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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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 ...
posted
I don't know whether I'm surprised or not to discover that Wikipedia has an entry for "non-apology apology."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| 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.
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 71 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
“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.
Posts: 71 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |