Bernie Sanders in Violation of the Constitution

I tend to team with Russell Moore of the SBC on Senator Bernie Sanders and the hearing on Russell Vought.  However, I Sen. Bernie Sanders Defends His Attack On Christianshave to say that I see the Senator as one who does not understand even the basics of his religious heritage as a Jew.   He is not a Jew religiously.  He needs to read the Old Testament to understand what Judaism means.

He could also take a look at history and see that Jews and Christians have lived is social harmony in America for hundreds of year, though they’ve, during their harmonious coexistence, had differences in theology.

Christians lived is harmony with many different theologies around the world.  Why does Bernie Sanders think that is impossible for a Christians serving in the Federal Government today?  Christians have serviced for hundreds of years in the USA governments: local, state and federal for hundreds of years.   Why is now do different?

The Federalist has given Senator Sanders space to qualify his stand against devout Christians serving in the Federal Government.

Sanders more exposes his ignorance of Christianity and the law of the land.  May God help him is my prayer for him.

I believe Senator Sanders is willing to deny a citizen of the USA his constitutional rights.  Senator Sanders violated the Constitution in his questioning.  The Hill makes the point succinctly.

The only problem with Sanders’ position is that it flatly contradicts Article VI, which explicitly bans religious tests for office. Sanders wants to disqualify Mr. Vought before the latter has even begun to function as deputy director of OMB, because he—that is, Sanders—does not think Mr. Vought has acceptable religious beliefs.

A weighed human response to the question of individual human destiny is given by Dr. Billy Graham as explained by James Wallis in the Washington Post.

During the question-and-answer session, the first questioner said, “Dr. Graham, Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life and no man cometh unto the Father but by me.’ Doesn’t that mean that all non-Christians, including the Jews, are going to hell?”

Graham replied, “God will judge us all. This is a God of love and mercy, but also of justice. We will all come before the judgment of God, and I am so glad that God has that job and I don’t.”

The young questioner looked disappointed. “Could you tell us what you think God is going to say?”

Graham answered, “Well, God doesn’t consult with me on things like that.” The despondent questioner walked away.

That wonderful moment speaks of the humility we can have and show, in the place of our deepest beliefs. That humility combined with an absolute commitment to protect each other’s religious freedom is going to be central now, as we move forward in a religiously angry and divided world. God help us.

More from The Hill on this issue. And even more from The Hill.

Related:

Religious Litmus Test

Immigrants to Dearborn, Michigan

I know this is just one story and one part of one city.  But the same changes are taking place in many larger cities and smaller towns in America.  America is a welcoming place.  However, historically most immigrants assimilated keeping significant parts of their culture but realizing that America is a unique and powerful system which has produced freedom like no other civilization in history.

More

Islamists Won’t Thank Liberals

Hirsi Ali, who was raised Muslim in Somalia but has renounced her former religion, said the Islamist playbook is simple: indoctrination, intimidation, and force.

She said Western efforts to appease Islamism can have the perverse effect of fueling extremism, because many view it as “God’s hand” and evidence their movement is succeeding.

“Islamists want a Sharia compliant society,” she said. “Whoever is in their way is their enemy. And it doesn’t matter how nice the liberals are, how accommodating or obliging they are.” Hirsi Ali added that “if you don’t understand that I don’t think you should be in the business of legislation.”

More here.

Backward Women

The title is only for enticing.  Politically, these days, many are blinded by what is behind the drama.  Perhaps I too, some of the time.

Women’s Movement Leader: Linda Sarsour, is considered a trojan horse.   She is bridging a gap that she knows will fall some day when the truth comes out.  Even many of the blind will wake up and reject her real ideology.  It will come out and someone else will take the helm or the Women’s Movement will subside or completely morph.

Here is a note from the Gladstone Institute on Sarsour:

The hypocrisy is that Sarsour’s bold lifestyle in the US portrays that deep down she herself loathes the suppressing conditions that she promotes for the poor women of the Muslim world, who actually have to live with them. Coming from a conservative Muslim society, I know the culture she yearns for would never allow her to launch such activism without permission from her “guardian” men.

More here.

Executive Order Travel Ban from 7 Countries

The Washington Post today condemns President Trump’s loose talk about banning Muslims.  The report is that the judges who held up the ban are using his words from the campaign to establish intent for the executive order submitted for the ban on immigration of the sever Muslim-dominate countries.

Media reporting in this country has muddled the issue in my mind and so maybe in the minds of many here.  I just posted a couple of videos from Eric Allen Bell who was sent to investigate the building of a mega-mosque in Tennessee.  His investigative work changed his life and his political views.  From him I take some clarification which makes sense.  The problem is not a Muslim problem.  The problem is an Islam problem.  Per Eric many Muslims do not believe all of the Qur’an.   Other Muslims on the other had know that the later writings of the prophet encouraged violence and that take those verses literally.  That is a minority.  Worldwide the minority who take a more radical view of the Qur’an is approximately 25% of Muhammad’s followers.

Thus, when the Post writes: “They cite his August speech advocating screening out people ‘who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.‘”  “They,” are the judges who “rejected” President Trump’s executive order on banning Muslims.  Stand on Sharia law is one criteria for entry into our country which is a serious flag for anyone entering.

My view is that we should not ban Muslims.  We should ban those who have threatening views that go counter to our principles, the US Constitution including the Bill of Rights and our way of life.  President Trump said as much in his campaign, that we have to “figure out what is going on.”   The criteria could be quickly derived and implemented.  There is not a need for country-by-country ban.   However, those coming from territory held by ISIS may need further vetting in my view.

Islam presents other challenges.  What we have seen in America and Europe is that Imam’s are the source for physical jihad and converting Muslims into active jihadists.  I don’t have an answer for how the country assesses Imam’s who are in the USA.  But, I know that some Imam’s are a source for radicalization of those hearing their teaching.

At Ramadan I’ve visited a local musjid along with other non-Muslims.  Muslims are very hospitable.  The Imam at these visits made many anti-American statements. That Imam has since left and I don’t know the current Imam.  But the rhetoric of the former Imam was potentially inciting.

So, the problem IS Islam and the writings of the prophet.  The issue is what is the ideology of the Muslim who is coming to America.  To keep the peace and tranquility and to form a more perfect Union, the country needs a method to address the entry of anyone who opposes safety, peace and tranquility and who could disturb the peace and tranquility.

More here.

Related:

What does the Executive Order ban actually do?