just playing devil's advocate...if he was addressing a Christian congregation and referring to his "brothers and sisters in Christ"( a common term) those who have not accepted Jesus would not be "brothers and sisters in Christ" by definition...why would non-Christians be offended, has he committed a crime or not given someone a fair shake as evidence of some bias? if he were Muslim and referrend to his Muslim brothers and sisters..those that have accepted Allah? or a black pastor referring to his "black brothers and sisters"...would there be the same reaction????
seems a little picky, if you want to argue separation of church and state you ought to ignore what he does in the privacy of his own religeon as long as it doesn't interfere with his governing which I'm not sure has been shown to be the case... the liberal argument in defense of say...Obama or Reverend Wright would be to say that technically he is right...he is not your brother...he said he'd like to be but he's not by definition and if you have not accepted Jesus you would not by definition be a "brother or sister in Christ"...did he criticize of attack those that were not? he told the congregation that he wanted those sitting there to be his brother/ sister...through Christ by accepting Christ....HORROR!!!
we're so easily offended
REMOVE HIM IMMEDIATELY !
hey, did the "anti-defamation" league have anything to say about the press and the left blaming certain people for the slaughter in Arizona with absolutely no evidence to link them?