. As far as the second comment. I'd assume a person could separate the decision to hire a person to be a catholic school teacher who's job it is to make the kids educated in Catholicism and the decision to hire a person to like, oversee the sewer system or something.
Why would you assume that? Wouldn't you assume SOME of that faith would carry over? And what if the job is to educate children in physical education?
of course some of their faith would carry over. some of Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's and every other politician's moral religiosity carries over into their work.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 15, 2017, 11:21:02 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 15, 2017, 12:53:13 PM
I would say that DJT's isn't carrying over
oh it 100% is. his God is himself.
Post by: DQ12 on June 15, 2017, 01:44:04 PM
I think something that amounts to heresy is fundamentally different than other types of transgressions on the level of a pregnancy outside of marriage. One occurred in the past, the other is one of a continuing nature. If the pregnant teacher went around wearing a shirt every day that said "Sex outside of marriage is a good thing to do!" then I think we're starting to compare apples with apples.
Also, as Cartier said, a lot of religious people (most?) are pretty good about actually treating members of other religions fairly and with dignity, despite what they believe may happen to them in the afterlife.
Post by: cfbandyman on June 15, 2017, 02:09:48 PM
I would say that DJT's isn't carrying over
oh it 100% is. his God is himself.
2 Corinths
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 15, 2017, 02:11:53 PM
I would say that DJT's isn't carrying over
oh it 100% is. his God is himself.
2 Corinths
That's the whole ball game.
Post by: michigancat on June 15, 2017, 03:18:19 PM
I think there's a distinction between our "fired for being pregnant" issue (which, as a Catholic, I disagree with) and the "fired for symbolically displaying a conflicting theological philosophy" scenarios.
I think something that amounts to heresy is fundamentally different than other types of transgressions on the level of a pregnancy outside of marriage. One occurred in the past, the other is one of a continuing nature. If the pregnant teacher went around wearing a shirt every day that said "Sex outside of marriage is a good thing to do!" then I think we're starting to compare apples with apples.
Yeah I think if someone was fired for speaking out against the curse of Cain doctrine in the LDS church in the 1970's it would be more analogous to what this woman was fired for. (Not identical, but closer).
Also, as Cartier said, a lot of religious people (most?) are pretty good about actually treating members of other religions fairly and with dignity, despite what they believe may happen to them in the afterlife.
Agreed! IMO this Vought guy just happened to creep very close to or in the gray area of no longer treating other religions fairly and with dignity when he wrote his blog post. If he'd just been an alumnus who declined to comment on the situation we wouldn't be having the conversation.
Post by: DQ12 on June 15, 2017, 03:38:51 PM
Fundamentally, I think we're all very close to agreeing on this. If this Vought fella is going to treat people differently based on their religion, then he shouldn't be holding any public office (much less a high profile one). We just differ on whether or not his comments re. Wheaton College indicate whether he's likely to do that.
Regardless, I agree: Given his political ambitions, it would've been wise of him to just keep his mouth shut. Nobody would've faulted him for not commenting on the issue.
This was a fun chat between great Cats.
Post by: michigancat on June 15, 2017, 05:34:31 PM
Yeah.
Fundamentally, I think we're all very close to agreeing on this. If this Vought fella is going to treat people differently based on their religion, then he shouldn't be holding any public office (much less a high profile one). We just differ on whether or not his comments re. Wheaton College indicate whether he's likely to do that.
Regardless, I agree: Given his political ambitions, it would've been wise of him to just keep his mouth shut. Nobody would've faulted him for not commenting on the issue.
This was a fun chat between great Cats.
:cheers:
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 15, 2017, 05:43:31 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 15, 2017, 05:51:18 PM
I'm stunned (but not the least bit surprised) that so many on here had to clutter up so many pages to debate that fact, and then throw, like, oh, like a couple of thousand strawmen into the equation.
But, as I said. Great work everybody! :thumbsup:
Post by: cfbandyman on June 15, 2017, 11:21:34 PM
Weird stuff to get all worked up about. But, good job anyway, guys.
Coming from the king of getting worked up about weird stuff, this is pretty great
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 15, 2017, 11:28:40 PM
Weird stuff to get all worked up about. But, good job anyway, guys.
