I’m not Christian, and I’m outraged. I can’t think of many other things an elected official could say that’s more frightening, close-minded and dangerous.

Sheer stupidity which doesn’t do much for the southern redneck, Bible-bumping stereotype.

@963chris Are you Christian?

I don’t accept what he said, and neither should the people of Alabama. There is supposed to be separation of church and state in this country, and last I check that included Alabama.

@JLeslie where did he make the speech and why was he there?

A man does not know what he is saying until he knows what he is not saying.~ Gilbert K. Chesterton

@bkcunningham At a church, after the inaugural ceremony. It is in my link, and the article has additional links if you are interested in more specifics.

What a D**K.

@JLeslie it wasn’t just any church. It was the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church. Martin Luther King, Jr.‘s church. Where King was a minister and started the Civil Right’s Movement. Who was he speaking to?

Part of me thought maybe this is just church language, although of course it is unnacceptible and ignorant not to understand how that would sound to non-Christians. Either way to non-Christians it sounds like he is prosthelytizing along with excluding some of his constituents. But, that is why I was interested in what Christians thought, how they interpret and hear it.

@bkcunningham So? He is the Governor.

Ughhh It’s because of people like that, that I don’t attend church. These so called Christians that are supposed to be so loving and preach only God can judge us are always the most judgmental. I say poop on him I don’t want him as my brother anyhow!

@JLeslie so, he’s the governor. Obama is the POTUS and has uses Christian Bible quotes and Christian character references. He did recently in Arizona. But I suppose you don’t have a problem with that. He’s not just elected by people in Alabama. Obama calls upon people to pray. Does that offend non-believers?

Most versions of Christianity that I am familiar with teach that we are all God’s children, and that Jesus died for all of us, and in that sense, we are all brothers and sisters, regardless of professed faith. The governor was advocating conversion, but his wording was inept at best and contrary to Christian teaching at worst.

@bkcunningham

“Obama calls upon people to pray. Does that offend non-believers?”

Frankly, it does, as it’s pandering to the religious crowd. But Obama has at least been careful to include “nonbelievers” in his speeches, as he did when he was inaugurated. He hasn’t gone out of his way to exclude nonbelievers as well as non-Christians- as this governor clearly has.

@crisw can you give me a copy of the entire speech that Bentley made inside the Christian church you are referring to. I can’t seem to find it and would like to read the entire thing. Not just things pulled out.

Separation of church and state? Anyone? Anyone?

Christian Perspective:

I think the article is a playing on words to incite a lot of people, as is obvious from above. What he should have said is that I have something good I want to share with you, not, your “not in” yet. You all are so enraged, yet, if God does exist, and many have said, you dont exist and Im not your child, what attitude would you level against yourself for saying this? Is there no difference, hmm. Just another perspective.

@Gregory I’m not enraged nor am I suprised. Whether god does or doesn’t exist is IRRELEVANT to holding a political position because we have (supposedly) a separation of church and state in this country. This is why his comments are inappropriate because when anyone is governor, they are governor to people other than Christians as well and, therefore, Christian beliefs are hardly relevant to ALL of his consituency.

Obama does not exclude non-believers, have you read his inaugural speech? He does his best to incude everyone. I would love for our president to not mix in religion at all when speaking to the nation, but I don’t think asking for prayers is the same as saying, those of you who don’t believe are nobodies. All presidents use biblical quotes and touch on religion.

So, are you saying the governor was just speaking to his immediate audience? Obama would never, I would say the majority of our politicians, would never say you are not my brother in public.

@JLeslie do you have a copy of the speech from the church in Alabama you are basing your thoughts on?

Separation of church, sure but should that be no religion or allowing all religions to be represented. Athiesm, as far as I’m concerned is a religion and you want your perspective to govern and be the rule for all. Where’s the freedom in religion in that.

@bkcunningham I am trying to find it. I would think a copy of it, or a yourtube might exist, but I am not locating it through my google search.

@allI If Anyone else has a link to the speech in its’ entirety please provide.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir why was he speaking at the church? Do you have a copy of what he actually said or who he was speaking to and why? Should he have given up his church attendence when he was elected the Alabama State House of Representatives prior to this election? That isn’t separation of church and state. I’m not arguing with you. Trying to learn from you actually.

@bkcunningham It does not matter why he was there.

@Gregory I suppose it can mean different things to different people. To me an atheist, it doesn’t mean freedom from religion – it means politics and religion are separate. This means a governor wouldn’t talk about christianity or atheism in any way that affects policy. If my rule governed, as you say, then I would be the idiot who’d get elected governor and say ‘all believers are not my brothers’ – I would never say such a thing, however, so your assumption is incorrect.

@bkcunningham Of course it doesn’t me that he needs to give up his beliefs or stop going to churhc but I don’t see how either have anything to do with his being governor.

@Gregory Atheist and Jewish politicians do not exclude Christians or tell others to shed their own religious beliefs. From your statement I guess you agree the Governor was prosthelitizing.

It seems impossible to have an actual separation of church and state. I think he should step down. It is obvious he won’t be able to rule evenhandedly.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir me either. I’d know more about the sentences pulled out and the context in which they were spoken. That church has a very precious and significant value in the state where this man was elected. Why did people come into that church to hear him speak is all I’m asking. What was the purpose. I’d like to know more to be honest before passing judgement.

He was in a church after the inauguration, right.

@Gregory from what I can find about the speech. Yes. The Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church. Martin Luther King, Jr.‘s church. Where King was a minister and started the Civil Right’s Movement.

@bkcunningham I agree with @JLeslie – it doesn’t matter, to me, why he was there. Of course many people there are religious and love the church and it’s all good, whatever but he’s a politician, a governor – again, that position has nothing to do with religion and shouldn’t because not all of his constituents are Christian and saying those things specifically makes him sound small-minded. I wouldn’t go to the Church to hear my new governor speak but there is a reason I don’t live in Alabama.

@bkcunningham

Who his audience was and the entirety of the speech may make the statement clearer, and where he was will add depth to that as well…but the real issue is whether it was a proper statement at all for the chief executive of a state with a diverse population. In any case, in any context, it was not.

I saw a little more of the speech, and it does seem, possibly, more like the comment was directed toward “born agains” stating that they were part of the same family, and perhaps a desire to treat others the same way. But the statement objectively reads not as reaching out but shutting out – and someone who has just been elected as a representative of all citizens of the state needs to consider that when making these statements.

The concern over the statement is that the Governor has, in any case, stated outright that he feels closer to one group than another. Saying something like that is going to put huge parts of the population on alert, making them wonder, if not that they will be discriminated against, whether the Governor’s ingroup will be offered more favorable consideration on any issue. Further, it sounds much like the Governor is pushing a religious agenda.

The Governor is allowed to believe what he wants. To attempt to convert what he wants. But his public image must be to the extent possible one of neutrality. This statement was a failure of that duty in every way, regardless of his intent, and he needs to clarify it.

@iamthemob what did the entire speech say?

@bkcunningham It is reasonable to me to want to see the entire speech, or know why he was there. But, what situation can you imagine it being ok to say something like that? Since it followed his inaugural speech on MLK day, I assume he chose that church to include blacks and honor MLK.

