Spirituality
19 Jan 11
19 Jan 11
2 edits
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-alabama-governor-20110119,0,4351953.story
Speaking to a large crowd Monday at Montgomery's Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church — where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached — Bentley said that "if you're a Christian and you're saved ... it makes you and me brother and sister," according to a report in the Birmingham News.
"Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters," he added, according to the paper. "So 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."
A comment from a reader on the article above that seems to capture the type of thinking that is all too common on this forum
Derekgrr at 4:41 AM January 19, 2011
Now if a governor, of a Muslim background, would make a comment like that the right would be up in arms insinuating the governor was raging a holy Jihad and calling for the immediate removal on grounds of supporting terrorism.
Yet, they remain tolerant when a Christian radical makes these same comments.
Does that sound more Christian?
19 Jan 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHA!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-alabama-governor-20110119,0,4351953.storySpeaking to a large crowd Monday at Montgomery's Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church — where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached — Bentley said that "if you're a Christian and you're saved ... it makes you and me brother and sister," acc ...[text shortened]... tian radical makes these same comments.
Does that sound more Christian?
The article you cite quotes one thoroughly offended chap:
David Silverman, president of Cranford, N.J.-based American Atheists, called the remarks "outrageous."
Poor little guy; gets quoted by the LA Times and the one word they use from his assumed lengthy epithet is wholly inappropriate. Outrageous?! This is a term used for situations involving gross injury or wrong, when there is potential or real violence, or highly unusual/extravagant activity.
What the new governor is very appropriately conveying to his constituents is nothing short than what informs him, what motivates him. He is a Christian, for crying out loud! Do you expect him to act in a manner inconsistent with Christian mandates? That would be outrageous and irresponsible.
He didn't forswear governing unbelievers, nor did he declare any type of allegiance or preferential treatment for believers. He merely stated that--- before anything else he may represent before man--- he will represent the Gospel. God bless him!
19 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHe wasn't elected to represent the gospel - he was elected to represent all his constituents equally.
HA!
The article you cite quotes one thoroughly offended chap:
David Silverman, president of Cranford, N.J.-based American Atheists, called the remarks "outrageous."
Poor little guy; gets quoted by the LA Times and the one word they use from his assumed lengthy epithet is wholly inappropriate. Outrageous?! This is a term use re anything else he may represent before man--- he will represent the Gospel. God bless him!
His words show that his attitude is that he sees some of his constituents as not being as equal as others.
Here's the question, if he were a muslim would you be ok with him saying that he sees only muslims as his brothers and sisters?
Do you expect him to act in a manner inconsistent with Christian mandates? That would be outrageous and irresponsible.
EDIT - I do think you could be a good governor to all and be consistent with christian mandates, however the issue here is that he implied a preference to other christians. He should be willing to govern all equally and without preference to christians. If he can govern within christian mandates and do that then that is fine, otherwise he should find another job.
19 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour reading skills and command of the English language could use a bit of work. Try looking up "outrageous" and "brother" in the dictionary. Also, as hard as you tried to find something derogatory to say about Silverman, you seem to have missed a paragraph there. I'm sure you thought you had some points there, but all you managed to convey was the level of your desperation to attempt to find something disparaging to say about Silverman and to defend Bentley.
HA!
The article you cite quotes one thoroughly offended chap:
David Silverman, president of Cranford, N.J.-based American Atheists, called the remarks "outrageous."
Poor little guy; gets quoted by the LA Times and the one word they use from his assumed lengthy epithet is wholly inappropriate. Outrageous?! This is a term use re anything else he may represent before man--- he will represent the Gospel. God bless him!
20 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI doubt that his Christianity comes as a surprise to his constituents. In fact, I'd go so far (without so much as committing a lick of research on the specific topic) as to suggest that his beliefs were very much a part of the election process.
He wasn't elected to represent the gospel - he was elected to represent all his constituents equally.
His words show that his attitude is that he sees some of his constituents as not being as equal as others.
Here's the question, if he were a muslim would you be ok with him saying that he sees only muslims as his brothers and sisters?
Do yo within christian mandates and do that then that is fine, otherwise he should find another job.
His words show that he considers belief on the Lord Jesus Christ as the most pressing issue facing unsaved man. With great transparency, he is serving notice to all that his first allegiance is to his Creator.
As you point out in your edit, there is nothing to indicate sub-standard governance as a result of his beliefs. However, there is no indication whatsoever that one group of people will be treated any differently with respect to his duties as governor.
If a Muslim were elected and said the exact same thing, I would appreciate his candor. Period.
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYour reading skills and command of the English language could use a bit of work.
Your reading skills and command of the English language could use a bit of work. Try looking up "outrageous" and "brother" in the dictionary. Also, as hard as you tried to find something derogatory to say about Silverman, you seem to have missed a paragraph there. I'm sure you thought you had some points there, but all you managed to convey was the level ...[text shortened]... tion to attempt to find something disparaging to say about Silverman and to defend Bentley.
