posted
I share your annoyance, Lisa. I do expect it's more likely he just wasn't thinking, and it wasn't intended as sinister or anything. But then, the fact that he wasn't thinking about it is revealing.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my view (as an atheist). It seems like a stupid thing to have said. But does it affect his ability to govern properly? I don't think so. He didn't say, "you're my brothers and sisters, non-christians aren't, and in my role as governor I will give preference to my brothers and sisters in all matters". All politicians have families. Brothers, sisters, mothers, children. And while they may have more personal affection for their family, in their role as a politician they are not allowed to show family preference in public matters. How is this all that different? Did he say anything explicit that would indicate he will be treating non christians any differently than most politicians (should) treat non family members?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What concerns me is that someone who is willing to step over the line to this degree is liable to have other unsavory habits.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I know why I am offended but I am not sure why you would be. Is it the sentiment that bothers or that a government official said it out loud?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I think all non-Christians are pretty justified in being offended here?
Should non-Jews then, be offended by Lisa's similar comments?
Personally, I think that it was quite inappropriate for an elected official and a perversion of the Gospel. The notion of preferring one's own religious/ethnic group is one that is fairly prevalent in Lisa's posts. I can understand her annoyance at the public statement but would be puzzled if she were offended by the idea itself.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raymond Arnold: I'm not exactly sure why non-Christians should feel offended. I think we have to unbundle a few things.
If I lived in Alabama, it would certainly be warning sign to leave (among many others) due to a high chance of systematic discrimination, but strictly speaking I neither want to be the guy's sibling nor am I offended that he wants me to convert.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. I can imagine some scenarios in which someone saying such a thing isn't a jackass. For example, he might have meant it to mean something along the lines of 'Christianity is such an important part of me that I identify those who have embraced it as members of a fraternity; I want everyone to be members of that fraternity, but I don't mean that to say that I exclude those who aren't already.'
Seems pretty goddamned unlikely, though, wordplay intended. To say nothing of unChristian, and of course unAmerican, and then there's the part where it's deeply stupid politically.
Heh, that said, kmbboots does raise a pretty good point in highlighting the similarities but for some Adlibs in the Governor of Alabama's views and her own. While I don't think that's something Lisa would support here, in the United States, at least, it is something of an ideal elsewhere, making the comparison briefly amusing if not very accurate.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, this just sounds like the guy wants to convert everyone in Alabama, not that he hates all non-Christians. Which is not a clever thing to put out there, but not actually evil.
I've had Christian friends tell me that they were so sorry that I was going to hell. Didn't stop them being my friends. As long as, when I told them that I wasn't going to a place which didn't exist, they shut up and henceforth didn't mention it again.
This was an unbelievably dumb thing to say, but Bentley probably is the kind of Christian who thought he was making an invitation, not a criticism - I'd say that 'brother and sister' is in this case, a religious term not an 'if you're not Christian, you're not human to me' kind of statement. As long as he shuts up now, I think he'll be forgiven by at least some of his non-siblings.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I think all non-Christians are pretty justified in being offended here?
Should non-Jews then, be offended by Lisa's similar comments?
Personally, I think that it was quite inappropriate for an elected official and a perversion of the Gospel. The notion of preferring one's own religious/ethnic group is one that is fairly prevalent in Lisa's posts. I can understand her annoyance at the public statement but would be puzzled if she were offended by the idea itself.
Lisa can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe she has also made comments about not wanting Jews in America holding public office because she believes their Judaism supersedes their duty as an office-holder, and she recognizes that as a conflict of interest.
So, I think her problem isn't so much with the idea, but with the fact that it's coming from an elected official.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not offended because I actually care whether the guy considers me his brother. I'm offended because a politician felt it was necessary to publically state that he doesn't consider me his brother. There's a difference.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do remember Lisa saying that she would not vote for a Jew for any public office in the US because a good Jew would have to show prejudice for other Jews. So I don't find it at all inconsistent that she is offended by these prejudiced comments from an elected official.
**Please correct me if I'm wrong Lisa, it was not my intent to distort your position.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, this just sounds like the guy wants to convert everyone in Alabama, not that he hates all non-Christians. Which is not a clever thing to put out there, but not actually evil.