@JLeslie the whole point is that taking a few sentences out of context is not understanding the full sentiments of a person and the setting. I don’t want to assume. I’m just asking to see the speech. Is that asking too much. I would expect the same if someone was pulling words out of a speech by Obama, Biden, the governors of any of the states. I suppose it is just me.

Here’s the speech.

I think it is possible he will not discriminate in how he runs the state, and that was simply his Christian, can’t help himself, belief, that everyone should accept Christ as their savior. But, it had to have been a pre-written speech I would think. How did no one catch that it was not a good thing to say?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir That is the inaugural speech.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir thank you. But that is his inauguration address. Not the speech he gave that @JLeslie posted the story about that has raised so much concern.

@bkcunningham If his entire speech helps him look better by putting it into context, the Christians need to get it onto the web.

Sorry – I’m looking for the other one now.

This is the full quote that I was able to pull, @bkcunningham – but as I mentioned, it was “more” of the speech, and my argument applies not to the speech in it’s entirety but rather whether the statement was acceptable in any context, considering his position:

“There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit,” Bentley said shortly after taking the oath of office, according to the Birmingham News. ’‘But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have, and like you have if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.”

’‘Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters,” he continued. “So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”

@JLeslie it isn’t a matter of making him look better or look worse. To me, it is a matter of being fair and forming opinions based on facts.

Here is a bit more of the speech text.

Still looking for a full account.

@bkcunningham While that is a good idea, even that one sentence (regardless of context) – just take that one sentence..is that anything for a governor to say? No.

I’m really torn on this. I can see it going in several different directions. I think (at least for me) the key is focusing on the last part, “I want to be your brother”.

Now he could have meant several things, such as saying even though you don’t share my beliefs, I want to be your brother too or that he wants them to share his beliefs, but either way, I think that fact that he wants to be everyones “brother” is really the key and not the fact that he is saying he isn’t currently their brother since they don’t share beliefs.

To me, it’s gotten blown way out of proportion.

@Seaofclouds I took it to mean ‘a brother in christ’, though. And I don’t think it’s gotten blown out of proportion – we need to weed out this kind of ‘politics’.

@crisw‘s link is really helpful. For me, it does seem like the intent was more about inclusion.

Very poor wording – indefensible wording, from my account. But the intent seems to be the contrary of the words – and it’s more an argument for politicians, as far as I’m concerned, to keep their religious beliefs to themselves when making public speeches and when devising their platforms.

Lol….doesn’t surprise me….But It did take longer for someone to actually say it than I thought it would….

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I disagree. We are all free to have our beliefs and express that we wish more shared our beliefs. He said it while in a church and as far as I can tell, it wasn’t a political speech (since that was already done and over with). Sure, politicians have less public freedom than the rest of us because they are always the center of attention, but I believe he is entitled to his free time just as the rest of us are. Him saying he wants more of us to share his beliefs doesn’t change anything political for me and it doesn’t mean he’s trying to push everyone to belief the same thing as him.

He did not have to talk about Christianity, even in a Christian church. He could be inspiring and inclusive instead. He seems very focused on making sure people know he cares about African Americans in his state.

I chalk it up to Christians who live in a community where they are such a strong majority, they are out of touch with how their words sound in diverse population. Lack the ability to think, what if I were the religious minority?

Worse is so many Christians say Obama does not include Christians. Had a fb friend say it to me a couple of days ago. When I asked him to show an example of this, he had none.

@Seaofclouds This isn’t free time, lol – it was inauguration day. And it does, for me. I then agree with @Russell_D_SpacePoet and wonder about his ability. Again, would you have wanted me to say “I love atheists, so rational, you know? I am not a brother to believers”

@Seaofclouds But, isn’t it akin to prosthelitizing? And, at that point innappropriate? I mean the, I want to be your brother line.

It was inauguration day, but his inauguration speech was done and over with. I get what you guys are saying, but I think all of us (politicians included) should be allowed to share and express our beliefs without it meaning something more than what it really does. He’s the only one that knows his true intentions, but I highly doubt it means he’s going to treat people unfairly just because they do or do not share the same beliefs as him.

@JLeslie I really don’t see it as him trying to convert people. I see it as him trying to say he wants to be a brother even to those that don’t share his belief. It’s all a matter of how you look at it though. I don’t think everyone that expresses a desire for more to share their belief to be trying to convert everyone to their belief. There’s a difference to me.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir The point is you could say whatever you wanted to about your beliefs and for me, that alone wouldn’t necessarily mean you were trying to convert me just because I don’t share your beliefs or that you would treat me differently just because I don’t share your beliefs.

@iamthemob The link @crisw provided seems to still exclude non-Christians in my opinion.

@Seaofclouds Well of course we will never know what he meant but this was a public appearance, people will write down what you say and take meaning out of it – that’s what speeches are for. It is incredibly foolish to say something and then say that’s not what I meant, which is what he’s doing (PR is forcing him, I’m sure). In any case, if I was standing there, I’d shake my head at those words because this isn’t about beliefs, this is about someone implying ‘if you don’t have my religious beliefs, you are not a brother to me’ – why any politician would want his constituents to be his brothers and sisters ( I know it’s mean in that kind of Jesus-like way, whateaver) is beyond me. Why can’t a million other things be said, instead? Besides, I don’t care if he was converting or not, it’s inappropriate that anyone would even read that from his speech. And, yes, you wouldn’t think I was trying to force my lack of belief on you but you sure as hell would feel unwelcome.

@Seaofclouds I think he should hire a few Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, or Jewish Speechwriters to proof a speech before he goes out into public. Too many Christians seem not to get that their language is different than a lot of the country. Truly, if it is just semantics, he needs to be aware of it.

I understand what he was trying to say and would think even a non-Christian would understand that all he was saying that he was opening up to all non-Christians to say I welcome you as my brother and sister even though you are a non-Christian. No big deal really.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir was it a public appearance? I can’t find anything that even says why he was speaking there or who he was addressing.

@JLeslie – I think that’s why it’s horrific wording. However, think of it this way:

(1) it was to a church audience or church-going (at least nominally) – whenever you speak to an audience of a particular type, you often attempt to express solidarity to them.

(2) the rest of the speech contained language emphasizing inclusion, like this: ’‘You know, (for) a lot of people, it’s hard to trust a Republican governor,” Bentley said. ’‘Let me tell you. I want to tell you today that I promise you that I’m going to do everything I can for everybody in this state.” (emphasis mine).

(3) the words “I want to be your brother” can be read “I want you to consider me as your brother.” Again, a wording issue – the intent can easily be read to mean regardless of our differences, we should consider each other family regardless of whether our beliefs are the same, or we actually are family.

Because of the way it was said, I think that the concern is completely justified. The level of concern should be questioned – and I think it was a terribly dangerous way to send the message so close to his inauguration.

I think it’s best to let the dust settle – but I think still this is a lesson in how those in our government need to take significant effort in restraining any religious expression they make – religious beliefs are personal, and should have little as possible to do with political positions.

@bkcunningham – All such appearances are public. It was a speech. Therefore, the Governor should have known it would extend beyond those he was immediately speaking to. This is different than a statement made in a private room to an individual or group. If he is speaking in a public place, his statements are subject to public review.

