Tulsi Who?

Tulsi_Gabbard_(48563636361)Super Tuesday did not go so well for Michael Bloomberg and today he, too, dropped out. The DNC plan to have Joe Biden win the nomination went quite well yesterday and though Bernie Sanders still won several states and is, for all intents and purposes, tied with Joe Biden in the delegate count right now, the race is not over. There are four candidates remaining, though you would be hard pressed to know that from the limitations one of them is facing. Tulsi Gabbard, congresswoman from Hawaii, has not given up her quest for the Democratic nomination—and frankly, I doubt she will anytime soon.

If you are thinking, “Who is Tulsi Gabbard?” you are not alone. In fact, according to a businessinsider.com article on February 28, only 44% of likely Democratic voters have heard of Gabbard. Until last night, when she was included in the reporting only because there were so few candidates remaining, she had received scant attention from the major news networks and opposition from her own party. But last night she was included. In fact, Donna Brazile was trying so hard to make the point that the DNC is not favoring any candidate that she insisted on FOX News that Karl Rove list Gabbard and her one delegate from American Samoa on his little dry erase board. That little exchange was dually noteworthy since Karl Rove had said, earlier in the day, that Elizabeth Warren was the only woman left in the race. But Gabbard is very much a woman and very much still running. In fact, she later took to Twitter to address the swipe, posting, “I’m not quite sure why you’re telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is ‘real’ and the real indigenous woman of color in this race is fake?” (That was a dig at Rove and FOX but also at Warren, who famously, and erroneously, claimed to be Native American).

Earlier this week, in The New Yorker, Andy Borowitz wrote a satirical piece that began this way: “Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is under intense pressure to drop out of the 2020 race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, her nine supporters announced on Monday. The announcement from Gabbard’s nine followers surprised many Democrats, who had been unaware that the Hawaii congresswoman was still running.”

Of course satire only works when it has an element of truth, and it seems that even many of those who are aware that Gabbard is running are simply choosing to ignore her. Consider, for example, Andy Kroll’s March 2 piece for Rolling Stone, entitled “Operation Bernie Block Is in Full Effect.” It said:

The Democratic field is now down to five candidates: Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Mike Bloomberg, and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. One way to organize the field is into two camps: the progressive flank (Sanders and Warren) and the moderate establishment flank (Biden and Bloomberg). Going into Super Tuesday, there is a leader and secondary figure in each flank — Sanders for the progressives and Biden for the moderates.

Did you notice that? Kroll acknowledged that Gabbard is still a candidate and then immediately discarded her. She was not included anywhere in the rest of the article.

I should point out here that I am not a Tulsi Gabbard supporter. I have admired a number of things about her over the past few months but I am not aware of a single political issue that we agree on, so I certainly would not vote for her. But a considerable part of my interest in Gabbard has been how completely and obviously she has been shut out by the Democratic party. On paper, Gabbard checks every box one would think the DNC would love to have in a candidate. Specifically:

  • She is a combat veteran. She deployed, voluntarily, twice—to Iraq and to Kuwait—becoming the first state official to voluntarily step down from public office to serve in a war zone. She currently holds the rank of Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard.
  • She is the first Hindu to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  • She is the first-ever voting member of Congress who is Samoan-American.
  • She is young – only 38.
  • She is, obviously, female.

In addition to all of that, she holds views consistent with the Democratic party in just about every area. She is a combat veteran who opposes war. She favors increasing the federal minimum wage to $15/hour (and even a universal minimum income). She wants to abolish the death penalty and do away with private prisons. She thinks college should be free and existing debt-relief plans for student loans should be fixed and expanded. She supports universal background checks and banning assault weapons. She favors Medicare for All and opposes restrictions on abortion. She wants to legalize marijuana.

So, what’s not to like?

Well, Gabbard is a rebel. Just over four years ago she resigned her position as vice-chair of the DNC in order to endorse Bernie Sanders for president. She gave the nominating speech putting his nae forward at the Democratic National Convention. She openly criticized the DNC’s handling of the 2016 election and accused it of rigging the election so that Hillary Clinton would be the 2016 nominee. In November 2017 she said, “The DNC secretly chose their nominee over a year before the primary elections even occurred.” She said the DNC and federal campaign finance laws need to be overhauled.

Earlier in 2017 Gabbard faced considerable backlash after she revealed that she had met with Bashar al-Assad while she was on a fact-finding visit to Syria, though she said she had no intention of meeting with him when she originally planned the trip.

Last summer, in one of the debates she has actually been allowed to participate in, Gabbard harshly criticized Senator Kamala Harris, at that time considered one of the leading Democratic candidates, for her work as a prosecutor in California. Matt Taibbi then wrote in Rolling Stone, “Having wounded a presumptive frontrunner [Harris] backed by nearly $25 million in campaign funds, Gabbard instantly became the subject of a slew of negative leaks, tweets, and press reports.”

In December, Gabbard voted “present” on both articles of impeachment against President Trump. Gabbard said that she had reviewed the 658-page impeachment report and decided that she could not vote against impeachment because she thought that Trump was “guilty of wrongdoing” but that she also could not vote for impeachment “because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.” In other words, Gabbard accused her own party of a politically-motivated impeachment.

In January 2020 Gabbard filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for defamation. Clinton had referred to Gabbard as “a favorite of the Russians” and even a “Russian asset”—and Gabbard alleges that Clinton made that allegation as “retribution” for her backing of Sanders in 2016 and that Clinton “holds a special hatred and animosity” for Gabbard. Gabbard is suing for $50 million. She is not backing down from the suit, either; according to a February 12 interview with Maria Bartiromo, Gabbard says the first court date has been set.

Then, in February, after Trump had been acquitted on both counts of impeachment, Gabbard said that Trump was acting within his prerogative when he decided to fire Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who had testified against him during the impeachment hearings, from his position with the National Security Council. That, of course, rubbed many Democrats the wrong way. Joe Biden, for example, said that Vindman deserved to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

I do not know that Tulsi Gabbard is likely to win many more delegates than the one she picked up last night from American Samoa. And her continuation in the race will continue to bring criticism from those that choose to acknowledge it at all. (Anderson Cooper and others have suggested that she is auditioning for a place on FOX News). She might find herself gaining considerably more support from those who dislike their choice between the 77-year-old Joe Biden and the 78-year-old Bernie Sanders. Gabbard is, after all, literally half their age. Even setting age aside, some might not like the choice between “socialism and senility” as Marc Thiessen put it last night. But the only way Gabbard has any chance of gaining much support is if the DNC actually lets her participate in debates. She has been excluded from the last five—and took considerable umbrage to the fact that the DNC changed its qualifying rules to allow Michael Bloomberg to participate in the last two—but she does, at the moment, qualify for the next debate, scheduled for Sunday, March 15. In order to be a part of the last Democratic debate, candidates had to have one or more of the following: at least 12 percent support in two DNC-approved South Carolina polls, at least 10 percent support in four DNC-approved national polls, or at least one delegate from any contest that had been held so far. With her delegate from American Samoa, Gabbard now qualifies. But remember, I said at the moment. That’s because Xochitl Hinojosa, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee, already tweeted that the qualifying threshold “will go up” before that debate. And if it does, Gabbard will be left out again.

 

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)

Besting Bernie

1920px-Bernie_Sanders_-_Rally_at_San_Jose,_CA_-_2I have been paying attention to presidential elections since 1988. I know that is not all that long compared to some who may be reading this, but it is long enough for it to mean something when I say I do not think I have ever seen anything like what has happened among the Democratic candidates for president over the past few days.

