Religious tests are bad...

...except when applied by Socialists to American Evangelicals.

Obviously.

Bernie Sanders interrogates nominee about his position on religious doctrine.

Given the ability of people to compartmentalize religion and daily life, and the constitutional protection given to freedom of thought/conscience, shouldn't the focus be on actions rather than doctrine?


//This is a disgraceful and unconstitutional line of questioning from the man who came close to being the Democratic nominee for president. He’s not only imposing a religious test for public office in direct violation of Article VI of the United States Constitution, he’s gone so far as to label this decent man — who’s seeking to serve his country in a vital role — as “not someone who this country is supposed to be about.” Vought expressed entirely orthodox Christian beliefs. There is nothing “extreme” about his statements, and they mirror the statements of faith of countless Christian churches and schools across the land. Are these believers also not fit for public office? I’ve written that Christians and Muslims don’t worship the same God. I suppose that means America’s not “about” me, either.  

It got worse. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland doubled down, attacking the same expression of belief all while absurdly stating that “no one” is questioning Vought’s faith. Leading media outlets need to immediately ask Senator Sanders and Senator Van Hollen if they believe that orthodox, traditional Christians aren’t fit for public office. If there was any evidence at all that Vought had ever violated the legal rights of Muslims, that would certainly be relevant to his confirmation. His Christian faith is not.

Increasingly, the battle between Democrats and many Evangelicals is becoming a struggle against leftist efforts to treat orthodox Christians as second-class citizens. I can think of few better examples than the exchange above. Christians can and do believe that Jesus Christ is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” while also defending the fundamental freedoms of all their fellow citizens. That’s how our constitutional republic works. Bernie Sanders would do well to brush up on his civic education and remember that religious freedom belongs even to citizens (and nominees) he doesn’t like.

The Religious Bigotry Season Opens.

Glen Reynolds writes:

IS IT OPEN SEASON ON MORMONISM? Remember, religious bigotry — just like slut-shaming, homophobia, and racism — is only wrong when it’s aimed at Democratic constituency groups.

The linked article is from Jennifer Rubin on "Is it open season on Mormonism?"

So what is the point then of the piece, which goes on to paint Mormons as condescending and backward thinking when it comes to gender? (“These doctrinally-defined gender roles aren’t entirely unique — they’ve been preached by various sects for centuries — but Mormons have proven uniquely unwilling to bend them to fit modern times.”)

Does Mitt Romney believe in all that stuff ? Well that would be the only real relevance to the voters and the predominate conclusion of many readers I fear, namely to suggest that Mormon religious views (and in turn Romney’s) on gender are unacceptable in modern society. (This is after all a political blog, not a Web site on comparative religion.) Again, did the reporter try to interview Romney or ask the campaign about his views? The reporter sure doesn’t indicate that he did. Is there anything in Romney’s record to suggest he believes this? The reporter identifies none. And if there is no connection with Romney’s views or records, why should it be a problem? Or even the subject of political punditry?

Remember in 2008, it was the height of de classe to ask if the Democrat Obama could possibly have been influenced by the anti-Americanism of Jeremiah Wright, but in 2012, of course, it's all fair game to do equate the Republican Romney with everything that Mormonism has ever been.

Here's an idea, how about asking him directly about his beliefs rather than playing on "religious tests"?