Posts
Bernie Sanders’ recent hostile interrogation of Russell Vought for his religious views shows why the recent Motion 103 in the Canadian parliament was a dangerous precedent.
It is clear that the average person, even a well-educated person like Sanders, does not understand the difference between discriminating against someone because of their religion, and disagreeing with their religious views. To Sanders, Vought is unfit for public office because he believes Muslims “stand condemned” for not accepting Jesus Christ—presumably meaning that they will go to Hell.
This is, to be absolutely clear, not my view, nor the view of the Catholic church. But one has a perfect right to hold such a view.
Passing a motion condemning “Islamophobia” encourages this confusion.
It is wrong to discriminate against Muslims. It is right to discriminate against Islam—if you find it false. Indeed, it is one’s moral duty.
We must, therefore, be very careful to always distinguish the two.
Accepting the view of Bernie Sanders, and of M-103, ends freedom of speech, ends freedom of thought, and ends freedom of religion.
1 comment:
A voice at the end of the video clip wonders how Sanders would have interrogated a Muslim, perhaps one who had posted his beliefs on the internet, say, about Sharia law. The guy could have asked, "Were I Muslim, Sir, would you be interrogating me about my religious beliefs?" Of course, no.
But, OK, say Sanders were fair about this and had ascertained that a Muslim under questioning indeed believed in the imposition of Sharia. To believe that one "stands condemned" for failure to accept Jesus Christ (I emphatically do not believe this way) refers to what happens after life on earth. The jurisdiction of Sharia is now, before we die. Which realm does political inquiry have anything to do with?
Post a Comment