I don't think it's a statement of hatred either, nor do I think it's evil, for the record.
quote: I've had Christian friends tell me that they were so sorry that I was going to hell. Didn't stop them being my friends. As long as, when I told them that I wasn't going to a place which didn't exist, they shut up and henceforth didn't mention it again.
This has been my method as well. "Well, seems pretty unlikely that a loving God would sentence me to everlasting damnation for just about anything, you know." If they can pass that test as far as continuing to gab about things, I've got no beef.
quote: This was an unbelievably dumb thing to say, but Bentley probably is the kind of Christian who thought he was making an invitation, not a criticism - I'd say that 'brother and sister' is in this case, a religious term not an 'if you're not Christian, you're not human to me' kind of statement. As long as he shuts up now, I think he'll be forgiven by at least some of his non-siblings.
Well, for me the real problem is the implied statement of favoritism towards Christians. In my mind to be a public office holder you've just got to be able to compartmentalize to some extent. A guy who's going to go up there in public like that and proclaim his kinship with one group, to the exclusion of others, in direct contravention of the ideals of the nation he's supposed to be serving, calls his ability to do that pretty sharply into question for me. Though not for a plurality or even a majority of voters, I suspect.
posted
While I recognize that stuff that happens in Alabama isn't necessarily going to influence New York politicians, I think that he very explicitly crossed a line that politicians should not cross, and if that line was allowed to be permanently blurred in Alabama, it'd have ramifications elsewhere.
"Offended" might not be the right word. Maybe "alarmed" is better. But while he only exercises power over Alabamians (sp?), he's still a public figure and the remark clearly applied to everyone, not just people in his state. I think I'm justified in being at least a little offended.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The optics are obviously bad, but he was speaking to a pretty specific audience (the MSNBC article says "a church crowd"). It sounds like he was remonstrating those who hadn't yet been saved to come forward and proclaim for Christ, not making a broader statement about his views of Christians/non-Christians.
I would say he was encouraging those who hadn't yet accepted the communion he believes the church offers to come forward so that they can enjoy the benefits of a society of belief. Hence the "I want to be your brother."
I'd like to hear the broader context of his statements.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I do remember Lisa saying that she would not vote for a Jew for any public office in the US because a good Jew would have to show prejudice for other Jews. So I don't find it at all inconsistent that she is offended by these prejudiced comments from an elected official.
**Please correct me if I'm wrong Lisa, it was not my intent to distort your position.
Right. And I wrote as much. However, it would be pretty odd to think that politicians aren't going to belong to any group. If we are going to say that it is good or even necessary for people to prefer their own group over others, we have a problem.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that I'm both, but I would say that I'm significantly more alarmed than I am offended.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Worth noting that Lisa didn't use the word offended, kmmboots did. So whatever definition of offended I was responding to, it was one that could legitimately be inferred by Lisa's statement.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would guess that as well, but elected officials have to be part of some group or another.
They do not have to, and more importantly they should be expected not to speak in such terms while fulfilling their positions as elected officials. Inconvenient and perhaps cumbersome for some, but necessary.
I think reasonably it can be expected of office-holders that while they continue to practice their religious traditions in office, they not preach their religious beliefs while in office. I don't think that has much to do with the legal separation of church and state- it's simply the policy of a wise governor who must remain aware that he governs people of different religions. This kind of statement is really just stupid, more than anything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Regardless of what he believes, it shows incredibly poor judgment to make such a public statement when you are supposed to be the governor of millions of people, Christian and non-Christian alike.
I am actually incredibly offended by the other part of his statement when he says "if we don't have the same Daddy we can't be brother and sister." Really? Step-brothers aren't brothers? Adopted brothers and sisters aren't real siblings? Come on. Think before you speak.
I know what he meant...but darn it, put some thought into your words. Think of the implication of what you say you are a freaking governor for the love of Pete!
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Atheists in public office offend me, and polls show a lot of people. He probably just increased his chances of getting re-elected. Just saying.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: First, why do they offend you?
Because Occasional wishes that America was a christian theocracy similar to saudi arabia, just with protestant officials in charge of regulating america's moral laws.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or maybe not protestant, if that definition doesn't count for whatever reason. Just make it 'officials from his specific religious order' in charge.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Atheist here, I too am curious as how a leader who processes his/her decisions through rational thought and ethics rather than imaginary friends and irredeemably contrary books is a bad thing.
