should be removed from office immediately

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

scott - here is what he said

"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," Bentley said Monday, his inauguration day, according to The Birmingham News.

I interpret this as saying, I believe that you cannot be equal to me or part of my clan if you're not a christian. If that was my state, I'd be ripshat. I would say that my non-christian dollars must not be good for you either and you can kiss my pagan taxes good bye! I'd feel the same way if it was muslim, jew, buddhist or hindu. A leader cannot give preferential treatment to ANY religion. Its against the constitution. Maybe thats not what he meant, but it sure sounds it to me.

your post says..."told a church crowd"
"Speaking at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church after the official inaugural ceremony"
sounds like he was imploring the "church crowd" to accept Jesus Christ and become his brother or sister in Christ...not complicated unless you are looking for a Boogieman
I guess we can only elect non-religous folks

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by scottw

your post says..."told a church crowd"
"Speaking at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church after the official inaugural ceremony"
sounds like he was imploring the "church crowd" to accept Jesus Christ and become his brother or sister in Christ...not complicated unless you are looking for a Boogieman
I guess we can only elect non-religous folks

we can elect religious folks but they are BOUND by the constitution not to use religion to give preferential treatment or bias in any way.
He clearly said that if you do not accept Jesus, you are not his brother. If that is true, he cannot effectively govern.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

we can elect religious folks but they are BOUND by the constitution not to use religion to give preferential treatment or bias in any way.
He clearly said that if you do not accept Jesus, you are not his brother. If that is true, he cannot effectively govern.

So you can effectively govern only if your constituents are your brothers?

[scottw]

I think unions refer to themselves as a "brotherhood"...and commmunism is a defacto religeon....hmmmmm

[Fly Rod]

I guess he can be just as fair as the Arian Nation.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So you can effectively govern only if your constituents are your brothers?

imho, you can only effectivley govern if you view all people - race, religion, creed as equal. Yes, I believe that and believe our founding fathers believed it to.

As a conservative, I want the government out of my life. If I want to have witch orgies in my basement with fellow practitioners, its my business. As a private business owner, I should be allowed to hire only witches if thats what I want.
But for a public official, I think its different. He/She should not express preferential treatment for anyone. I can see your and scotts point that this took place in a church and he was addressing fellow Christians and I think that adds some context to his statment. But its a slippery slope.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

imho, you can only effectivley govern if you view all people - race, religion, creed as equal. Yes, I believe that and believe our founding fathers believed it to.

As a conservative, I want the government out of my life. If I want to have witch orgies in my basement with fellow practitioners, its my business. As a private business owner, I should be allowed to hire only witches if thats what I want.
But for a public official, I think its different. He/She should not express preferential treatment for anyone. I can see your and scotts point that this took place in a church and he was addressing fellow Christians and I think that adds some context to his statment. But its a slippery slope.

I think you are working too hard at this...Church Congregations, various clubs and affiliations refer to their members as "brothers and sisters" on regular basis, you have something in common making you a part of that organization, doesn't mean you look down or treat others outside the club differently although it does happen in some circumstances I'm sure, Churuch Congregations generally preach that you treat those outside the congregation better and with compassion....

you were ready to convict this guy with little more than a sound bite

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by scottw

you were ready to convict this guy with little more than a sound bite

yes and I have been that way with Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Clinton. I believe firmly in a shoot first ask questions later approach

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

yes and I have been that way with Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Clinton. I believe firmly in a shoot first ask questions later approach

atta boy...consistency in everything!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

imho, you can only effectivley govern if you view all people - race, religion, creed as equal. Yes, I believe that and believe our founding fathers believed it to.

I agree with what I think you're intending to say here. I think we both agree with the founders that we are all equal before the law. But I don't think they believed that we are equal in every other way. Even on the face of it, that is not true--certainly cannot be true in your religious belief. If you view your religion as equal to all other religions, or all other religions as equal to yours, and, even further, you see all atheism and agnosticism as equal to your religion, that's a nice egalitarian attitude, but it eliminates any reason to have your religion.

As a conservative, I want the government out of my life. If I want to have witch orgies in my basement with fellow practitioners, its my business. As a private business owner, I should be allowed to hire only witches if thats what I want.

Again, I mostly agree with your sentiments, but go easy on wanting government out or your life. Not only ain't that gonna happen, but we sometimes get so sick of big brother intruding that we forget it's our duty to kick him out of where he doesn't belong. The Lone Ranger ain't gonna do it for us. Unfortunately for our peace of mind we must be more, not less, involved with government. I think the founders wanted that.

But for a public official, I think its different. He/She should not express preferential treatment for anyone. I can see your and scotts point that this took place in a church and he was addressing fellow Christians and I think that adds some context to his statment. But its a slippery slope.

I don't think Bentley was expressing preferential treatment, rather he was expressing personal religious attitude. I saw no expressed nor implied intent to treat those outside of his religious community with politically preferential treatment. If some wish to take his statement as a threat, I can see how they could--all statements of personal preference or belief can be seen as a threat to those of differing persuasion, even if no threat was meant. It could, as you say, be a slippery slope--even in a direction other than you imply. If we are cowed into not making overt statements of belief for fear of offending or threatening others, freedom of speech may become a dead letter. Again, I understand that in a public forum, his statement would be inappropriate, but in a private congregational setting, it was an expression of brotherhood with co-religionists.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't think Bentley was expressing preferential treatment, rather he was expressing personal religious attitude. I saw no expressed nor implied intent to treat those outside of his religious community with politically preferential treatment. If some wish to take his statement as a threat, I can see how they could--all statements of personal preference or belief can be seen as a threat to those of differing persuasion, even if no threat was meant. It could, as you say, be a slippery slope--even in a direction other than you imply. If we are cowed into not making overt statements of belief for fear of offending or threatening others, freedom of speech may become a dead letter. Again, I understand that in a public forum, his statement would be inappropriate, but in a private congregational setting, it was an expression of brotherhood with co-religionists.

For me the issue is that he said it, and whether intended or not, it became public news. His non-Christian constituents may perceive that they may not be treated the same as the "brothers and sisters" that are Christian. Doesn't matter if it was said in church or on the town square. Everything said in front of more than a handful of people, especially strangers, is going to become public if there's anything remotely controversial.

Remember, perception is reality.

[Nebe]

is this him??

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by fishbones

For me the issue is that he said it, and whether intended or not, it became public news.

For me it is not an issue. I am not of his brand of religion, nor do I wish to constrain how he expresses it, so long as his pursuit of happiness doesn't deny me mine.

His non-Christian constituents may perceive that they may not be treated the same as the "brothers and sisters" that are Christian.

He was schmoozing his base. Politicians are always in campaign mode. Like any "good" politician, I assume he'll say something different when he addresses a non-Christian audience. Or, he might actually be a true believer and will always speak this way. Then, of course, he should immediately be thrown out of office. Anyone who is dumb enough to speak the truth in politics, cannot be trusted to govern. And we know how those Christians are out to trample our freedoms.

Doesn't matter if it was said in church or on the town square. Everything said in front of more than a handful of people, especially strangers, is going to become public if there's anything remotely controversial.

Every politician must make statements of political intent to get elected. One man's political intent is a threat to another man's opposite political desire. The opposition will always twist those statements into negative pretzels. All statements, in politics, are controversial, positive or negative. It's the risk of political speech. I prefer the pol who speaks his intentions truly and freely to the smoothy who tells you what you want to hear. As for Bentley, his constituents have his term in office to determine how he treats non-Christians. Then they can vote. But to demand that he immediately be thrown out of office becuase he told his religious bretheren that they were his brothers and sisters, and that those that didn't believe in Christ were not, but that he would like to be their brother--this is a more controversial and dangerous demand than what Bentley said.

Remember, perception is reality.

Only for those whose perception is clear and not fogged over by rhetorical nonsense. For the rest, reality is more like an apparition

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

we can elect religious folks but they are BOUND by the constitution not to use religion to give preferential treatment or bias in any way.
He clearly said that if you do not accept Jesus, you are not his brother. If that is true, he cannot effectively govern.

"He clearly said that if you do not accept Jesus, you are not his brother. If that is true, he cannot effectively govern"

I think that you can govern fairly to people who are your brothers and to people who aren't your brothers.

If we can overlook the racist, hateful bile that Obama listened to for 20 years, this is nothin'. Let's see how he actually governs.