I don’t care who is doing the questioning/interrogation. I’m saying it just wouldn’t happen in virtually* other any western democracy.
*Virtually because I’m sure one of you pedantic fuckers will come up with an example to prove me wrong…
I really do not see this as a religious test. Sanders has not sought, (and did not here seek), to bar everyone who shares a particular Evangelical Christian perspective from holding any government office.
He was taking the words of a particular person who had publicly defended the actions of a school to fire an employee and trying to generalize that opinion to the person’s ability to carry out the duties of a particular office.
Having noted that I do not see it as a religious test, I will say that Sanders’s questioning was out of place and wrong.
There was nothing in Vought’s Op Ed piece that suggested that any U.S. citizen should be denied services or protection based on their religious beliefs. One may oppose Vought’s religious beliefs with anything from mild disdain to outrage, but no one has shown that those beliefs will actually impair his ability to do his job. (There could be other reasons to refuse to confirm him, but this ain’t it.)
A little bit of context cleared this up for me considerably. This question didn’t come up out of the blue, nor is it a question that to my knowledge Sanders has ever asked before. Vought is a graduate of a fundamentalist loony bin called Wheaton College which was in the news a couple of years ago when they suspended a tenured professor – a serious action requiring serious cause – for saying that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Vought defended his alma mater over this lunacy, saying that “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.”
This does seem to raise the legitimate question of whether you can treat certain groups fairly if you fundamentally regard them as evil sinners deserving of condemnation. Sanders’ question wasn’t a “religious test”, it was a test of basic mental stability. The question is particularly apt for a Trump appointee, given the Islamophobia permeating the entire administration.
My feelings as well.
I would be perfectly happy to do everything to enforce the separation of church and state. But then there are people that don’t understand why a person isn’t running around killing if you are an atheist. THEY scare me. They believe that there is the thin fabric of religion keeping people from bein maniacs. Do they think that of themselves?
Woody Allen — ‘I was thrown out of college for cheating on the metaphysics exam; I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me.’
But this is a basically irrelevant ‘what if’. Society didn’t start yesterday. Christianity/Judaism (or reaction to or development from, a separate debate how much of each) is the basis of tradition out of which the document saying ‘no religious test’ grew. Moreover the tradition and documents were written by people aware of what various other also then existing religions said, aware of ghastly then-pretty recent wars between the Europeans and Ottomans as well as ghastly wars between Catholics and Protestants or among Protestants* (the latter two and last especially being the driving force behind ‘no religious test’ and the 1st Amendment). They could have said that either small ‘o’ orthodox Christian beliefs or Islamic ones were an exception and OK to disqualify people from office based on them. They didn’t. That doesn’t apply to ‘what if I made up a religion which says…’, which is really a different discussion.
‘OK so what’s a religion?’ might have some merit as a discussion. But it’s not really relevant to how the govt or elected officials act toward religions which were well established when the rules were written.
And by the same token there’s a tradition as long as the country of many public servants believing Christ is the exclusive way to salvation. Which does not necessarily at all mean someone believing that would feel justified in mistreating people who don’t agree. They might indeed mistreat others, as religious and non-religious people very often do, that’s people. But they would have no valid justification under any major sect of Christianity for doing it.
Also the ‘no religious test’ requirement of the Constitution refers to no action of the govt, the already elected reps of the people, to disqualify public servants the public would otherwise choose. It definitely means the elected reps can’t vote for laws disqualifying future candidates from running for office if they have a theory of exclusive path to salvation (which both small ‘o’ orthodox Christian and Muslim sects believe). By extension it makes it clearly inappropriate IMO for an elected representative (Sanders) to intimate he’d vote against a nominee for that reason. Sanders would be free as individual though to factor a candidate’s religion (or lack of) into his own voting decision, as would anyone here.
*intra-Protestant religious angle in the English Civil War in particular
I wanted to stay out of this one, but…
I’ll give you credit for stating “western world,” but you then go on to say “rest of the world.” You obviously understand that a significant number of countries DO care about religious qualifications for elected, appointed, or hereditary officials.
But I think you missed the OP’s main point. He’s not asking if we should be afraid of electing or appointing NON-Christians. He’s asking if we should be concerned about Christians. That’s a completely different matter, as it might apply equally to Christians, Muslims, and believers of any faith. The question is, “Does faith (unsupported, irrational belief) disqualify someone from holding public office?”
