claim: Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a bill requiring all Christians who hold public office to wear a scarlet cross identifying them as "hateful bigots."
origin: On 10 June 2017, an article appeared on the web site Babylon Bee appearing toÂ reportÂ that Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) had proposed a bill requiring Christian public servants to sport a â€œscarlet crossâ€ identifying their religion: < WASHINGTON, D.C.â€”Bernie Sanders is doubling down on his condemnation of Christians holding public office as â€œhateful.â€ According to reports from within the U.S. Senate, the Senator from Vermont proposed a bill Friday that would force Christians holding any kind of public office to wear a visible scarlet cross on their clothing at all times, in order to clearly identify themselves as hateful bigots. Dubbed the Hateful Bigot Identification Act, the bill would require anyone believing in salvation through Christ alone to wear the cross, in order that co-workers and citizens could immediately identify and disregard the opinions of the disgusting, backwards, religious public servants. > In case it isnâ€™t obvious, no such legislation was actually proposed. The Babylon Bee is a satirical web site whose slogan reads: â€œThe Babylon Bee is Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire.â€ In the past, they have published tongue-in-cheekÂ stories informing readers that California passed a law requiring Christians to register their Bibles as assault weapons and that a North Carolina church instituted baptisms via water slide. The Sanders spoofÂ was prompted by a real-life event, namely the senatorâ€™s heated questioning ofÂ Russell Vought, President Trumpâ€™s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, during a confirmation hearing on 8 June. Sanders took issue with statements Vought made about Muslims in January 2016: < Sanders: You wrote, â€œMuslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.â€ Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic? Vought: Absolutely not, Senator. Iâ€™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, andÂ â€” Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just donâ€™t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view? Vought: Again, Senator, Iâ€™m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College. Sanders: I understand that. I donâ€™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, Iâ€™m a ChristianÂ â€” Sanders (shouting): I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made of people who are not just â€”Â 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 thatâ€™s how I should treat all individuals. 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 thatâ€™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. Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about. I will vote no. > In turn, Sandersâ€™s declaration that he would vote against Voughtâ€™s confirmation was condemnedÂ by some as the application of a â€œreligious litmus testâ€ for public office, somethingÂ the U.S. Constitution specifically forbidsÂ (hence the Beeâ€™s metaphoricalÂ imagery of Christians marked for discriminationÂ with a scarlet cross). â€œItâ€™s one thing to take issue with bigotry,â€ Emma Green objectedÂ inÂ The Atlantic: < Itâ€™s another to try to exclude people from office based on their theological convictions. Sanders used the term â€œIslamophobiaâ€ to suggest that Vought fears Muslims for who they are. But in his writing, Vought was contesting something different: He disagrees with what Muslims believe, and does not think their faith is satisfactory for salvation. Right or wrong, this is a conviction held by millions of Americansâ€”and many Muslims might say the same thing about Christianity. This is the danger of relying on religion as a threshold test for public service, the kind of test Americaâ€™s founders were guarding against when they drafted Article VI. > But Sandersâ€™s opinion echoed that of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which, although it stopped short of calling for Voughtâ€™s nomination to be rejected, issued a 7 JuneÂ statementÂ decrying Voughtâ€™s views as in conflict with the principle of religious liberty: < Religious freedom is such a fundamental liberty that the framers of our Constitution enshrined it in the First Amendment. Thatâ€™s why itâ€™s so disturbing that Trump continues to pack his administration with appointees like Russell Vought, whose views threaten that very freedom. Trumpâ€™s nominee for this powerful position that helps decide how federal money is spent has claimed that â€œMuslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.â€ We know that diversity is one of our nationâ€™s greatest strengths, and it is vitally important that Americans have confidence that their public servants will serve our entire nation in good faith. Thatâ€™s why we will watch Vought closely and press to ensure that those helping decide how public money is spent and the government is managed understand the vital importance of nondiscrimination. > The controversy presents a constitutional conundrum for both sides. Sanders seems to be sayingÂ that Voughtâ€™sÂ statements to the effect that Muslims are â€œcondemnedâ€ for not believing in Christ are tantamount toÂ religious discrimination. Sandersâ€™s critics say his rejection of Voughtâ€™s nomination is religious discrimination. Yet both rest their argumentÂ on the same principle, that of religious freedom. We reached out to Sen. Sanders for clarification of his remarksÂ but have thus far not received a reply.