IFA says Bernie Sanders is a threat to religious freedom in america...

[NotreDame]

I recommend you look at that requote in the context of the original quote, offered here for your convenience. You can then address what I was actually saying rather than the necessarily obfuscated interpretation based on partial data. I shall be happy to respond to that.

You may wish to go back to the original post as you may find earlier material in that post is relevant to your understanding.

I do not need re-examine the “context” of the original quote.

After all, you said, “For this possibility to be true, then the following must also be true.” That statement is a reference to “Sanders is correct, there’s good reason to believe Voght would act prejudicially.” You then proceeded to list some lousy premises, and then said, “If the foregoing were true, then Sanders would necessarily be correct.” That conditional claim is a reference back to the possibility mentioned above.

You supported that conditional conclusion with three premises.

P1: Voght would be in a position to act prejudicially (he would be in a position of power of government.)
P2: There would be good reason to believe he might act prejudicially
P3:The good reason would be the existence of evidence from prior statements or actions of Voght.

So, it isn’t neccesary to review the “context” to address whether, even if true, those true premises support “Sanders is correct.” As I said previously, the premises do not!

P1 is hardly supportive, unless we accept as true the tenuous assumption that being in a position of power is a “good reason to believe.” But that isn’t right, as we know from experience people in power do not act prejudicially. Yes, some do, be that is balanced by the fact some don’t, and as a result, being in power isn’t probative at all of what Voght would do.

P2 is a hardly supportive of the claim as it begs the question of is there a good reason?

P3 the existence of evidence from prior statements or actions of Voght, is de minimis for reasons noted in the prior post.

But that’s an analysis of how strongly the premsies support the conclusion of Bernie being “necessarily” correct.

You are asserting Sanders is “necessarily” correct. But your argument, as constructed, doesn’t satisfy the philosophical meaning of validity of if all the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. Consider the example below in contrast to your own argument.

All dogs are vegetarians. All vegetarians are humans. Ergo, all dogs are humans. All D are V. All V are H. Therefore, all D are H.

That’s a valid argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false, the conclusion must be true. Contrast that with your argument. As articulated, your premsies can all be true as stated but the conclusion false. Of course, your view could be made valid, “necessarily” true by adding some additional unstated premises to your argument.

Those are points I was seeking to make previously, and your “context” you reference isn’t needed.

 

[Ophiolite]

P1 is hardly supportive, unless we accept as true the tenuous assumption that being in a position of power is a “good reason to believe.” But that isn’t right, as we know from experience people in power do not act prejudicially. Yes, some do, be that is balanced by the fact some don’t, and as a result, being in power isn’t probative at all of what Voght would do.

It's well after midnight here, so I've only the time and inclination to address one of your points right now.

Of course only some people in power act prejudicially. That was the whole point of the premise. If Voight was not in a position of power is ability to act prejudicially in the position he was nominated for would be possible. If he is in that position of power it become possible for him to act prejudcially. It does not follow that he will do so, but he now has the opportunity to do so.

Thus, your objection is valueless, except as a textbook as example of how not make objections. *

* I add the aggressiveness purely as a humourous riposte to your emotional description of my premises as "lousy". If you can't keep the discussion objective I'll respond in kind, so let's stay on track.

 

[NotreDame]

It's well after midnight here, so I've only the time and inclination to address one of your points right now.

Of course only some people in power act prejudicially. That was the whole point of the premise. If Voight was not in a position of power is ability to act prejudicially in the position he was nominated for would be possible. If he is in that position of power it become possible for him to act prejudcially. It does not follow that he will do so, but he now has the opportunity to do so.



* I add the aggressiveness purely as a humourous riposte to your emotional description of my premises as "lousy". If you can't keep the discussion objective I'll respond in kind, so let's stay on track.

Thus, your objection is valueless, except as a textbook as example of how not make objections. *

Only if your logic is sensible. The logic of what you said isn’t sensible at all.

If Voight was not in a position of power is ability to act prejudicially in the position he was nominated for would be possible. If he is in that position of power it become possible for him to act prejudcially. It does not follow that he will do so, but he now has the opportunity to do so.