@bkcunningham Well this was his inauguration day marking him as a public figure of the entire state – he went there some time after his inauguration speech and that, to me, counts as a public appearance since that Church isn’t for private members only. I suppose someone can say it wasn’t a public appearance, then what was it? To me, if it is said to some of his constituents, it is applicable to all of his constituents.

I would guess non-Christians might be there to listen to him. It was MLK day. It would not surprise me if there were Black Muslims there. I would go to a church to hear someone speak who I was interested in. Everything the new Governor does on his inaugural day is part of that day.

@Cruiser how do you get that from this quote ’‘Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters,” he continued. “So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”

@Simone_De_Beauvoir, He was in a church! Your perspective really walks out on a slippery slope. Based on that, maybe he should denounce any faith because, as a politician he is part of the state. Oh, and we are the we in “we the people” so maybe we better not have any religion.

@Season_of_Fall He can speak of Christian values without using the exclusionary Christian language the evangelicals sometimes do.

@JLeslie In one of the stories I read, he said ”“If the Holy Spirit lives in you, that makes you my brothers and sisters. Anyone who has not accepted Jesus, I want to be your brothers and sisters, too,” Bentley said. (source)” (emphasis mine). If he really did say that and it has just been dropped out of other stories, I really agree with @Cruiser‘s assessment of it.

I’m sorry @JLeslie, but its a double standard. We want to exclude you but you don’t want to exclude us. I agree with cruiser’s assessment as well.

@Season_of_Fall I remember where he was. Does that mean he has no control over his words or that he simply must mention something Christian? I have no issue that he was in a Church nor that he’s a Christian nor that he believes his beliefs are important to him BUT his remarks are biased and in violation of what I define as separation of church and state. I don’t know how you define the latter but if I was in that Church, as I said, I would not feel this man was my representative. Of course, he doesn’t have to say everything about every other religion or atheism to pacify me. He shouldn’t mention any of it.

@Seaofclouds He says ”’‘Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.” ” – this, to any logical person, means ‘we can only be brothers and sisters if we have both accepted Jesus Christ and I want to be your brother, so accept Jesus Christ’, no? Is that not how you’re reading it?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir But why shouldn’t he be able to mention his beliefs? Separation of church and state talk about how he does his job. It does not mean that someone suddenly has to forfeit their beliefs because they took a political position.

@Seaofclouds the quote you cite means to me, I want you to be Christian too, so we can be brothers. Don’t get me wrong, like I said above, I think it is very possibly this guy wants to include everyone, does not discriminate in anyway, but again, back to the lamguage, he is doing that Christian thing, and not getting how it sounds to others.

If a politician said “If Muhammad is your guide, that makes you my brothers and sisters. Anyone who has not accepted I want to be your brothers and sisters, too,”

According to this story, “he new governor is a Sunday school teacher and deacon at Tuscaloosa’s First Baptist Church, which considers “passionately” evangelizing to be a “key core value,” according to its website.”

So I don’t think it’s inclusive.

Look at what he said. ”“if you’re a Christian and you’re saved… it makes you and me brother and sister.” Then he said ”“Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters.”

And who is that “daddy”? The Christian God, of course.

Then he said, ”“So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.””

How do we become his brother? By accepting Jesus.

That’s proselytizing, and that’s exclusionary.

@Seaofclouds He can mention his beliefs. That’s not what happened though. He’s drawing conclusions from his beliefs that apply to his constituents which is nothing I want near me, in a politician. If you read my earlier comments in this thread, I said I would never expect any politican to give up his beliefs which anyone is free to practice – what that has to do with his duties as governor still eludes me. Please explain how his religious beliefs are supposed to matter during his public office position. I keep thinking “this would never fly here in NYC”.

@Season_of_Fall I don’t understand? How are we excluding anyone?

@JLeslie Thus the whole reason it’s a matter of perspective. To me, it just mean he wants to include everyone, not necessarily convert everyone. I would see it the same way if he had said “If Muhammad is your guide, that makes you my brothers and sisters. Anyone who has not accepted I want to be your brothers and sisters, too,” as well. I wouldn’t automatically assume he is saying I need to convert.

@JLeslie, No, in your example, I would agree with him that I was not his brother (in that faith). Context!

@crisw Thank you for expressing my take on his words better than I did.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir My point was that just stating his beliefs does not mean he is failing to separate church and state. Your previous comment that “He shouldn’t mention any of it.” to me seemed like you are saying now that he is governor, he shouldn’t ever mention his beliefs because he wouldn’t be separating church and state if he does.

@Season_of_Fall

The slippery slope argument is faulty, as denouncing all faiths would be treating them as equally as accepting all faiths – and this Governor did not simply say “I believe this.” That is neutral in common political rhetoric (but still should stay out of it, as far as I’m concerned). Asking that he not use his beliefs to carve people into ingroups and outgroups is simply asking that believe what you will…but don’t start dividing your constituency – especially on religious grounds.

There is no double standard for much the same reasons. No one is asking that anyone be excluded – but the language of the Governor’s speech clearly makes some people feel that they are. That’s why what he said was wrong.

@Seaofclouds

He may not be required to forfeit his beliefs, but his religious beliefs should have nothing to do with his political actions. Practically, this is of course impossible. However, I think it isn’t outrageous to expect that, at least, in his public statements he at all times at least advocate such neutrality.

Any political decision should be made based solely on the rights of the citizens, not the beliefs of the legislator, judge, or executive. When a Governor claims that a certain group are his brothers and sisters because they accept Jesus Christ, that is rightfully offensive as a public statement. It indicates an understanding and perhaps privileging of one group over another.

That’s what is basically wrong here. Whether it should be blown up at this point warrants a discussion, and I would argue “no.” But it’s a politically responsible part of the discussion to say that this was a comment inappropriately made.

@Seaofclouds I agree this matter can be a matter of perspective – then why are so many people irked? It’s not like people are saying ‘wow that can be read in so many different ways’ – people are bothered, people feel it’s inappropriate. This isn’t as neutral as you think it is and it’s not neutral because he clearly wasn’t trying to be neutral. I agree with @JLeslie – it’s possible he doesn’t even know how those remarks can come across. People who are very religious (as @crisw points out, he is, in general) can’t believe that someone would hear something like that and think ‘wth?!’ which is what happened. I suppose you and I can agree to disagree, on this one.

As P. Z. Myers put it-

“Isn’t it just amazing that the governor of a secular state would stand up and unabashedly make a speech declaring a specific religious group as having a privileged status with him?” That’s why it isn’t just about his right to believe something and express his beliefs.

I was saying about your example. If a politician, while in a mosque, said I was not his brother, I would take it in context and agree I was not his brother (in that faith)

@Seaofclouds

“To me, it just mean he wants to include everyone, not necessarily convert everyone.”

He wants to be our “brother.” The only way we can become his “brothers and sisters,” as he so clearly states, is by “accepting Jesus.”

How does this include everyone?

@Season_of_Fall Fine, then what does his second usage of brother mean? The one where he says “I want to be your brother”? Is that usage secular? How can he mean ‘in that faith’ first and ‘just in general’, next?

