That said, who really wants such a moron for a sibling?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am torn trying to decide which aspect of this statement is the most wrong.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well. Dude's being honest.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
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?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
What concerns me is that someone who is willing to step over the line to this degree is liable to have other unsavory habits.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:What concerns me is that someone who is willing to step over the line to this degree is liable to have other unsavory habits.
Agreed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think all non-Christians are pretty justified in being offended here?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Unfortunately I *do* have to treat this man like a brother, even if he does not reciprocate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would guess that as well, but elected officials have to be part of some group or another.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
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.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: and then there's the part where it's deeply stupid politically.
Is it, in Alabama? If he runs for national office, sure.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
But it should.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
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.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: "Offended" might not be the right word. Maybe "alarmed" is better.
I think that would be more accurate.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think that I'm both, but I would say that I'm significantly more alarmed than I am offended.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That's my governor. *sigh*
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!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Atheists in public office offend me, and polls show a lot of people."
First, why do they offend you? Second, polls show a lot of people what?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Occasional, christianity is not the only religion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Or maybe not protestant, if that definition doesn't count for whatever reason. Just make it 'officials from his specific religious order' in charge.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
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.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
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?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Open bias is just annoying, I think thats the whole thing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tresopax, that aspect is indeed leading the race for most wrong.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My religion is not supposed to favor particular groups of people over others. We do it, but we are wrong to do it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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 by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good for him for recognizing the need to apologize and for doing so.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I like that Christians apologize for their tribal impulses unlike some other religious groups.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Which religious groups in the United States do not apologize for their tribal impulses?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Please don't start talking about your whole 'tribal' thing. It's bigotry and racism in a conveniently renamed package.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
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.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
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.
I'm glad he apologized, although he still managed to do it in a way that still seems douche-ily self-congratulatory. Sorry, dude, but I still don't think you're a "very good leader," even after saying you're sorry.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Meh.
quote:An example of a non-apology apology would be to say "I'm sorry that you felt insulted" to someone who has been offended by a statement. This apology does not admit that there was anything wrong with the remarks made ...
I don't know whether I'm surprised or not to discover that Wikipedia has an entry for "non-apology apology."
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
He shouldn't allowed to be a governor.
Religion and government don't mix, and trying to manipulate the majority of Christians in the US for votes has been on the up-n'-up since this country started the elections.
God-this,God-that, and yes I know, God has nothing to do with my capability of making intelligent non-biased decisions.
What this governor said was offensive and is a prime example of how the current government is under fine controls by religious restrictions.
FFS I can't even clone myself (due to religious ETHICAL issues) something I still want to look forward to.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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.
For the record, I think the analogy used most often in the Bible for the relationship between Christians and non-Christians (or Jews and non-Jews, depending on the time and context) is "neighbor." "Brother" is more often seen when referencing another Christian. Part of your community, but not necessarily part of your family.
Posted by iglee (Member # 12455) on :
I don’t look at this so much as offensive. I look at it as kind of scary. Is it just my imagination or have I been noticing an increase in this country of people identifying more with their sub group and less with their country? What is scary about it is that that is the first step in justifying the violating of other people’s civil rights, their equal protection under the law.
Editted to add: I hope that is not what this governer is doing - this identifiying more with his sub group thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Is it just my imagination or have I been noticing an increase in this country of people identifying more with their sub group and less with their country?
Definitely your imagination.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honestly, I am not all that crazy about people identifying with their country either.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: He shouldn't allowed to be a governor.
I don't know if I'd go that far. That depends on what you mean by 'shouldn't'.
If you mean he should be impeached for saying what he said, then I disagree.
If you mean the people of Alabama shouldn't have elected him, I can't very well disagree.
Taking into account where he was when he was when he made his comments (a church) and the fact that he was saying he wished we would all be his brothers and sisters, I'm not offended.
Whether or not the governor of a state should be in a church and saying things like that is another question all together.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm going to buck the trend and say I don't really think he did anything wrong, when this is taken in context.
If I understand it, he was speaking at a church service in his role as a deacon of that church exhorting the people there to "be saved". I very much doubt he was considering a wider context at that point. It's really the best choice of words, but, in that context, I don't believe extending his remarks to how he is going to approach his governmental duties is justifiable.
As for the idea that people who have some sort of official leadership role in a religious office being ineligible for public office, what the heck are you talking about? That's crazy. What possible justification could there be for that?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Is it just my imagination or have I been noticing an increase in this country of people identifying more with their sub group and less with their country?
I've seen sort of the opposite. That is, people have been defining their group as "real" Americans and other people as not, or, in many cases, traitors determined to destroy America.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: As for the idea that people who have some sort of official leadership role in a religious office being ineligible for public office, what the heck are you talking about? That's crazy. What possible justification could there be for that?
The would have to depend on the particular leadership role, the particular religion and its particular beliefs. People with leadership roles in religious offices shouldn't, by default, be ineligible for public office. But it should certainly be looked at for possible conflicts of interest.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: As for the idea that people who have some sort of official leadership role in a religious office being ineligible for public office, what the heck are you talking about? That's crazy. What possible justification could there be for that?
