Missing the Obvious in the Senate

So Mr Sanders demonstrates the unfortunate choice in an interview on a minor post which has gotten news. Here the term “unfortunate choice” refers to a local phrase which gets repeated on this site. A choice, as in, “Is he stupid or evil?”. So which is it Mr Sanders? Are you dumb or just playing at dumb and are actually demonstrating evil-in-action? In an interview of a minor executive post nominee Mr Sanders pretends at naivete asking the nominee if he actually believes run-of-the-mill Evangelical soteriology. The nominee falls for the gambit and seizes (poorly in this writers view) at an attempt to Christian witness and doesn’t deny his beliefs (for which we might give half a thumbs up). Alas, the “falls for” is still there. The nominee missed the chance to ask Mr Sanders two things, being firstly how is this not an obvious religious test (a Constitutional and frankly assumed to be an American ethical no-no) and secondly which none commenting on the fallout of this exchange has noticed and is perhaps more important. Secondly … what is the obvious connection assumed but not stated logical connection linking Christian, or for that matter any religious, doctrine on soteriology have to do with public policy? How do you get from soteriology => policy => bigotry? I’m missing any link there.

Just a slight jump

For Mr Sanders and those supporting his notions that this particular belief is “bad” (see for exmple this post .. I can’t figure out if the author of the post approves or disapproves of Mr Sanders’ line of questioning) … an answer to the question why do you think that particular soteriological stance (Jesus is the only path to salvation) implies particular bias in policy? How do you leap from soteriology to policy?

A analogy perhaps might be illustrative. A pre-school teacher has in her class two children. One child she believes tonight will have invited to a grand ball, comfort, and a great party. The other is returning to an abusive parent and a home of poverty. She is not in a position to affect or remark on the evening outcome. However, which child is she likely to be more solicitous to in regard to the things she can do for those children in class. Which child is she more likely to favor in her class policies?

Seems to me our nominee’s favoritism might be more not less inclined to be generous to the non-Christian that not. Bigoted indeed.

Finally. No. One is not “bigoted” if one believes only those professing faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God will be saved. One is actually bigoted if they believe those who profess such a belief are themselves bigoted or racist (and Mr Sanders that includes you). And Mr Sanders which are you? Stupid or evil? Pick one.

And a final disclaimer. My personal soteriological belief is that Jesus will decide who will be saved and that in the here and now discussions of who will and won’t be saved are fruitless and often harmful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *