Was Bernie’s question a test? What was the way to pass and way to fail? What happens as a result of failing this test? Seems more like a question on stances for key topics.
Beyond that, Congressmen 100% take their religion into the job with them, why in god’s name would we avoid knowing what religion they were going to take with them? If separation of church and state was a real thing, maybe I’d feel different.
Did you watch the video of Bernie questioning him on the NPR link? If so, you’ll need to answer those questions for yourself.
Given your comment about religious people serving in government, it sounds like we’re likely to disagree about the rights of people to hold private belief or unbelief, according to their own conscious, and still be able to be involved in public service. If not, you’re advocating that people can have religion, so long as none of their private religious beliefs are exclusionary in any way. Religion is ok, but only if it’s the right kind? I suspect this will become a much more prevalent attitude.
Respectfully, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all.
I think he’s saying that we, as voters, have a right to know the religious beliefs of candidates for public office.
EDIT: pfury responded at about the same time that I did, so read his reply instead 
I have no issue with religious people holding public office. I have an issue with religious people bringing their religious beliefs into the voting chamber with them.
I’m advocating that people (politicians) vote for what their constituents want, and never take the bible (or other such text) into account. They’re not in Congress to represent Jesus, they’re in Congress to represent the people.
I agree. People of my generation don’t have a problem with religious people holding office, merely that they directly conflicting with separation of church and state.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Well, we’re mixing talk about a political appointee and what voters may consider. Bernie is not a voter, he’s vetting an appointee.
People with various religious belief treat people not of their faith with kindness and respect everyday, even thought their doctrine may be exclusionary in some way. With regard to the gay issue, let’s say we have a high school principle who belongs to a church that teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and she teaches that religious idea to her kids. It’s akin to thinking that she cannot treat her openly gay students with love and respect, and protect them from discrimination. I think that’s the direction Bernie is taking, and it’s worrisome to me.
I think the Bernie direction is more to make sure that the principle protects them from discrimination. By confirming/asking our elected official’s religious beliefs it becomes easier to spot those that can’t/won’t separate church from state. Absolutely nothing is stopping that appointee from practicing his religion in his free time.
But again, this wouldn’t be an issue at all if our elected officials would stop taking their religion into the voting chamber with them.
“Conservative Historian” in modern academia is sort of like high protein pasta. It’s high protein compared to the other pastas, but it still voted for Obama.
That’s a silly statement.
Sorry, there isn’t a right-wing, reactionary, revisionist, make-shit-up-as-I-go class of historians available.
All those people who don’t think FDR is a top three president are probably making shit up. Because facts. And letters after names. And stuff.
It was meant to be a colorful statement. But the point is still solid. Conservative historians are pretty liberal compared to conservatives in general.
I completely disagree–if he had been asking that he would have asked “will you actively support policy to protect LBGT people from discrimination?”
He didn’t. He asked a doctrinal question. Completely different.
A doctrinal question seems a bit more all encompassing to me. Why ask about 8 things that Congressmen tend to bring religion into the voting chamber with them about when you can ask 1?
And again, none of this would exist if politicians would stop taking their bibles into the voting chamber. They’re not in power to represent Jesus, they’re in power to represent us.
There are classical conservatives sprinkled around acadamia. They even started their own school.
Because it’s not the right question. It doesn’t illuminate actions or policy
No question illuminates action or policy. Actions and policies illuminate those things. No question is a guarentee that ANYONE will ever vote/stand the way they said they would.
Since Congressmen/women take their religion with them into the voting chamber, it makes complete sense (to me) to see how deep that religion runs and how much of an influence it’ll be on said voting.
Reagan in terms of the contemporary era.
FDR just started giving away OPM. Deficit spending and our foolish belief that others share our values is slowly destroying our ability to function, and it will result in China becoming THE leading world power during my lifetime. We lost our will long ago.
In terms of absolute self sacrifice I think it’s still, hands down, Washington.
I don’t quite understand - you’re critical of our deficit spending as one of the things that makes the US weaker, but Reagan was the greatest modern President? Reagan was the champion of the (perpetual) deficit spending.
Reagan achieved lowered marginal tax rates in an era with a 70% top marginal rate, and we have never gone back. Those rates were stifling the economy. He did not help cut spending on social welfare sufficiently and I doubt he could have done so. It’s not like presidents stand alone and control the purse. The damage done and precedents set by FDR could only be partially undone.
As for Reagan’s support of deficit spending for defense purposes, it is something with which I am uncomfortable even in light of (1) his military build up, which ultimately helped the collapse of the Soviet Union, and (2) the fact that he didn’t have the example of the never ending “lost decade” in Japan.
Deficit spending is often justified in recessions and times of war. Reagan faced both, if we accept the constant war footing during the Cold War. He did understand the need for strength and was willing to pursue it. At that time we were facing a very real existential threat. The approach though was blind to China, although its ascendency occurred later, primarily during the past 20 years while our private sector helped China grow. Meanwhile they’ve militarized the South China Sea and used Norh Korea to ensure a buffer on their border. Then there is Putin, so it’s not as if Russia became our friend, contrary to the thinking of a couple of Clintons, Obama, and now Trump. I’m not sure how much we ultimately achieved by outspending the USSR in the short term. We somehow were lucky enough to avoid an exchange of ICBMs or a release of one of those weapons to terrorist groups. One day at a time.
Following Reagan, we witnessed Japan go to a 200% debt/GDP ratio during their lost decade as they desperately tried to spend their way out of their recession, and then watched that decade continue to stretch into the following decades. That example wasn’t available at the time. All this said, I don’t think we will ever see the level of austerity necessary to fix the mess we have created until it is too late. Japan can’t and we won’t.
Long story short? Reagan helped build up the US on the world stage, bring down the USSR, cut taxes, and start rationalizing transfer payments, but he also helped put us further in debt. Greatest is far from perfect.
It was an inappropriate question. Everybody brings their conscience into the voting chamber. And it varies depending on what you have informing that conscience. There is nothing wrong with religious people serving and representing. It was an inappropriate question and a snarky one at that. What one personally believes does not mean they will not represent their districts well. Bernie needs to be asking policy questions not personal questions. Being religious does not mean that secular people are not represented. If he’s concerned about gay rights then he should ask about gay rights, not about religion.
I resent the implication that religious people are automatically not fair or have an alternate agenda in mind. It’s smacks or anti-religious bigotry.
How was it both an appropriate question AND an inappropriate question?
Agreed that the question could have been phrased better.
It has historically in many cases. Gay rights is just the brightest shining current example.
I think the implication was “I don’t know if you’re going to decide on things based on your religion instead of what the people want so I’m going to get clarification.”