The would have to depend on the particular leadership role, the particular religion and its particular beliefs. People with leadership roles in religious offices shouldn't, by default, be ineligible for public office. But it should certainly be looked at for possible conflicts of interest.
Realistically checked for conflicts of interest, sure, just like any other potential conflict of interest. Do people really believe that being a deacon is really representative of a serious conflict of interest?
That sounds a lot to me like when Kennedy shouldn't be allowed to be President because then the Pope would rule America.
edit: If a person violates equal treatment by their actions, then yeah, the established legal remedies to this should be used. If they make statements to that effect that can reasonably be seen to extend to their governmental duties, that is a major source of concern. But presuming that they are going to violate proper/legal behavior because they have religious obligations too strikes me very poorly.
---
edit 2: Look, I'm not a fan of either the state of Alabama or Southern Baptists as a religion or group of people, but I don't think a lot of the reactions to this have been at all fair.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:That sounds a lot to me like when Kennedy shouldn't be allowed to be President because then the Pope would rule America.
Though in Smoot's case, I concede there might have been enough to warrant an investigation, but I'm not sure how the committee arrived at the conclusion not to seat him.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Realistically checked for conflicts of interest, sure, just like any other potential conflict of interest.
Exactly.
If a management executive at Goldman Sachs was elected to governor and made a speech on his inauguration day about wanting everyone to buy an investment from GS, I don't know if that should automatically disquality them, but we should be extremely wary.
I see someone making a speech about wanting to sell his religion to everyone with pretty much the same sense of guarded suspicion (and again, it probably shouldn't automatically disqualify them).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I see someone making a speech about wanting to sell his religion to everyone with pretty much the same sense of guarded suspicion (and again, it probably shouldn't automatically disqualify them).
To me, I see what happened as equivalent to a member of an evangelical atheist organization getting elected and continuing to participate in that organization.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That too.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: To me, I see what happened as equivalent to a member of an evangelical atheist organization getting elected and continuing to participate in that organization.
Not to quibble...(And now I shall proceed to quibble.)
It depends what you mean by participate. If somebody is just a member of an organization, goes to events, helps out with blood drives or other sort of business, that's one thing. If the person is a member of the atheist organization, an officer within the organization and then gives speeches to the effect that they want others to become atheists too, then it starts to get a bit sticky.
Which is why I find this to be an issue at all. It doesn't matter what the ideology is. If you're using your position of power in the civil government to promote it, it's at the very least in bad taste.
Posted by iglee (Member # 12455) on :
I wrote:
“people identifying more with their sub group and less with their country”
Then kmboots wrote:
“Honestly, I am not all that crazy about people identifying with their country either”
Do I detect a misunderstanding here? I did use two broad generalities so maybe I better be more clear about what I meant. I’m saying that it is a GOOD thing for US citizens to identify more with their country than their sub group. And here is what I mean by that.
Whether I’m an elected official who has raised his arm and sworn an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United State, or a private citizen who has pledged allegiance to this republic, I am under obligation to uphold that Constitution and to allow every other citizen the same protections under that law that I enjoy. Whether I agree with those other citizens or not. Or whether I even like them or not. And furthermore, I might even be called on to fight to defend the rights of those others. And that is also part of my obligation.
What I’m saying is that I am a US citizen and you are my fellow US citizen and somewhere in there is the word “united“ which we ought to take seriously. And I’m not saying “My country right or wrong” I’m saying “My country is a great country. Let’s try to make it even greater.“
That is what I mean by identifying with the country.
So on the other hand, an extreme example of “identifying with the sub group” would be like if Sharia Law were allowed to make inroads in the USA.
Mind you, I’m not saying that this is happening. I know there is some unsubstantiated fear mongering going on saying that it is. But I’ve seen other substantiated stories which say that our courts are not allowing it even though it has been tried. What I’m saying hypothetically is that if any person in this country would like to see Sharia Law take precedence over US Constitutional Law then that would be an example of “identifying more with the sub group.”
I don’t know to what extent the UK is having a problem with this but I’ve read some articles that say they are having a problem.
Anyway, I could sit here all day and list examples throughout US history of one sub group feeling that some other sub group is less worthy of equal protection under the law than their own - such as Governor Boggs of Missouri vs. the Mormons, white supremacists trying to keep African-Americans from voting, the KKK lynching African-Americans, the Republicans vs. the Democrats, everybody vs. the Irish, Steelers fans vs. Packers fans. The list could go on and on.
Like I said I’m not sure if this sort of nonsense is increasing or not but it’s certainly ongoing. And it is kind of scary and I hope Governor Bentley is not guilty of this sort of inclination.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: If you're using your position of power in the civil government to promote it, it's at the very least in bad taste.
It's not clear to me that he did this.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:That sounds a lot to me like when Kennedy shouldn't be allowed to be President because then the Pope would rule America.
Though in Smoot's case, I concede there might have been enough to warrant an investigation, but I'm not sure how the committee arrived at the conclusion not to seat him.
I know this is a serious discussion, but I honestly cannot get past this guy's last name. Smoot. That's just the bee's knees.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't know whether I'm surprised or not to discover that Wikipedia has an entry for "non-apology apology."