Should a belief that the only religious choices one may be allowed are Islam, paying the jizyah tax, or death be a bar to immigration?
Some number of the world’s religions (Christianity and Islam being the most prominent) make certain claims (essentially factual claims) about God and how to obtain salvation (or avoid damnation). A core tenet of these religions seems to be that those that reject their message are in trouble. To describe the belief that no one will enter the kingdom of heaven, except by accepting Jesus as Savior, as “Islamophobic” strikes me as pretty laughable. But these religious tenets are inherently exclusionary.
That said, I don’t think that Sanders is right that holding fairly traditional Christian or Islamic views should be a bar to public office. And it certainly seems somewhat contrary to the intent of the ban on religious tests. I think that Bernie Sanders is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.
And your belief is unconstitutional, IIRC. (Isn’t there something that bars religious tests for office holders?)
I don’t care what someone’s private beliefs are, if they are willing to uphold the laws we have. There are plenty of politicians, for example, who are pro-choice in their voting records, yet are privately against abortion. You would be barring people like that from serving.
Does it matter if it’s applied to just one individual as opposed to a sweeping policy directed at all such people? It certainly was unclear if Sanders meant that the answer to his question would be determinative in terms of his vote for confirmation, but then why would he ask it, if not? I would like to hear from one of our legal experts before rushing to a conclusion. I did a little poking around to see what case law existed in this area, and there doesn’t seem to be much. There was an issue with some states requiring government officials to take a pledge “under God”, which the SCOTUS decided wasn’t kosher.
It certainly should be a factor when considering whether or not you plan on voting for an individual. I don’t know that it should be a disqualifying factor.
If a person can keep their religious beliefs separate from the ir political actions, I don’t care what they believe, they should be able to hold whatever office they are otherwise qualified for.
If they cannot keep their religious beliefs separate from their political actions, I don’t care what they believe, they should not be able to hold whatever office they are otherwise qualified for.
This is not a religious test; this is a test of whether this person can be trusted to operate in the public interest. The religious test clause was written at a time when people were more concerned with discrimination against people of a particular faith. That clause does not address other forms of discrimination that have been recognized and remedied by voters, congress, and the courts. Sanders’ line of questioning legitimately addressed the concern that someone in a position of power could be influenced by religious views that are considered extreme and prejudicial by many of the people he might be asked to serve.
It should.
Sasha Baron Cohen once asked a candidate for Congress, James Broadwater this question in a Borat interview. If I remember correctly, it ended his campaign but it seems his Wikipedia article has been deleted since I last read it.
Here’s the video. Slightly NSFW for off-color humor: Borat Campaigns with a Republican - YouTube
There are people in this world (some of them Christians) who believe that, as a Catholic, I am not eligible for Heaven.
Would I automatically reject any candidate for office who believes I am destined for Hell? No- not UNLESS I thought he was looking for an excuse to send me there NOW.
Disqualifying people for what they think in their head is fascist thought control. It would be is the all powerful government telling them exactly what they can think and telling them they don’t count if they don’t conform. I would oppose this kind of thinking no matter who is in power today or tomorrow.
If you think about it, though, what would be Russell Vought’s remedy if he claimed his constitutional rights were violated? Could the SCOTUS rule that Senators were not allowed to ask such questions in confirmation hearings?
There should not be any religious test for public office. And Senator Sanders’ question was not a religious test. Sanders’ questions were entirely appropriate, especially given that Sanders himself is not a Christian, and so someone who believes that all non-Christians will go to Hell also believes that Sanders, personally, will go to Hell. How could that not be relevant for him?
A religious test for public office would consist of a law stating that only people of certain religions can hold public office, or that those of certain religions cannot. But individuals are still perfectly free to give a candidate’s religion whatever weight they choose when deciding whether to vote for that candidate, or what questions they will publicly ask that person.
So, why would Sanders ask the question if he wasn’t using it as part of his decision making process? I’m not sure what the remedy would be (see above), but it’s not at all clear to me that this is not a test.
But, as we know, the establishment clause no longer means “establishing a certain religion”. It’s been expanded much beyond that meaning, and I see no reason to think that “religious test” wouldn’t similarly be affected. And Sanders isn’t an “individual” in this matter. He’s acting as part of the government.
Sanders is allowed to use it as part of his decision-making process. Other Senators are equally allowed to ignore it in their decision-making process, or even to use it in the opposite way that Sanders has.