Listen, I agree, he said something in a stupid way and stuck his foot in it. I think its blown out of proportion.

@Season_of_Fall And, so when a Muslim says to you, you are not my brother or sister in that faith, but I want to be your brother in that faith that does not mean to you he wants you to be Muslim?

Church, context.

@Season_of_Fall What is ‘blown out of proportion’? I haven’t heard of this at all, not one of my friends mentioned it in email or facebook. We’re just discussing it here on Fluther which doesn’t have this huge reach.

@Season_of_Fall Christian church context.

@JLeslie, Sure it does, thanks for the invite but no thanks. That simple, but that in the context of him being in a mosque.

I would agree with you if it wasn’t in a church. thats all.

@Season_of_Fall Again, I am not saying he had mal intent. Jews and athiests do not invite people into their religion to be their brothers. My guess is Buddhists don’t either. I never hear Catholics talking like that, that totals up to a bunch of people in the US. But, he is in Alabama, so his people are probably used to it. Or, understand it.

All of you defending him- just curious here would you have the same reaction if he had said-

“If you’re accept Allah, it makes you and me brother and sister. Now I will have to say that, if we don’t accept Allah, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Allah , I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.””

What do you think the reaction of the conservatives and Fox News would have been if he said that?

@crisw I see it as him saying, we aren’t brothers in faith, but I want to be your brother too. I don’t assume he means in faith, instead I assume he means by another means, such as humanity in general or as in community. As I mentioned before, I’d see it the same way if it was being said about being Muslim instead of Christian. I just don’t automatically assume people are trying to convert me by the things they say. To each their own though. Obviously what he said wasn’t said in the best way, but there really isn’t any fixing it at this point.

He was dead wrong. He should apologize profusely, although I don’t think that’s going to be of much help at this point.

@Seaofclouds But that goes back to what @Simone_De_Beauvoir said, why do you add in faith to the first part, but not the second?

I don’t understand what is surprising about his speech. I thought it was well known that “brother” refers only to fellow believers. I actually remember hearing the same thing about “neighbor,” that in the OT this had the specific connotation of your fellow Hebrews.

@crisw that is exactly what Muslims think, though. There is the brotherhood of the ummah (the believers), and there’s everyone else.

Most religions operate this way, including Christianity, especially Bible-based Christianity.

@CaptainHarley I think it would help. I think him making a statement of what he meant, and his intention to include all faiths would help. An acknowledgment that his words could be misinterpreted.

@JLeslie It’s just the way I see things. To me, he was saying this group of you are already my brothers and sisters and I want to be a brother to everyone else as well. I can see why people take it the way they are, I just don’t take it that way.

To me the whole discussion without the facts is like me posting a few statements and making a few remarks said during the press conference of President Obama and President Hu. A reporter asked Obama how he could meet with someone like Hu who has no respect for human rights. During the conference, Obama said, ”“We have some core views as Americans about the universality of certain rights – religious… specch. ... assembly… that we think are very important,” he says. “I have been very candid with President Hu about these issues. ... Occasionally, they’re a source of tension between our two governments.”

Would it be fair or intelligent to judge this without hearing the complete press conference and the context of the question or the responses from both sides? Not to me.

@bkcunningham – Whether a statement was proper if made by an official can be made whether or not we have all the surrounding context. Again, we can understand what was meant or why it was made with that context, but the above statement can be judged in a vacuum.

The importance and gravity of the statement, however, cannot be judged without all the information. A debate around whether or not it was something he should have said, or whether it was dreadfully worded, needs nothing of the surrounding circumstances.

@bkcunningham, I agree with you that it’s presumptuous to judge a person based on but a mere snippet of a speech.

But I’m curious as to what context you think could mitigate what he said.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you believe that Christians are your brothers and sisters, and that everyone else is not because they have rejected the grace of God? That they therefore deserve to burn in hell, and that you probably feel sorry for them and wish they converted to your religion so they can be “saved”?

Maybe I have a particularly jaded view of religion but I don’t find this surprising or even offensive, really…

@Qingu What are you saying? You’re ok with it? You don’t feel that when he says I want to be your brother he is prosthelitizing?

@JLeslie

I think he already did that, but I could be mistaken.

@crisw I don’t see what you are getting at with your Muslim argument. The Gov. simply said…
“If the Holy Spirit lives in you that makes you my brothers and sisters. Anyone who has not accepted Jesus, I want to be your brothers and sisters, too,”

which would be the same thing if a Muslim leader said…

“If Allah’s Spirit lives in you that makes you my brothers and sisters. Anyone who has not accepted Allah, I want to be your brothers and sisters, too,”

He is/was just reaching out to say we can do this together even if we do not have the same religious beliefs and or philosophies! Honestly what is all the fuss??

@CaptainHarley Possibly, I don’t know. I should not have worded it implying he had not if I did; I only meant to say it would help in my opinion.

@JLeslie of course he is proselytizing. I guess I am nonplussed because, well, several reasons:

(1) I find that I am much more open to proselytizing than most non-religious people,

(2) He’s the governor of Alabama. Frankly, I’m just happy that he’s not calling for holy war against the Ishmaelites.

@Qingu I know, right? I read this and was like ‘C’mon, it’s Alabama, what do people expect?’ and not in a derogaroty way, just that that’s how it is there, pretty seeped in Christianity. Not an excuse, for his remarks, but hey…again, there is a reason I don’t live there.

@Cruiser – I like your sentiment, I do. I just don’t think it needs to mention the Holy Spirit (I mean, really? I would burst out laughing) whatsoever to get the point of unity across.

@Qingu OK, just checking.

@Cruiser, while I agree with you in the sense of “what’s all the fuss about,” I think you are mischaracterizing his intent.

The point of his comment wasn’t “so what if you have different beliefs.” The point seems to have been that it would be nice if you had his religious beliefs, because then you could be his brother (and be spared from God’s hellfire).

@Cruiser

I think the fuss at this point is about the fact that he positioned himself with one group against another – and we have to realize that historically there is a religious divide, so this kind of statement will bring heat.

To argue that the statement is “okay” because of its intent is to ignore thousands of years of religious rhetoric that backs up these statements. I believe that it very well was a statement meant to express inclusion. But it was horribly bad at translating that.

We must, as far as I’m concerned, call out these statements to be (1) retracted or (2) explained as responsible citizens of a democracy. Aligning oneself with any group that is agenda riddled (fuck, I think that claiming one is a Republican or a Democrat as a chief executive is equally offensive) is just asking for outcry.

Maybe if we all stuck to the issues rather than positions, alignments, etc….we’d be able to have leaders instead of politicians.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I dread bible thumping pretty much more than anything….but I see smoke but IMO there is no fire here.

@Qingu Just the opposite….IMO many here are mischaracterizing his intent of his words. Makes for great headlines and I’m sure websites are racking up hits at his expense.

@JLeslie

I can understand what he said, but many, many others find it far too easy to put their own interpretation on it. I have a great number of “brothers and sisters in the Lord,” but I view ALL men and women as my brothers and sisters in other ways, genetically, anthropologically, etc. This, however, is a fine distinction and should be avoided by those in public office.

@iamthemob, speaking as probably the most virulently anti-religious person on Fluther, I disagree with ye.

You seem to be characterizing the fact that this guy has a serious ideological position as a flaw in leadership, and I can’t abide by that. My problem with him is not that he has taken a stark position, it’s that the position he happens to have taken is wrong.

I do think “inclusiveness” should be a goal of governance, and certainly from a rights perspective. But from my side, I wish Obama (for example) was less inclusive of the insane right-wing ideology in forming his policy… because it is insane. Inclusiveness for the sake of inclusivenss shouldn’t supersede truth or good governance. (Christians would say it shouldn’t supersede salvation.)

I also think you’re underestimating just how thoroughly ingrained the “us vs. them” tribal mentality is for abrahamic religions. I mean, the fundamental “point” of Christianity is that God has made us this offer, and you can either accept it or not accept it. That automatically divides humanity into two groups. I know there are many liberal Christians who basically verge into unitarianism, but I don’t think they’re representative of religious people, and I think it’s naive to expect all religious people to change their ideology to unitarianism.

@CaptainHarley I think we are on the same page, and many of the people on this discussion are too.

@Cruiser

“He is/was just reaching out to say we can do this together even if we do not have the same religious beliefs and or philosophies! ”

Go back and read my other posts, which have a fuller account of his statements. It’s very clear what he meant. How do you get inclusiveness out of his entire statement?

@Qingu I think I understand your disdain of anyone with a faith in a God. I’m glad you understand how misguided it is to speak about someone’s intent when you don’t have all of the facts. BUT, if you are asking me if Christians believe that all religions and all beliefs come together at some point into a merry rainbow road that leads to heaven? The answer is no.

@bkcunningham, hoooold on. I have disdain for religion, but I don’t have disdain for people who are religious. Well, not most of them anyway. 9/11 hijackers would be one exception.

And from your answer, it sounds like you basically agree with the governor as quoted. You agree that there is a special group of humans—your “brothers and sisters” (we can quibble on this, but the basic idea is the same) who are saved, and everyone else is screwed—and they deserve to be screwed, too. Right?

@Qingu

Ironically, you’ve completely misread the statement by failing to read my thread. However, I will say that there are very, very few positions that one should take that aren’t general and really impractical once we get to the nuts and bolts. This is why I claim that issues are the important starting point, not positions.

I’ll restate the below:

“Any political decision should be made based solely on the rights of the citizens, not the beliefs of the legislator, judge, or executive. When a Governor claims that a certain group are his brothers and sisters because they accept Jesus Christ, that is rightfully offensive as a public statement. It indicates an understanding and perhaps privileging of one group over another.”

Aligning oneself with a group is about saying “I believe what you believe.” A chief executive has no place doing this, as far as I’m concerned, unless the alignment is with “my fellow citizens.”

@Qingu I feel like I used to say that too, that whole ‘it’s religion, not the people’ that I dislike – then, I realized, what is a religion other than an institution infused with value by people. So now I say I dislike how some people interpret their religion.

@Qingu LOL not that they deserve to be screwed. I think you also know that the same people with these beliefs say there will be many who say they are saved in every sense and they may be screwed, as you say, as well.

@iamthemob I guess I’m confused as to what exactly you expect from this particular politician. I mean, he is clearly an evangelical Christian, and the idea of salvation probably is very important to him. Are you saying he shouldn’t ever talk about his religious beliefs in public?

Also, I don’t really see how politicians could avoid aligning themselves with some group, or why they should avoid doing so. Politicians get elected by running on issues, issues which inevitably Americans disagree strongly about. Democratic politicians align themselves with the group of people who believe government ought to provide a social safety net, for example. Unless you are making a special exception for religious issues, I don’t really see how this is a workable idea.

Edit: I also fail to see the major difference between “issues” and “positions.” I mean, you have positions on issues, right?

@bkcunningham, getting a bit off topic but isn’t it a doctrine of faith that all humans do deserve to be tortured in hell because we inevitably sin?

@Qingu Just because his belief system is you and I are not going to make it into the Kingdom of God, doesn’t mean he has to govern in a way to exclude those who are not Christian, probably he intends to be inclusive. So, I would just advise him to have his words match his thoughts, if he intends to include everyone. If that is his intention, he has to understand how his words sound to those he wants to include.

@Qingu

I expect that he speak about his religious beliefs when they’re relevant – which, in the political context, as far as I’m concerned, should be never. But the best that I can expect is that, when asked what religion he belongs to, he should answer truthfully. Full stop.

The job of our politicians should be to analyze the issues without bias, and determine what are the best ways to proceed for the citizens generally, and without influence of beliefs. We should elect our leaders not on the basis of their ideology, but their neutrality and their competence. I take no position on whether this will ever be practically possible. But I can hope…

As I said, the idea of “Democrats” and “Republicans” from a leadership standpoint is objectively as offensive as any religious standpoint, as it speaks to loyalty to a particular ideology as opposed to an ability to make independent decisions. It reeks of agenda.

And this is why I believe that a population that focuses on issues as opposed to alignments would be more reflective of an actual democracy. Alignments are for interest groups, not for “the people.” The workability of it is not something I would debate. But whenever a person says “I believe what these people believe” they are setting preconditions for an analysis of an issue that I find improper when their job is, nominally, to represent everyone.

@iamthemob but your beliefs—your ideology—has a huge influence over how you “analyze the issues.”

We all make assumptions about human nature and reality, and we all have accreted ideological systems that influence how we perceive and judge reality and our fellow humans. According to my ideology, having sex before marriage, or gay sex, is basically inconsequential. According to a devout Christian’s ideology, this behavior brings sin into the world and damns you to an eternity of suffering.

Likewise, according to (some) devout Christians, God gave us the world to hold dominion over, so it doesn’t matter how much oil we use or how many animals we kill. According to my ideology, the world is a complex system and humans evolved in precarious balance with nature, so therefore we should limit our impact on the environment and live sustainably.

Now, I would argue that my ideology is simply accurate, whereas the Christians’ beliefs are based on Mesopotamian mythology, and therefore my analysis of these issues is the best way to proceed. My lens is better, less distorted, than their lens. And I think you would agree with me, but that’s not what you’re saying. You seem to be saying that using lenses—in itself—is inherently wrong. But I don’t think there is such a thing as an analysis without lenses.

My kneejerk reaction was that it wasn’t very “Christian” of him to say that.

After reading the details, if he said it in church? Leave it in church. He means brothers and sisters in Christ, and it comes from a desire to do good by his religion’s standards.

I’m not a Christian.

He means brothers and sisters in Christ

My feelings exactly. I’m not surprised or shocked by what he said. It’s alienating, but that’s how many religions work, I’m afraid.

He’s a doofus.

Unless I missed it, his inaugural speech was void of religion, but he mentioned race, economic status, and polical party when he speaks of all the people of Alabama.

@Qingu

I do not argue anything that you’ve stated. I don’t see why, therefore, you start off your post with the word “but.”

That being established, therefore, is why aligning with group ideologies is distasteful, to me, for a politician. Each issue that arises during a political tenure must be looked at with as clear a “lens” as possible.