Coming from the king of getting worked up about weird stuff, this is pretty great
Nah, this was weird. But thanks for the effort.
Post by: The Big Train on June 15, 2017, 11:30:43 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 15, 2017, 11:36:09 PM
DaxBot stuck in recursive mode
TBT simpleton just keeps firing from the cheap seats.
So angry
Post by: SdK on June 16, 2017, 04:47:32 AM
Isn't higher ground advantageous?DaxBot stuck in recursive mode
TBT simpleton just keeps firing from the cheap seats.
So angry
Post by: slackcat on June 16, 2017, 05:03:34 AM
"I’m not the most religious of folks. I don’t know if heaven exists. But if it does, then everybody has the right to eternal life there. Nobody should be “condemned” just because he doesn’t have enough money or the right skin color or doesn’t believe in the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whoever God is, I am certain that he/she/zir will save everyone, and nothing will ever convince me otherwise, not even God explicitly telling me that those who reject the salvation of Jesus will not be saved."
Give a man enough rope... :lol:
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 16, 2017, 06:18:35 AM
Post by: camKSU on June 16, 2017, 10:54:06 AM
Bernie Sanders quote defending himself.:dunno:
"I’m not the most religious of folks. I don’t know if heaven exists. But if it does, then everybody has the right to eternal life there. Nobody should be “condemned” just because he doesn’t have enough money or the right skin color or doesn’t believe in the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whoever God is, I am certain that he/she/zir will save everyone, and nothing will ever convince me otherwise, not even God explicitly telling me that those who reject the salvation of Jesus will not be saved."
Give a man enough rope... :lol:
Sounds fine to me. Pretty inclusive belief that if there is a "god" and "afterlife" then all people would get to go to heaven. Now about those other religions whose beliefs "condemn" other people to "hell" if they deny their form of "god"... That's pretty rough ridin' stupid.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F95%2F95caf39bbf81251e0db70a6b536f687fb9ff963fab99871fe266d51f37f5ec89.jpg&hash=6303359b97f20694e821eb48ccc4f4c24863cb02)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 16, 2017, 10:56:04 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 16, 2017, 11:14:45 AM
It does seem weird that CAM's hero by action and deed pretty much sought to destroy all remnants of secularist oriented regimes in the Middle East, while supporting some of the most extreme fundamentalist regimes in the world. They same guys absolutely hate Israel the last vestige of Judah-Christian but highly secularist country left in the Middle East. But, I digress.
Post by: slackcat on June 16, 2017, 11:34:04 AM
Bernie Sanders quote defending himself.:dunno:
"I’m not the most religious of folks. I don’t know if heaven exists. But if it does, then everybody has the right to eternal life there. Nobody should be “condemned” just because he doesn’t have enough money or the right skin color or doesn’t believe in the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whoever God is, I am certain that he/she/zir will save everyone, and nothing will ever convince me otherwise, not even God explicitly telling me that those who reject the salvation of Jesus will not be saved."
Give a man enough rope... :lol:
Sounds fine to me. Pretty inclusive belief that if there is a "god" and "afterlife" then all people would get to go to heaven. Now about those other religions whose beliefs "condemn" other people to "hell" if they deny their form of "god"... That's pretty rough ridin' stupid.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F95%2F95caf39bbf81251e0db70a6b536f687fb9ff963fab99871fe266d51f37f5ec89.jpg&hash=6303359b97f20694e821eb48ccc4f4c24863cb02)
You don't understand what he's saying there do you? :lol:
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 17, 2017, 07:59:32 AM
It's a mirror, you dolt
pwn3d
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 17, 2017, 08:02:18 AM
Bernie Sanders quote defending himself.
"I’m not the most religious of folks. I don’t know if heaven exists. But if it does, then everybody has the right to eternal life there. Nobody should be “condemned” just because he doesn’t have enough money or the right skin color or doesn’t believe in the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whoever God is, I am certain that he/she/zir will save everyone, and nothing will ever convince me otherwise, not even God explicitly telling me that those who reject the salvation of Jesus will not be saved.?
More evidence Bernie is a fucktard. How can anyone support this guy is beyond me.