That logic is true of everyone and anyone as a possibility. Under that logic, no one is fit and proper, since such a possibility exists for everyone and anyone in a “position of power.” It is possible for anyone and everyone in a “position of power” to act prejudicially. The logic that black balls everyone and anyone, since it is “possible” everyone and anyone in the same circumstance of “position of power” can act prejudicially, isn’t rationally persuasive. Unless of course the objective is to make sure no homo-sapiens occupy a “position of power” then that logic becomes very compelling.

The atheist, agnostic, Wiccan, Muslim, Jew, Arab, wealthy, destitute, male, female, transgender, gay, lesbian, Republican, Democrat, Communist, Socialist, Independent, Catholic, Methodist, Caucasian, Black, Latino, Hispanic, Asian, it is possibile anyone one of them and all of them can act prejudicially in a “position of power.”

It does not follow that he will do so, but he now has the opportunity to do so.

Yep, I obviously would concur, it does not follow” is right, and because it “doesn’t follow” means it isn’t a “good reason.” A point I made before.

emotional description of my premises as "lousy".

Emotional? Hardly. The premsies you gave do not strongly support your claim and neither do they present themselves as a valid argument. Pointing that out isn’t “emotional.” Yes, the premises are “lousy” as they do not constitute as a valid argument and neither do they strongly support your claim. If you personally find the word “lousy” unpalatable, then the words weak, unsupportive, untenable, insufficient, are m suitable substitutes

The premises you gave are insufficient, untenable, unsupportive.

If you can't keep the discussion objective..so let's stay on track.

I did keep the discussion objective. I focused only on how strongly the premsies do or do not support the conclusion and that they do not present themselves as a valid argument. That’s keeping “the discussion objective.” I “stayed on track” by focusing on the premises and conclusion.

You’ve diverted off the path to admonish me personally because you personally objected to the word “lousy.”

I do not perceive your assertion my reply is “valueless” as a riposte. Maybe what I said is indeed valueless. Maybe I’ve espoused a weak refutation. Whether I did so will depend on the strength of my reasoning.

While not ineluctable, my position the premises do not strongly support the conclusion and neither is the argument as constructed a valid argument, is sensible.

 

[Lazarus Long]

A lot of atheists believe guilt is man made, and following ones desires is the only focus.

Define "a lot" and how many atheists do you know and how many of them make this claim?

 

[createdtoworship]

That's a poor parallel because there is observable evidence for macroevolution--but that's an issue for a different forum.

Getting back to the OP, I think Bernie shot himself in the foot on this one. I think he acted out of fear of the real threat to religious liberty in this country presented by Trump's conservative Evangelical base, but was mistaken in the case of Russell Vought.

So again I can say there is evidence for christianity too. Certainly WAY MORE EVIDENCE than macro evolution, since it's unobervable in any peer reviews. So again let me repeat if a christian is a bigot for believing some go to hell, is a humanist a bigot in believing there is no God or that we evolved from an electrified puddle on a rock in space that exploded from a big bang which was a case of spontaneous generation? And as such not suitable FOR ANY EMPLOYMENT?

 

[createdtoworship]

And let me repeat. I don't believe he is in error, I suspect he is in error. That is not a small difference, yet I have to keep drawing it to your attention, as you keep ignoring it. (If you were not ignoring it you would have asked, "what is your reservation in suspecting Sanders is in error?")

Now, why do I suspect Sanders is in error? Here are the main reasons:

• It is commonplace to assert a stronger position verbally than what you would put into practice. Vought may well have done this.
• Extrapolating from words to possible actions is often risky. (A corollary of the first point.)
• There do not appear to be any actions by Vought that would support the contention.

I think this is the post you are referring to:
1. Your definitions of discrimination and prejudice are incorrect and probably reversed.
2. Your usage of "assent" is unknown to me, though I have a pretty sound vocabulary.
3. Despite the ambiguity created by those problems you appear to be repeating the same error you have been repeating from the outset: you are unable to distinguish between an objection to a religious belief and the objection to the actions that might reasonably be expected to arise from such a belief. As long as you continue equivocate the two there is zero point in discussing this matter further with you. pm me if and when you are ready to acknowledge they are different and we can then continue to discuss the matter.

It's not my role to "prove a negative". That's not the way discussion and debate work. It's your role to demonstrate Sanders is prejudiced against Christians.

But you said he was possibly true and that you suspect he is wrong but not to the point of believing so. Again what is your reservation? What evidence do you have that indicates the possibility of bernie NOT being prejudice?

 

[createdtoworship]

There's no point for conservative Christians to pretend that they have the moral high road compared to liberals if they support Trump. In fact, it would be very disingenuous of them to insist they do.

This is the man who represents every conservative Christian who supports and defends him. He is the man who represents the Christian Right and the Evangelical Christian faith to unbelievers. He is the man who represents the Republican Party that claims to be the political party of Christian morality. He is the twice divorced thrice married serial adulterer who represents the Republican Party that claims to be the political party of traditional family values. He is the man who represents the Executive Office of the Presidency. And sadly, he also represents the United States of America to the rest of the world.

Trump is off topic for this thread, if it turns into attack posts I will be forced to ask the thread to close l. Please stay on topic.

 

[Speedwell]

So again I can say there is evidence for christianity too. Certainly WAY MORE EVIDENCE than macro evolution, since it's unobervable in any peer reviews. So again let me repeat if a christian is a bigot for believing some go to hell, is a humanist a bigot in believing there is no God or that we evolved from an electrified puddle on a rock in space that exploded from a big bang which was a case of spontaneous generation? And as such not suitable FOR ANY EMPLOYMENT?

As I have said several times in this thread already, I believe Bernie was wrong. The Evangelical Christian Right is definitely a threat to religious liberty in the US, but there is no evidence that Vought is a part of that threat, for all that he is an Evangelical.

 

[createdtoworship]

As I have said several times in this thread already, I believe Bernie was wrong. The Evangelical Christian Right is definitely a threat to religious liberty in the US, but there is no evidence that Vought is a part of that threat, for all that he is an Evangelical.

Thank you so let's head to the next step if Bernie is showing prejudice based on religious belief then should he step down from becoming president or is prejudice now acceptible?

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you so let's head to the next step if Bernie is showing prejudice based on religious belief then should he step down from becoming president or is prejudice now acceptible?

He wasn't showing religious prejudice, he was incorrectly identifying Vought as a part of the threat to religious liberty posed by the Christian Right. He should apologize for his ignorance.

 

[Kentonio]

Can I take it from your comment you are a moral atheist?
Upon which moral framework do you rest?

I am not being cruel or pointed. I realise our morality is actually emotional, on not upsetting those around us and being amiable. We are all by nature fearful, until we understand the principles of interaction. As our confidence grows and we learn what reactions to expect so our boundaries expand.

Some believers think that morality is founded in scripture. Scripture may agree with the emotional morality we live by, but it is not our actual foundation. As a believer, it is my conscience and heart that guide my interactions, and often the word that brings conviction when I get things wrong.

Where I have a problem with any belief system is when it destroys the meaning of our emotional bonds and denies how we actually function in a healthy way. We are built for purpose and direction and react very badly when both of these things are removed. It is why examples and heros, ethics and aspirations are so culturally important.

On one forum one atheist did not understand why guilt still caused them problems when they had rejected the belief system they thought had created this feeling. It is this propoganda lie that is the mistake, we are victims of our biology and what works. We like to believe concepts matter, but they are always servants to our emotional needs.

Basically, my morality as an atheist works as follows: I believe we have one lifetime to experience, with no subsequent infinity based upon our actions. This also means to me that the same holds true for everyone else. Therefore any action that causes suffering or negativity to others is something that causes a portion of their limited time to be tainted by my actions, which is unconscionable. I wish for my limited time of life to be as happy as possible, and therefore it would be totally unreasonable to expect that to be possible if I treat others in a way I wouldn’t expect or desire them to treat me.

With no belief in a higher judgement or power, I expect nothing from life per se in terms of random events turning out in my favor or not, but I do expect I can influence how others treat me to a limited degree based on my own actions. If I act badly, I will expect to suffer repercussions from that. If I act well, I won’t particularly expect any kind of reward, but I will expect less likelihood of negative repercussion. Sometimes also just the act of being good will be it’s own reward, simply from the knowledge that I made someone else limited time on earth a little happier.

Sorry if this seems overly brief or trite, obviously it’s hard to summarize an entire moral system in a single post.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

But, many now days although doing very well wish for change.

Bit like when Trump got elected ?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The issue is the possibility a Sanders presidency
will use a religious test for government positions, which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Just pure fear mongering. Sanders has bigger goals to achieve then fight the constitution in courts about this issue.

