Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode