Bernie Sanders violates Article VI imposing religious litmus test for OMB nominee

[IAMX 3,055]

Quote

Vermont Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders seemed to apply a religious test to White House Deputy Budget Director nominee Russell Vought, lambasting Vought’s Christian beliefs in relation to Islam and declaring that he would oppose Vought on those grounds.

 

Sanders based his criticisms on an article Vought wrote in defense of Wheaton College that reads, “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.”

“It is hateful,” Sanders said. “It is Islamophobic. And it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.”

 

 

 

Quote

 

Sanders: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “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.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?

Vought: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, 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, and . . . 

Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?

 

Vought: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College:

Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

 

Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian . . . 

Sanders (shouting): I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made 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?

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: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?

Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation. 

Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.

 

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448393/watch-bernie-sanders-unconstitutionally-impose-religious-test-public-office

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/08/bernie-sanders-publicly-attacks-nominee-over-religious-beliefs/

 

It's unfortunate that Article VI wouldn't be invoked on Sanders, this easily constitutes a religious litmus test and violation of Vought's rights. Sanders deserves no less than impeachment and removal for violating the Constitution, founding principles no less. 

 

I'm an agnostic myself and think Vought's views are silly, but every religion thinks the others are wrong and that their personal religion is what will save everyone else. Vought would be violating Article VI if he imposed those standards on the OMB but let's be real, religious values aren't what runs the OMB. This is a heinous litmus test against a nominee for being Christian and it's no surprise the left ignore the Constitution to impose such standards. 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by IAMX

[Dashinka 24,436]

Seems fairly blatant, but of course, it will be ignored.

 

[IAMX 3,055]

18 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Seems fairly blatant, but of course, it will be ignored.

 

Don't worry guys, I'm leftist, my views > Constitution. 

[Teddy B 17,252]

39 minutes ago, IAMX said:

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448393/watch-bernie-sanders-unconstitutionally-impose-religious-test-public-office

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/08/bernie-sanders-publicly-attacks-nominee-over-religious-beliefs/

 

It's unfortunate that Article VI wouldn't be invoked on Sanders, this easily constitutes a religious litmus test and violation of Vought's rights. Sanders deserves no less than impeachment and removal for violating the Constitution, founding principles no less. 

 

I'm an agnostic myself and think Vought's views are silly, but every religion thinks the others are wrong and that their personal religion is what will save everyone else. Vought would be violating Article VI if he imposed those standards on the OMB but let's be real, religious values aren't what runs the OMB. This is a heinous litmus test against a nominee for being Christian and it's no surprise the left ignore the Constitution to impose such standards. 

 

 

A litmus test? No. A thorough questioning of a man that appears to be heavily prejudiced against people who hold different religious beliefs? Yes. It's one thing to think the basis of other religions are wrong because they differ from yours, but it's  completely unacceptable and against the 1st amendment to condemn others that hold different religious views.

[Dashinka 24,436]

24 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

A litmus test? No. A thorough questioning of a man that appears to be heavily prejudiced against people who hold different religious beliefs? Yes. It's one thing to think the basis of other religions are wrong because they differ from yours, but it's  completely unacceptable and against the 1st amendment to condemn others that hold different religious views.

Does someone speaking against another religion violate the 1st amendment?  Unless the State forcibly inhibits someone from practicing their religion, I don't think that applies.  What Bernie did was a thorough questioning, but it certainly might lead someone to the conclusion (if he votes no to confirm) that he was using a religious test to make that decision.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Does someone speaking against another religion violate the 1st amendment?  Unless the State forcibly inhibits someone from practicing their religion, I don't think that applies.  What Bernie did was a thorough questioning, but it certainly might lead someone to the conclusion (if he votes no to confirm) that he was using a religious test to make that decision.

When a person is being vetted for a public position and that person has previously condemned members of a certain religion due to it's differences from his/her own, the people who are responsible for placing him/her in the job have a duty to the American public to make sure that this person is not a religious fanatic who disregards the constitution and the rights of others due to his/her own prejudices.

[IAMX 3,055]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Does someone speaking against another religion violate the 1st amendment?  Unless the State forcibly inhibits someone from practicing their religion, I don't think that applies.  What Bernie did was a thorough questioning, but it certainly might lead someone to the conclusion (if he votes no to confirm) that he was using a religious test to make that decision.

There is no doubt he was using a religious litmus test. I guarantee Sanders is not a complete moron who doesn't understand that a Christian doing a publication for their own church would express views central to their own religion being the only true religion, and that there are consequences (condemnation) for others who don't believe what they do. There's absolutely nothing abnormal about this. It's entirely Sanders using religion as a litmus test, trying to set a horrific precedent that, if implemented upon all nominees and so on, would disqualify people from government office because of beliefs that virtually every religious person has.

Edited June 9, 2017 by IAMX

[Teddy B 17,252]

3 minutes ago, IAMX said:

There is no doubt he was using a religious litmus test. I guarantee Sanders is not a complete moron who doesn't understand that a Christian doing a publication for their own church would express views central to their own religion being the only true religion, and that there are consequences (condemnation) for others who don't believe what they do. There's absolutely nothing abnormal about this. It's entirely Sanders using religion as a litmus test, trying to set a horrific precedent that, if implemented upon all nominees and so on, would disqualify people from government office because of beliefs that virtually every religious person fanatic has.

Religious fanatics that publicly condemn followers of other religions have no place in the public sector.

 

Funny thing is if this were a Muslim who publicly condemned Christians that was up for this job, the conservatives would be all over it. Just more hypocrisy, get in line.

[smilesammich 10,727]

40 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

A litmus test? No. A thorough questioning of a man that appears to be heavily prejudiced against people who hold different religious beliefs? Yes. It's one thing to think the basis of other religions are wrong because they differ from yours, but it's  completely unacceptable and against the 1st amendment to condemn others that hold different religious views.

a litmus test. these guys are killing me. as an atheist i find it problematic to have government officials who believe only 'their people' are worth saving/assisting because everyone else is 'condemned'. it's more than islamaphobic, its christian fundamentalism and fundamentalism of any sort has no place in government.

[Dashinka 24,436]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

a litmus test. these guys are killing me. as an atheist i find it problematic to have government officials who believe only 'their people' are worth saving/assisting because everyone else is 'condemned'. it's more than islamaphobic, its christian fundamentalism and fundamentalism of any sort has no place in government.

The problem is that the religions views of the candidate are irrelevant with respect to the constitution.  If Bernie votes no to confirm and it is based on the candidates religious views, it would still be unconstitutional.  The actual religion or non-religion the candidate adheres to be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Atheism, etc., doesn't matter, the candidate if confirmed has to swear an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the US, if they fail to do that, they can be removed on those grounds.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

The problem is that the religions views of the candidate are irrelevant with respect to the constitution.  If Bernie votes no to confirm and it is based on the candidates religious views, it would still be unconstitutional.  The actual religion or non-religion the candidate adheres to be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Atheism, etc., doesn't matter, the candidate if confirmed has to swear an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the US, if they fail to do that, they can be removed on those grounds.

fundamentalist christians don't put the constitution over their religious views. i think you know that.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

fundamentalist christians don't put the constitution over their religious views. i think you know that.

Exactly and it is the duty of the panel that is vetting the nominee to weed these people out.

[Dashinka 24,436]

 

Just now, Teddy B said:

Exactly and it is the duty of the panel that is vetting the nominee to weed these people out.

So the heck with the constitution. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Teddy B said:

Exactly and it is the duty of the panel that is vetting the nominee to weed these people out.

yep. that's why you don't see many (or any) fundamentalist muslims or jews or atheists represented in government. but we're to accept fundamentalist christians? no, i think not.

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

 

So the heck with the constitution. 

It appears that is Vought's stance, good thing guys like Bernie are there to weed them out.