As to his vernacular, I have brothers and they are very special to me. Anyone who is not them are not my siblings, period. But his intent is clearly to politically align himself with religion if not a more narrow sect of christianity and gain favor of religious people in the vague promise to show them favor in his service of the people.
His apology means nothing to me, good luck Alabama.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, but he's Southern Baptist and a Deacon to boot! I think the voters of Alabama knew what they were getting themselves into when they elected him, and the majority of them probably think his speech was perfect in every way.
Also, it doesn't sound like he said this in a speech in his capacity as Governor. As Senoj pointed out, he seemed to be saying this in a religious context. I think the separation of church and state require that we allow our elected officials to continue to serve in their religions in all ways, even preaching. While it may not always be politically wise for them to do so, they should be allowed to do so. I'm not even sure it WAS a bad political decision for him. Sure it ticks off a few non-Christians, but he's in Alabama, where I'm pretty sure sticking up for Christianity is more important.
Besides, what exactly is so wrong with his comment. Since I am technically Catholic, I am pretty sure Southern Baptists consider me to not be Christian (at least all the ones I've me have told me that). I suppose that means I'm not his sister. Ok, so what? I didn't think I WAS his sister? Why do I care if he has a couple of billion brothers?
We have very specific laws in this country that protect us from leaders using religious beliefs to force public policy. They work well enough to stop egregious offenses, but we all know quite well that the tone of the country has always been set by Christian beliefs. In my state, it's quite common for a candidate (especially republican candidates) to make sure they're filmed or photographed near their places of worship. They run entire campaigns based on "Christian Values". This isn't exactly a secret!
You can look all around the country these days and find elected officials who are trying to "preserve marriage", many of whom will say it's because God said marriage was between one man and one woman. Even those who try to dodge that by claiming "tradition" instead are thinking it! Why is this guy saying I'm not his sister any worse?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am torn trying to decide which aspect of this statement is the most wrong.
I'm not sure about most wrong, but the most ironic thing about that statement is that it seems to directly contradict a fundamental premise of Christianity.
I don't think its possible to accurately follow the teachings of Christ without accepting non-Christians as your brothers and sisters in some respect. That's sort of the whole point of it - or at least one of the main two points.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone is biased in their own way, at least he is open about it.
Saying he shouldn't be governor, means anyone who has deep religious feelings shouldn't be in office.
I have yet to find a religion that doesn't put itself above all other relgions in some way, shape, or form.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Everyone is biased in their own way, at least he is open about it.
That doesn't improve things. If anything, it's preferable when bigots feel compelled to closet their bigotry, rather than state it loud and proud with intent to further personal discriminations based on it, to an audience that contains many people that view him as an influential person.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My religion is not supposed to favor particular groups of people over others. We do it, but we are wrong to do it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying he shouldn't be governor, means anyone who has deep religious feelings shouldn't be in office.
No, Stephan. This is a straw man you're using here. What is being said is that these kinds of deep religious feelings have no place in the governor's office. Or at least that's what I'm saying. Not that no deep religious feelings at all do not have a place there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"What I would like to do is apologize. Should anyone who heard those words and felt disenfranchised, I want to say, 'I'm sorry,'” Bentley, a Baptist, said after a meeting with members of Alabama’s Jewish community Wednesday.
“If you're not a person who can say you are sorry, you're not a very good leader," he added, according to The Birmingham News.
posted
That's good enough for me. I'm not quite sure what he meant by "Dying with core beliefs." But as I don't have context, I'm not going to pass judgment.
edit: Here's hoping he truly feels sorry by not doing it again.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's good that he apologized. He definitely should have.
And yes, we did know what we were electing but if you follow Alabama politics at all, we really didn't have much choice. This was one year I truly wished there was a "none of the above" choice because I was not thrilled about any of them.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please don't start talking about your whole 'tribal' thing. It's bigotry and racism in a conveniently renamed package.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm not offended because I actually care whether the guy considers me his brother. I'm offended because a politician felt it was necessary to publically state that he doesn't consider me his brother. There's a difference.
I think this says how I feel best.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