It is never achievable to approach with a clear lens, I believe, as that is an ideal – but one can strive to get as close as possible. Getting close is work. This is why it’s a job.

Expressing alignment with ideologies takes us away from that.

I’m telling you, you’re not my brother…
Thank you, God.

@JLeslie His inaugural speech would be pertaining to the “state” part of “seperation of church and state.” I’m not bothered by any politician’s religion. I just want them to represent me to the best of their capability.

@Taciturnu I am completely fine leaving religion out of the speech, in fact I prefer it. But, coupled with his other statements it is a little curious. I don’t want to make something out of nothing.

Interestingly both Bush and Obama mentioned many religions in their inaugural speeches.

I don’t see how a speech on the day of his inauguration, even if not the inaugural speech, would not have the same requirements in his mind when speaking to the public. But, I am not religious, it is so foreign to me how he thinks. It’s not just Christians. When Leiberman was running with Gore he said things that really annoyed me regarding religion. One interview I saw them both in, Gore kind of came to Lieberman’s rescue, well more accurately to his own I guess, and corrected a statement, basically cut Lieberman off, that spoke of support regarding religion and education, I cannot remember exactly what was said, just remember being very annoyed.

@JLeslie I didn’t mean to insinuate that you were making something of nothing. Just offering my perspective. :)

I understand what you’re saying. My thought is that it’s better to stand by your beliefs. If he doesn’t believe in salvation for anyone other than a Christian, he may not be able to bring himself to commend other religions. There are three upsides to this- 1. He may be more likely to stand by his “promises,” if his convictions run deep enough. 2. You know the basic value system the guy has. 3. Bentley would never succeed in a run for President of the United States of America. (But he may do just fine in Alabama. Placement is key, I think.)

Edit: @crisw- Yes, my reaction would be the same no matter what the religion.

@Taciturnu And I see plenty of downsides to having a man like that in office.

@Taciturnu Yes, I would want him to be honest, we agree there. My point is many Christians on this thread are saying he is talking to everyone about being their brother. But, what you are saying is he may very well not see all religions equally, thinks his is the right one, and cannot bring himself to commend other religions. That is what I thought with the omition in his speech. That he might be disengenious to mention Muslims, and athiests, and Jews. He may feel by legitimizing those religions, he is not doing the work of Jesus, because he made a commitment to bring people to know Christ.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I believe someone leading people should represent them well. Since I believe in the election process of the United States, I also have to believe he will represent them accordingly. Lastly, I have to believe the people of Alabama would impeach him or vote him out next time if they disagree.

There are positives and negatives to everyone who runs for office. I don’t think what is said in a church – as in “a place of worship” – should have bearing on someone doing their job unless it prevents them from doing so. In this case, only his constituents can say whether it’s preventing him from doing his job.

@Taciturnu well said.

@Taciturnu “Lastly, I have to believe the people of Alabama would impeach him or vote him out next time if they disagree.” – ah, you’re one of those hopeful, positive people, :) I see. Nonetheless, I’m sure there are people who voted for him who are surprised to hear his remarks because they shouldn’t have been voting based on his religious beliefs. The people too would be wrong to vote for someone because of that someone’s religious beliefs.

@crisw I did re-read your comments here and still don’t see this full account of this story of yours you speak of only partial sound bites that the “News Media” chooses to put out to inflame this story as you also seem bent on doing.

@Taciturnu It’s Alabama, the majority of that state loves what he said.

This just in (don’t see him offering to meet with atheists!):

Bentley to meet with religious leaders over controversial remarks
Posted: Jan 19, 2011 10:40 AM Updated: Jan 19, 2011 10:40 AM

MONTGOMERY, AL (WBRC) – Newly-elected Governor Robert Bentley is planning to meet with Alabama religious leaders after making remarks that were found offensive to some.

On Monday during a Martin Luther King Day event, Bentley stated that anyone who was not a Christian was not his brother or sister. He also said that he would like for others to accept Christ so that he could be their brother.

Bentley’s communication director, Rebekah Caldwell Mason, announced that Bentley will be meeting with many religious leaders from Alabama in Montgomery at the governor’s office. Leaders from Birmingham attending the meeting include Rabbi Johnathan Miller from Temple Emanu-el and Stephen Jones from Southside Baptist Church.

@Cruiser Oy, actually…I hopped around a bunch of Christian forums and they share the same links and have been expressing in no uncertain terms that he’s some kind of god’s gift to people (pun intended).

@crisw I don’t care if he meets with atheists, but I am surprised he is not meeting with Catholics or Muslims. Meeting with Baptists does nothing to help the situation. Maybe there are going to be more representatives from different faiths, and they are just naming two here. Thanks for the update.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I hope you aren’t being facetious. I’m a realist. The likelihood of an impeachment or overthrowing an incumbant is, well, next to nothing. I’m well aware. However, I have a sneaky suspicion that Bentley’s the kind of guy Alabama wants. I think I need to respect the voters’ wishes.

@JLeslie I don’t doubt it.

@JLeslie Why are you surprised? He doesn’t seem like the brave kind who can objectively handle criticism of his religion. @Taciturnu I am not being facetious. And I agree on your last point. However, there have to be people there who aren’t his brothers in Christ and even if there just one single person in Alabama who doesn’t believe, it is for them that the separation exists.

@Taciturnu Not always. Sometimes the voters are hateful, narrow minded, idiots. I don’t think that at all in this case, and I don’t think Bentley is a hateful man, but sometimes the majority is flat wrong.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I am not looking to criticize his religion. I want to know his intention, and make sure his words match his intention. So I know where he stands.

@JLeslie I know that. I was responding to your asking as to why he wouldn’t meet with people of other religions. I think a person like him would take people saying anything other than what he believes in as criticism, even if it isn’t.

@JLeslie the word “include” in the sentence ” ...the meeting include Rabbi Johnathan Miller from Temple Emanu-el and Stephen Jones from Southside Baptist Church.” means these are a portion of the people attending. Not all of the groups attending.

@Taciturnu – I wince a little bit when people say things like “respect the voters’ wishes.”

Whenever George W. Bush would say “We” or “the American people” in my head all I heard was an echoing “Don’t you speak for me you pigfucker!” (sorry – the colorful language is pretty much what happened in my head. ;-)). When we talk about the voters, we are often discussing a segment of the population that does not represent what is a significant minority of the population.

Measures that the majority approves of are sometimes just as @JLeslie describes. I point out that the majority supports a notion of traditional marriage being between a man and a woman. This has a distinct effect on a minority in that they are unable to receive the same rights or benefits that heterosexual couples are able to take advantage of.

I don’t think this undermines any part of your statements significantly – I just feel duty-bound to point out that the “will of the people” is most often the will of the most against the least.

@JLeslie But if the voters are hateful, narrowminded people and they want a hateful, narrowminded person to lead them, we need to tolerate that, as long as civil rights aren’t infringed upon, no?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Thanks for clarifying. I agree, it’s unfortunate that there is a minority excluded. Given the nature of the speech, I would be just fine being excluded from it, though.

@bkcunningham yes, I caught that. Which is why I added they may not be stating all of the clergy who will be at the meeting. Thanks for pointing it out though.

@Taciturnu Yes, as long as civil rights and the constitution of the United States of America, and Federal law, are not twisted and stomped on. Yes.

What I don’t get is how this question can get over 150 responses but only “5” great questions.”

@Rarebear Awww, thank you. I think a lot the same people keep commenting on the thread. Possibly there are not that many paricipants compared to other threads.

@Rarebear – There are only about five people responding too it, if we’re all honest. ;-)

I’m not going to read all 156 responses. I’ll just say that I don’t want to be this dude’s sister anyway.

@iamthemob I totally agree with you. I do consider same-sex marriage to be a civil rights issue, in the sense that we still are not all equal under the law. I added a statement to @JLeslie, stating that we need to be tolerant as long as civil rights are not infringed upon. The problem comes with people’s varying ideas of what is considered a civil right and who deserves to receive them.

We don’t have a perfect system and I know the election outcomes would be different if people actually made an effort to get out and vote, though. There are far too few people who look at this like a responsibility.

@Seelix just read my posts. I’m right and everybody else is wrong.

@Taciturnu – Indeed. I’m with Sir Winston Churchill on this one: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

@Rarebear Agreed, I’ve been thinking it needs to be named Question of the Day!

@bkcunningham – If I recall correctly, you and I have differing opinions when it comes to religious ideas. So I will gracefully decline.

@Seelix I was joking. I didn’t know I’d discussed religion with you. Forgive me if we did. I don’t know your beliefs.

@iamthemob your quote of Churchhill is a perfect example of this entire conversation. Pick one thing out of something and make a point.

This is what Churchill said. “We accept in the fullest sense of the word the settled and persistent will of the people. All this idea of a group of supermen and super-planners, such as we see before us, ‘playing the angel,’ as the French call it, and making the masses of the people do what they think is good for them, without any check or correction, is a violation of democracy. Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.”

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105churchilldem.htm

“Churchill said this as Leader of the Opposition in a speech before the House of Commons on the afternoon of November 11, 1947. The occasion was the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill, proposing to reduce the delaying period of the House of Lords from two years to one. Clement Attlee and his Labour Government saw the House of Lords as a brake on their expansion of government. The Conservative Opposition opposed this constitutional change, and it was against a further step towards an unbridled full-fledged democracy Winston Churchill spoke on this afternoon.”

@bkcunningham – I have no idea what you are saying. I used the quote to express what I believe. So it’s not really about what he said.

So, it’s not that I’m with Churchill then, necessarily. It’s that democracy sucks – but less than everything else we’ve tried.

I’m not trying to attribute a set of beliefs to Churchill, nor saying whether it is proper for him to say what he did – that’s what the issue is in this discussion. I am merely attributing a quote I believe in to its source in the end.

@iamthemob Fair enough. I basically agree with Cris anyway (no surprise there!)

“Isn’t it just amazing that the governor of a secular state would stand up and unabashedly make a speech declaring a specific religious group as having a privileged status with him?” That’s why it isn’t just about his right to believe something and express his beliefs.

This is, I agree, a fine distillation of the problem. As loathe as I am to agree with Meyers. ;-)

@iamthemob when you said it all, “I used the quote to express what I believe. So it’s not really about what he said.”

@bkcunningham – please elaborate. The above isn’t really clear to me.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Thanks :)

@iamthemob you really don’t understand how using a portion of a quote to express your belief is wrong when it isn’t the meaning the person you are quoting was conveying? To me that struck at the heart of the unfairness of the discussion. Because we didn’t have the full text of the speech or the audience for the speech.

@bkcunningham – A quote used to sum up an idea requires nothing of the original speaker’s intent. You’re using me as an improper example.

If I was making an argument the depended on or was claiming certain things about what Churchill was saying, or his intent, then it would be unfair to draw a single line. But I wasn’t – I was saying what Churchill stated others had argued, and the statement was an eloquent if tongue-in-cheek expression of what I myself believe.

If also I was using Churchill to back up my statement to lend it more credence, then again it would be unfair to draw one line without referencing context, or to spin it in a different way. But I wasn’t, again.

This discussion involves statements made by an executive close to his inauguration, and whether they are properly brought under scrutiny. There are dangerous implications to the statement outside of the context – and therefore, trying to get at the context will (I think this is the third or fourth time I’ve stated this) allow us to understand the statement, but doesn’t make the statement one that is proper for the chief executive of an entire government to say in public about those he governs. He said something that people of many faiths could easily and did take offense to, and I think it’s good that he did – it sparks this debate.

There is nothing unfair in holding him accountable for saying what he did. Again, the problem will be the extent to which the statement becomes an issue. Right now, it was bad wording, and he should clarify that his religious beliefs will not interfere with his ability to treat people of all or no faiths equally in policy and law. That’s all. But if he doesn’t do that, the statement becomes more important.

@iamthemob “Indeed. I’m with Sir Winston Churchill on this one.”

@bkcunningham – Lord.

(1) I clarified what I meant after your first question, which is why I was wondering about the continued reference to it.

(2) Churchill stated “It has been said.” Therefore, the only real “weight” that can bee added when I said “I’m with Churchill” on that one is that Churchill said it has been said. Not a whole lot of weight, in the end.

Regardless, this is a completely different issue than the one at hand…I’ll say again…for the reasons already outlined above. There are times when it’s appropriate to discuss context, other times when the issue needn’t really be discussed with context. Context helps in every situation – but how much it makes a difference when discussing the issue about a particular statement is always relative. Here…it’s low value if we’re asking whether the statement was a good or bad one for a statesman to make.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

If “The people too would be wrong to vote for someone because of that someone’s religious beliefs,” then what about voting for ( or against ) him for his race, his gender, his age? How are those substantively any different?

@CaptainHarley They shouldn’t vote based on those either.

I understand what the Governor was trying to say, and I’ll admit he said it badly.
I am a Christian, and this kind of talk does make me wince.
However, just because this fool is an elected official doesn’t preclude him from talking about his beliefs.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

Exactly! But how many blacks do you know who voted for Obama just because he’s black? Or how many women do you know who were pushing for Hillary to get the Democratic Presidential nomination just because she is female? Or how many seniors were pushing for McCain simply because he’s their age?

@CaptainHarley What do I have to do with these people? I would say I didn’t poll every person I know for why they voted. However, I get why they voted to have a black man or a woman and that was when they believed, for example, if both candidates were capable but they’d rather see a black man or a woman because why haven’t they been presidents before? I don’t feel the same about white christian men – they’ve all been white christian men, boo hoo, you know? In any case, I stand by the fact that people shouldn’t vote based on those things but they do, in reality. This is how mentioning something about the christian god and something about how America’s like the toughest and we’ll kill anyone who says otherwise gets you in. It’s sad.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir you have a sexy accent ; )

@bkcunningham Are you watching a video of me or something? Random.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir honestly, ever since I saw the video of you and your baby and family in the hospital, I hear your voice everytime I see the words you type.

@bkcunningham Oh, that one. Okay, thanks.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I don’t mean it in a creepy stalker kind of way. Just that you are a real person to me now. I mean it sincerely and in love and kindness. I hope you accept it that way. Even if our strong opinions are different about some things.

He’s a politician. Were you expecting brilliance?