Last Saturday, Nevada held its caucus. Bernie Sanders won, with nearly half of the vote. The remaining half went to Joe Biden (20%), Pete Buttigieg (14.3%), Elizabeth Warren (9.7%), Tom Steyer (4.7%) and Amy Klobuchar (4.2%). Sanders essentially tied Buttigieg in the first caucuses, held in Iowa on February 3, with only 0.1% separating them. Following them were Warren (18%), Biden (15.5%) and Klobuchar (12.3%). About a week later Sanders and Buttigieg switched places in New Hampshire, with Sanders winning with 1.3% more of the vote than Buttigieg received. But there Amy Klobuchar finished third. A strong third, with 19.8%. After her it was Warren (9.2%), Biden (8.4%), Steyer (3.6%) and Tulsi Gabbard (3.3%). At that point it was clear that Bernie Sanders was a force to be reckoned with, that Pete Buttigieg had managed to drum up more support than most anyone would have thought possible when the crowded Democratic field was taking shape…and that Joe Biden was in trouble. Ahead of the New Hampshire vote, USA Today said, “the former vice president is battling for his political future in a state that has a history of determining who the nominee will be.” Biden had told a gathering in New Hampshire, “Excuse my language, but I’ll be damned if I stand by and watch us lose this country to Donald Trump a second time.” And then he went on to finish fifth. Of course, it did not help Biden any that when a young woman asked him about his unimpressive finish in Iowa, and said in response to Biden’s question that she had been to a caucus, Biden called her a “lying dog-faced pony soldier” in a Q and A that then went viral. The USA Today article also quoted Quinnipiac University Poll analyst Tim Malloy as saying that Iowa had hurt Biden’s perception of electability, which was what many had considered his biggest asset.

So, what happened after New Hampshire? Nevada had its caucus eleven days after New Hampshire’s primary and then, on February 29, South Carolina held its primary. Note that in the first three contests Biden had finished fourth, fifth and second, with his 20% second-place finish in Nevada his best showing of the three. Many called South Carolina a must-win for Biden, and no doubt it was. He touted the fact that he had “worked like the devil” to win the state and his popularity among African American voters figured to be a factor in the outcome. In the South Carolina Democratic debate, though, the tenth one of the campaign season already, Biden did not acquit himself all that well. CNN said that Biden “turned his outrage meter WAY up” in the debate and made some points, but also observed, “Biden is still not a terribly good debater, however. He repeatedly stumbled as he tried to make his points.” Not only is not a terribly good debater, he looked old and weary during the debate. All of that pales, though, when considering that Biden also asserted that “150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie [Sanders] voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability, more than all the wars, including Vietnam from that point on.” Jeffery Martin was being polite when he wrote for Newsweek that Biden had “misquoted statistics” about gun violence. Biden did not misquote—he seemingly made them up. According to the Center for American Progress, the number of gun deaths from 2007 to 2017, whether violent or accidental, was 373,663. In other words, Vandana Rambaran was not as kind but was much more accurate when she wrote on FOXNews.com that Biden had “grossly overstated the numbers.”

What about the others in the debate? Pete Buttigieg was “at his absolute best” CNN said, and Amy Klobuchar “did more with fewer opportunities than almost any other candidate on stage.” Elizabeth Warren was “totally fine” CNN claimed, though it also acknowledged that that was likely to make much difference for her. Michael Bloomberg was participating in his second debate. It would have been tough for him to do worse than he did in his first, so when CNN said that he “was better in this debate than in the last one” it could not help but quickly follow up with “but he wasn’t good.” When even CNN points out that Bloomberg “committed a near-Freudian slip early in the debate when he started to say he ‘bought’ a Democratic House majority before re-calibrating…” you know it wasn’t a good night for him.

That debate was held on February 25. The day before, Biden spoke at a Democratic Party dinner in South Carolina and said, during his comments, “My name’s Joe Biden. I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate.” Yikes. Biden left the Senate twelve years ago. So common have such Biden blunders become that Ken Pittman, who hosts a radio show in Massachusetts, wrote, “I’ve tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is now time to consider whether or not former Vice President Biden is showing early signs of senility, dementia, Alzheimer’s or some other affliction of one’s mental capacity and predominantly in our senior citizens.” I couldn’t agree more.

Still, on March 29, Joe Biden did something he had never done before, despite this being his third presidential run. He won a primary. He did what Sanders had done in Nevada, winning nearly half of the vote (48.4%) and Sanders did what Biden had done in Nevada, coming in second with about 20%. Tom Steyer had his best showing yet, with 11.3% and a third place finish, followed by Buttigieg (8.2%), Warren (7.1%), Klobuchar (3.2%) and Gabbard (1.3%). (It should be noted that Gabbard has not qualified for the last several Democratic debates).

This is when the craziness began. Tom Steyer “suspended his campaign” (which is political speak for “dropped out”). He had achieved, by far, his best performance, but he decided it was not good enough. “I said if I didn’t see a path to winning, that I’d suspend my campaign. And honestly, I can’t see a path where I can win the presidency,” he said. He had banked on South Carolina, too, having spent more time and money there than anyone else. And, despite his third place finish, he received no delegates from South Carolina, leaving him still sitting on zero after the first four contests.

On Sunday, March 1, Pete Buttigieg dropped out. That morning he went on “Meet the Press” and indicated that he was staying in the race, saying, “every day we’re in this campaign is a day that we’ve reached the conclusion that pushing forward is the best thing that we can do for the country and for the party.” Suddenly, that evening, he had changed his mind. Buttigieg went back to South Bend, Indiana, and announced that he was finished. Elena Schneider wrote on Politico.com that the result of his decision was “opening up a wider path for former Vice President Joe Biden to become the moderate alternative to Bernie Sanders.”

Monday it was Amy Klobuchar’s turn. Despite the fact that her home state of Minnesota will vote today, Super Tuesday, Klobuchar called it quits. And what did Elena Schneider say of that decision? It “pav[es] the way for Biden to capture a greater share of moderate Democratic votes against Bernie Sanders.” I assume you are noticing a theme here….

Tom Steyer had no delegates, and because of the way the system works it is not likely he was going to gain any…at least not anytime soon. But Buttigieg had 26 delegates and Klobuchar had 7. Sure, those are small numbers, but remember…it’s still early! Right now Sanders has 60 and Biden has 54. Today is what will make a significant impact, as Super Tuesday awards over 1,300 delegates. So why drop out days—or, in Klobuchar’s case, a day—before Super Tuesday? How much money would one really have to spend, after all, to see how it went for another day or two? Well, the Democrats just are not willing to risk it, and for two reasons.

The first reason is Bernie Sanders. Andy Kroll wrote an article for Rolling Stone headlined, “Operation Bernie Block Is in Full Effect.” Indeed it is. “That sound you hear is the collective exhale of the Democratic establishment after Joe Biden’s landslide victory in South Carolina,” Kroll began.

Biden’s victory unleashed a flood of endorsements by party fixtures and card-carrying members of the old guard — former Virginia governor and DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe, former DNC chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, former Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, along with dozens of mayors, state legislators, and sitting members of Congress. The New York Times reported Monday night that former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke would also endorse Biden less than 24 hours before voting began in the Texas primary.

Beto O’Rourke? He dropped out as a presidential candidate himself back in November. His campaign slogan was Beto For America, Beto For All, but he made it quite clear that it was really Beto for people who think like Beto…and that included commitment to policies such as the confiscation of guns and the elimination of tax-exempt status for any church or school that opposes same-sex marriage. In other words, you know you’re desperate—especially if you paint yourself as a moderate, which Biden usually does—if you are asking Beto for help.

The second reason is Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg formally entered the race not too long after Beto O’Rourke dropped out, but he then decided to skip the first four states and pour all of his attention, and his considerable personal wealth, into Super Tuesday. The DNC manipulated its debate rules to let Bloomberg into the last two debates, but that’s only part of their Beat Bernie strategy. At this point, though, the fear is that if Steyer, Buttigieg and Klobuchar had remained in the race, and picked up some of those 1,300+ delegates at stake today, the race would drag on and even possibly run the risk of producing a contested convention. There hasn’t really been a contested convention since the Republican Convention in 1976 when Ronald Reagan almost swiped the nomination from Gerald Ford. But if a contested convention really did occur Bloomberg might find himself getting some traction. He even went so far today as to admit that that’s exactly what he needs. According to the AP, he told reporters today in Miami, “It’s the only way I can win.” Bloomberg says he is the only candidate that can beat Donald Trump, but show me a candidate who hasn’t said the same thing about themselves. The Democrats do not really want Bloomberg, either. In many ways he would be another Donald Trump. He brings plenty of his own baggage, and he has a knack for inserting his foot in his mouth, too. See the above reference to buying congressional seats, for one, and his recently resurfaced assertion that farming is so easy that he could teach anyone to do it for one of plenty of others.

The bottom line is simply this: the Democratic National Committee is absolutely determined to run the candidate it wants, and it doesn’t want Bernie Sanders. Not that it should, mind you. He is a committed socialist and he has gone so far recently as to praise Fidel Castro. But that is no excuse for manipulating the process. Sure, right now there can be no definitive proof of manipulation. Steyer, Buttigieg and Klobuchar really might have all decided to drop out over the last three days. Of course, the Astros might have just been banging out a rally rhythm on their dugout trash can, too. But there is a reason that people are skeptical of someone overly objecting to something, and when it comes to Donna Brazile’s comments earlier today on FOX News, Shakespeare’s line, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks,” could not be more fitting. Sandra Smith asked Brazile about RNC’s chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel suggesting that a brokered, or contested, convention is looming and that the DNC would manipulate it to make sure Bernie Sanders is not the candidate. Brazile started her response by attacking the Republicans for canceling primaries (there is really no one opposing Donald Trump for the nomination) and then brought in the Russians before finally shouting, “Ronna, go to hell! This is not about — No, go to hell! I’m tired of it!” McDaniel saw through the smokescreen, too, tweeting, “It’s ok, @donnabrazile, I’d be having a bad day too if my party was still hopelessly divided. Talk of a brokered convention and the DNC trying to stop Bernie obviously hit a little close to home.”

Yes, it did. We’ll have to see what the DNC has up its sleeve after today’s results come in. Who knows, they might even have to let Tulsi Gabbard back on the debate stage!

 

Photo credit: By Σ – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=87818665

Respecting Religion

You have likely heard about, read about, and even watched or read the exchange that took place on June 7 between Senator Bernie Sanders and Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, during Vought’s confirmation hearing. There has been much said and written about the ridiculousness of Sanders’ questioning–not to mention the unconstitutionality of it–from all ends of the political spectrum, and I will link a few examples here if you would like to read them for yourself. Aaron Earls blogged about it on The Wardrobe Door, clearly making the point that “all roads lead to exclusion,” and that the opinions of Senator Sanders (and Senator Chris Van Hollen, who expressed an inclusivist view of Christianity during the hearing) are perhaps even more intolerant than Vought’s view that led to the questioning. Others on the conservative end of the political (and religious) spectrum made equally eloquent and passionate arguments against Sanders’ questioning.

Interestingly, those calling out Sanders’ intolerance were not confined to the usual ranks though. Emma Green, writing for The Atlantic, wrote, “It was a remarkable moment: a Democratic senator lecturing a nominee for public office on the correct interpretation of Christianity in a confirmation hearing putatively about the Office of Management and Budget.” She went on to state, “It’s one thing to take issue with bigotry. It’s another to try to exclude people from office based on their theological convictions. … This is the danger of relying on religion as a threshold test for public service, the kind of test America’s founders were guarding against when they drafted Article VI.” She concluded her piece by articulating exactly what so many on the other end of the spectrum have been saying about “tolerance” for years: “As the demands for tolerance in America become greater, the bounds of acceptance can also become tighter. Ironically, that pits acceptance of religious diversity against the freedom of individual conscience.”

Even Camila Domonoske, writing for NPR, addressed Sanders’ line of questioning. She provided a reasonable and balanced look at the issue from both sides, citing spokespeople for Sanders, legal experts, Muslim leaders and Russell Moore , president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. She correctly reported that views on hell differ, even among Christians: “Different Christian sects, and individuals, have varying interpretations of damnation. The traditionalist view is that eternal suffering awaits all who do not accept Christ; on the other end of the spectrum is the universalist belief that everyone will be saved. And then there are disagreements about what hell actually is.” But the very title of Domonoske’s piece asks the question that ultimately needs to be addressed in light of the Sanders-Vought exchange: “Is it hateful to believe in hell?” (And even if one feels that it is, is such a belief a legitimate subject of questioning in a political confirmation hearing and/or a legitimate reason to oppose or restrict someone from political office?)

I have linked only three examples here and there are many, many more, from all sides, so feel free to find and read those to your heart’s content. It will not surprise anyone who has read the blog with any regularity to know that I found Sanders’ questioning to be out of line and unconstitutional. But I actually want to take a different perspective on the entire exchange, looking instead at Vought’s responses to Sanders. I do not want to throw Vought under the proverbial bus, as he was no doubt surprised by the vehemence of Sanders’ questioning, but he seemed to be uncertain in his responses, unwilling to double down on what he had written and take a firm and unequivocal stance on biblical Christianity. In short, he seemed caught off guard, unprepared to give a defense for his faith.

The apostle Peter addresses the importance of enduring suffering for righteousness sake and being prepared to offer a defense for faith in 1 Peter 3:13-17:

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?  But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,  but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

Vought was certainly put in a position by Sanders to suffer for righteousness’ sake. He was, quite literally, asked for the reason for the hope that is within him, and he was indeed slandered and reviled during the exchange. Matthew Poole, in his commentary, said of verse 15, “either that hath authority to examine you, and take an account of your religion; or, that asks with modesty, and a desire to be satisfied, and learn of you.” Sanders certainly fell into the first category.

Again, it is impossible for me or anyone else to say what we might have done were we in Vought’s seat, so I do not wish for this to be seen as an attack on him. But I do wish it to be seen as an encouragement for all of us who claim the name of Christ and seek to be faithful to biblical Christianity. Should we ever find ourselves in a similar situation, will we be prepared to respond? Will we have a defense for our faith, for the hope that is within us, when we are literally in the spotlight? Russell Vought had an opportunity that very few people ever have had or will have, I suspect. He was seated before United States senators, with the opportunity to speak God’s Truth into the congressional record, not to mention to the ears of elected officials and to millions of people across the country and around the world.

Using the transcription of the exchange between Sanders and Vought provided by David French of National Review, I want to imagine what Vought’s answers could have looked like. I am giving Sanders’ questions/comments in blue, Vought’s real answers italicized in brackets and what I would like to imagine could have been said instead in more faithful adherence to Peter’s exhortation thereafter in orange.

Sanders: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?

[Vought: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and . . .]

Absolutely not, Senator. Islamophobia is a fear or hatred of Muslims and I neither fear nor hate Muslims. I am a Christian and I believe the Bible–both Old and New Testaments–which clearly states that the only way to know God is through acceptance of His Son Jesus Christ as Savior.

Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?

[Vought: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College.]

The context of my statement in Resurgent was dealing with the Muslim religion because it dealt with a position taken by a professor at Wheaton College regarding the Muslim religion. But in reality I believe that all people who have not accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, regardless of their religion or their rejection of all religion, stand condemned. I believe that because that is what the Bible says. while there are others, John 3:18 would be perhaps the best example. It says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” So, in keeping with my Christian faith, I believe that many people stand condemned.

Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

[Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian . . .]

Sanders (shouting): I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

[Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals . . .]

Yes, Senator, I do believe that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned because that is what the Bible says.

Sanders: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?

[Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.]

I am not sure if that statement is respectful of other religions or not, Senator. To be honest I am not certain it was designed or intended to be respectful of other religions. That statement was made specifically to highlight the very clear, very important differences that exist between biblical Christianity and Islam. The Christian faith is, necessarily, narrow-minded and exclusive. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” I was articulating and defending that element of my faith, that portion of what the Bible says.

I think, however, that you are missing an important point, sir. I absolutely respect the right of every person to choose his or religion, or to choose no religion. I believe the Constitution of the United States explicitly grants a freedom of religion to everyone in this country. That means that I accept, respect–and would defend–the right of Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons or Catholics or anyone else to believe, or not believe, as they so choose whether or not I agree with their religion. So in that regard I have complete and total respect for other religions.

But if by respecting other religions you mean that I have to agree with what they believe or keep quiet about areas in which my faith differs from theirs then I guess I would have to say no, I do not respect–by that definition–other religions. But given the incredible freedom of religion that we hold so dear in this country, Senator Sanders, I cannot imagine that is possibly what you meant.

Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.

To which I would say, if I might Mr. Chairman, that the freedom to believe as we see fit and to speak as we wish–even about those differing and contradictory beliefs–is precisely what this country is supposed to be about.