 

[createdtoworship]

He wasn't showing religious prejudice, he was incorrectly identifying Vought as a part of the threat to religious liberty posed by the Christian Right. He should apologize for his ignorance.

so then prejudice is publically accepted now? Bernie said this in closing regarding his christian thesis “This nominee is not what this country is supposed to be about.” So Christianity is not what this country is about? Realize discrimination is when we are racist in our mind. Prejudiced (or racism) is when we act on those discriminatory views, not hiring, not voting for, or denying confirmation as Bernie does here. For Bernie to not actually be prejudiced, he would have kept His opinions to Himself and nominated this man because discriminatory thoughts should be kept internalized and not acted upon, just like any negative thought, anger, hatred etc. It cannot get any more straightforward, if bernie is not prejudiced, then prejudice does not exist at all. And that is not the case. Thanks for the debate. But apologies in this case are not good enough, if you cannot be racist of a candidate on his dark skin color, then you also cannot be prejudice of a christian simply because he is christian.

 

[NotreDame]

Just pure fear mongering. Sanders has bigger goals to achieve then fight the constitution in courts about this issue.

Maybe. Maybe not. The concern expresssd, however, isn’t frivolous. The Constitution forbids religious tests for office, and precludes governmental discrimination against religion and on the basis of religious beliefs. If Voght was unfit for office, then it can’t lawfully be because of his religion or religious beliefs.

 

[Speedwell]

so then prejudice is publically accepted now? Bernie said this in closing regarding his christian thesis “This nominee is not what this country is supposed to be about.” So Christianity is not what this country is about?

You keep trying to equate Christianity as a religion with the Christian Right as a political movement. I think you are doing it on purpose, a typical propaganda trick of the Christian Right and one of the characteristic which makes them dangerous to religious liberty.

 

[createdtoworship]

You keep trying to equate Christianity as a religion with the Christian Right as a political movement. I think you are doing it on purpose, a typical propaganda trick of the Christian Right and one of the characteristic which makes them dangerous to religious liberty.

why would I do that, I am a moderate. I am not even christian right. So I think it is you that are trying to equate the christian right with that particular candidate for office.

 

[summerville]

but you simply cannot say that Bernie is not committing prejudice. Lets apply that to an employer, with all your observations and see how it works. So can an employer refuse to employ say a muslim who believes that only muslims are granted eternal life? I await your reply. Because after all this is " likely to make him prejudicial in one or more ways to those who were not" Muslim.

Muslims don't believe that only Muslims get eternal life.

Here's one verse.

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Quran 2:62

 

[createdtoworship]

Muslims don't believe that only Muslims get eternal life.

Here's one verse.

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Quran 2:62

"Surah 2:62 declares that “Those who believe (in the Qur’an), And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), And the Christians and the Sabians,—Any who believe in God And the Last Day, And work righteousness, Shall have their reward With their Lord: on them Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

The Qur’an defines true believers as “those who believe in God and His Apostles” (4:152). The negative side of this is clearly given to us in 4:150–51, which proclaims that “those who deny God And His apostles, and (those Who) wish to separate God from His apostles, Saying: ‘We believe in some But reject others;’ And (those who) wish To take a course midway,—They are in truth (Equally) Unbelievers; And We have prepared For Unbelievers a humiliating Punishment.”

According to the testimony of the above verses, anyone who rejects the prophethood of Muhammad is an unbeliever and is destined for “a humiliating punishment.” This practically includes all the people of the world who are outside the fold of Islam. In addition to failing this criterion, Christians are also condemned to the “abode of Fire” due to their belief that “God is Christ the son Of Mary” (5:75). The only unpardonable sin in Islam is not acknowledging the Unity of God. Since Christians are guilty of this sin their condemnation is assured.7980

Other world religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism also fail other criteria, such as their lack of belief in one Supreme God and creator. Therefore, orthodox Islam is just as exclusive as any other major world religion."

Above quote from :
Answering Islam: the crescent in light of the cross- by norman geisler

 

[summerville]

you realize that only muslims believe in "allah" right? They are literally saying if you don't believe in the god of islam you can't be saved.

I should know.. I lived in the ME for decades. Allah means God in Arabic, like Gott is God in German. Christians and Jews believe in the God of Abraham.. so do Muslims.