@bkcunningham Got it. I accept, :)

As any of you that have even a passing familiarity with me already know, I am not a Christian, and people like this are why I never will be!

@josie I was expecting a little tact. Sure, maybe Alabama is so predominantly Bible-thumping, Pagan-hanging Christian that that sort of thing will rally the voters around him, but he pretty much killed his chances of ever getting a higher office. And if Alabama is more enlightened than I am giving them credit for (I’ve seen too many things like this to not have a low opinion of the South in general) then his odds of re-election went down as well.
Now, what sort of politician will commit that sort of career suicide? My guess is one that is too stupid to be allowed into office.

LOL @Jerv

Christianity isn’t about the behavior of christians ( or of people who CALL themselves christians ). It’s about God and the standards to which he/she calls people. : )

I think the problem in this discussion is that there are several “levels” of the word should in play, and those levels overlap to some extent.

• Should people elected to office represent the wishes of their majority constituents? Yes.

• Should minority religions, etc be protected from persecution and second-class status in America? Yes.

• Should people, including politicians, have the right to believe in Jesus salvation? Yes.

Everyone in this conversation probably agrees with these three points. But we disagree on the following:

• Should people believe in Jesus salvation? No, because it’s incorrect.

• Should people’s belief in Jesus salvation and/or the Bible influence their politics and their view of the world? No, because see above.

Some people have attempted to answer the last question with a different rationale, but it seems ad hoc to me.

@Qingu

But deciding whether belief is “correct” or “incorrect” is a matter of personal conscience, and is not ameable to a determination of political competence. The Governor was wrong in the manner in which he presented his beliefs, but not in the fact that they were his beliefs.

@CaptainHarley, I wouldn’t say it’s a matter of personal conscience; it’s not a matter of personal conscience that the earth revolves around the sun, or that homeopathy is bunk.

But this is what I meant about levels. On the level of free discourse, I don’t think people should believe things that aren’t true (and this includes most religious beliefs). But on the level of laws that should be enforced, I obviously would not say that people “should” believe what I believe, even if it is clearly true.

In other words, there’s a huge difference between saying “Your belief is wrong” and “Your belief should be illegal.”

@CaptainHarley @Qingu has scientific proof that anyone who isn’t an atheist and a believer in evolution is wrong. Period. Any discussion to the contrary with him is futile because he has proof. So if by no fault of your own, you were born poor and not able to get the education that permits you to understand this proof, or if by no fault of your own, just aren’t smart enough to understand or just too bigoted and full of hate or whatever the case may be that you don’t understand or believe this factual evidence based on science; you can be tolerated. Just don’t let any of your uneducated or unintelligent beliefs or bigoted and hate fueled beliefs dictate, even if it is a majority of these such unfortunates, to the noble minded who know better with proof.

@CaptainHarley Sadly, all of the good Christians have to suffer, just as all Muslims are stigmatized due to the acts of terrorists.

@bkcunningham, there’s no need to spin my relative certainty in such a negative light. You are presumably just as certain as me that Jesus is your savior and came back to life after he died. Neither of us wants false beliefs to dictate our country’s policy; we only disagree on what beliefs are actually false.

Also, I wouldn’t say discussion is futile. I am always happy to discuss evolution, or the truth of religious claims. I think it’s important to discuss these issues. I think it’s important for people to question their most deeply held beliefs, and if they’re worth believing you should be able to defend them logically.

@bkcunningham

I don’t accept that. I accept evolution as fact, but it is impossible to “prove” there is no God. I agree that one should be able to defend one’s beliefs, but logic is only one way of doing so.

I think this thread is about to get majorly derailed.

@iamthemob What makes you say that? Well, aside from historical precedent…

Personally, I am of the opinion that any politician who says something like that is in such blatant violation of the separation of Church and State that they should not be in office. I have no problem with a person of faith getting elected, but I do have a problem with bigotry, or even the appearance of impropriety.

To be fair, it is possible that he is professional enough to separate his beliefs from his work enough to perform his duties as governor in an unbiased manner and merely made a slip of the tongue, but (at least to my mind) such a slip is almost on par with using the word “nigger”.

I expect better from my elected officials, and if I lived in Alabama I would not vote for him again if for no reason other than I want somebody a little more savvy and is sensitive to all of their voters.

@jerv I disagree it is on par, or almost on par with nigger. The sentence about being brothers, is probably one he uses all of the time with, in his mind, no malice. So, the possibility of it being a slip does exist. Personally I think it was more likely ignorance. For the word nigger to be a slip, I think we would have to assume he uses it all of the time, it would never be said wihtout malice, and I just can’t imagine that.

What you said about good Christians suffering similar to the Muslims, I think that too. But, I wonder if most Evangelical Christians feel that way? If a Christian thinks what he said was fine, they are not feeling poorly represented. We certainly have Christians on this thread who think it was a bad thing to say, and others who think it was fine.

Seeing how this question got so many responses makes me see it for what it is. A mistake that is being used (as usual) to stir up the pot. I’m Christian and believe it or not if God is our Heavenly Father then spiritually we are all brothers and sisters. He made a comment without thinking about what it was really relaying to others. It is his personal belief that should not be in the political arena. If you listened to all of the things he is stating his heart is in the right place and he wants to serve all the people under his jurisdiction. I think there are far worse things to give our attention to these days.

@Summum I think it represents how non-Christians many times feel offended by what is said by Christians. It probably in the end is less a discussion about this particular governer. Most of us are willing to chalk it up to an ignorant phrase to be said to the masses, and not an intent to discriminate. Christians will continue to get push back, if they continue to shove their religion down people’s throat. Most Christians I know are not going around trying to convert people, or saying non-Christians can’t be their friends. Unfortunately, many Christians use a lot of religious language in normal every day conversation, so it feels in your face all of the time if you are not a Christian. This never happened to me living in the northeast, but happens constantly here in the midsouth.

I totally disagree that it’s on par with the n-word.

FIrst of all, racial discrimination should be distinguished from religious discrimination. Nobody chooses their race. Race has no bearing whatsoever on a person’s actions or worldview. On the other hand, people do choose religion, and your religion does help determine how you act. So while any kind of state discrimination is bad, I think it is much worse to judge or discriminate someone based on skin color than on their actual ideology.

Secondly, the n-word is a derogatory term, used explicitly to put a class of people down. The governor did not use any derogatory term. He implied that his Christian brothers were somehow metaphysically better off than non-Christians, but this has a totally different valence than calling someone an n-word.

@Summum

Outstanding answer! You are to be commended! : ))

@Summum

“Seeing how this question got so many responses makes me see it for what it is. A mistake that is being used (as usual) to stir up the pot.”

Nope. The statement stirred the pot. I actually think that the fact that so many people responded show a willingness to get to the bottom of things. And if you go through, I think you’ll find exactly what @JLeslie stated – people admitting “Yeah – I think I overreacted a bit. But that was still wrong, so I’m going to keep my eye on it.”

The statement stirred the pot. This discussion was mostly about letting the pot settle.

@CaptainHarley

I guess you don’t want to let the pot settle…

Symantics. Same sept different.

@iamthemob

I have NO idea what that means! : )