Perhaps, but I'd kick your ass in a slang-fest.
Try looking up "outrageous" and "brother" in the dictionary.
I tried, but every time I type "outrageous" or "brother" in the search box at dictionary.com, it comes back with:
No results found for "outrageous":
Did you mean outrageous?
or
No results found for "outrageous":
Did you mean outrageous?
Should I try it without the quotations? I'm just kidding: I already did! Guess what I found?
1. of the nature of or involving gross injury or wrong: an outrageous slander.
2. grossly offensive to the sense of right or decency: outrageous behavior; an outrageous remark.
3. passing reasonable bounds; intolerable or shocking: an outrageous price.
4. violent in action or temper.
5. highly unusual or unconventional; extravagant; remarkable: a child of the most outrageous precocity; a fancy dive performed with outrageous ease.
Now that I look at it, you know what's really weird? (It's likely just a bizarre coincidence) but the words they use to define the term are nearly identical to the ones I used in my previous post. Isn't that just wild?
...but all you managed to convey was the level of your desperation to attempt to find something disparaging to say about Silverman and to defend Bentley.
It wasn't all that desperate of an attempt, actually. In fact, it was pretty easy, as the work had already been done for me. I simply pointed out the painfully obvious.
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI doubt that his Christianity comes as a surprise to his constituents. In fact, I'd go so far (without so much as committing a lick of research on the specific topic) as to suggest that his beliefs were very much a part of the election process.
I doubt that his Christianity comes as a surprise to his constituents. In fact, I'd go so far (without so much as committing a lick of research on the specific topic) as to suggest that his beliefs were very much a part of the election process.
His words show that he considers belief on the Lord Jesus Christ as the most pressing issue facing unsaved ma ...[text shortened]... If a Muslim were elected and said the exact same thing, I would appreciate his candor. Period.
Don't you think a governor has a responsibility to serve those who didn't vote for him as much as those who did?
His words show that he considers belief on the Lord Jesus Christ as the most pressing issue facing unsaved man. With great transparency, he is serving notice to all that his first allegiance is to his Creator.
Right. Since he hasn't been governor for long he doesn't have a track record to judge. The problem is that his attitude that he is displaying implies that he will have a bias as to whom he is serving - a bias that contradicts his responsibilities as governor. Can you not see how that is concerning?
If a Muslim were elected and said the exact same thing, I would appreciate his candor. Period
Right..so if he wanted to impose shariah law because hey.. it's his muslim brothers he's serving not the christian citizens that should be ok. After all, they knew what they were voting for.. right?
I know this governor didn't say anything of the sort, but the problem is the attitude of preference that should not be there in a public official who has a responsibility to ALL citizens, not just those who match his beliefs.
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by buckkyIt's not unprecedented though:
What the deal with the new Alabama Leader. Only wants to represent Christians. Does not sound very Christian to me.
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
George H. W. Bush
20 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnDon't you think a governor has a responsibility to serve those who didn't vote for him as much as those who did?
I doubt that his Christianity comes as a surprise to his constituents. In fact, I'd go so far (without so much as committing a lick of research on the specific topic) as to suggest that his beliefs were very much a part of the election process.
Don't you think a governor has a responsibility to serve those who didn't vote for him as much as t official who has a responsibility to ALL citizens, not just those who match his beliefs.
Don't you think we've already covered this point? Asked and answered. Next!
The problem is that his attitude that he is displaying implies that he will have a bias as to whom he is serving - a bias that contradicts his responsibilities as governor. Can you not see how that is concerning?
No such attitude has been established, except in the minds of a handful of folks who will take offense at even the mere mention of the Lord Jesus Christ's name. No such implication exists, as he was articulating his spiritual perspective, not his perspective on how he will govern and represent the state.
Right..so if he wanted to impose shariah law because hey.. it's his muslim brothers he's serving not the christian citizens that should be ok.
No Muslim who ran on a platform which included an intention to impose Al-Shari'ah would ever win election here in the US--- at least, not at this time or at anytime in the foreseeable future.
Equally doubtful for the Christian whose stated intention is to make it illegal to be an unbeliever. Although I'm sure there exists some misguided folks out there who would willingly vote for candidates of either stripe, the majority of citizens herein take a decidedly more moderate approach in their civil applications.
20 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDon't you think we've already covered this point? Asked and answered. Next!
Don't you think a governor has a responsibility to serve those who didn't vote for him as much as those who did?
Don't you think we've already covered this point? Asked and answered. Next!
The problem is that his attitude that he is displaying implies that he will have a bias as to whom he is serving - a bias that contradicts his responsib of citizens herein take a decidedly more moderate approach in their civil applications.
You didn't answer at all - at least not directly. You said there was no indication that he wouldn't ... but I'll take that as a yes.
No such attitude has been established, except in the minds of a handful of folks who will take offense at even the mere mention of the Lord Jesus Christ's name.
Wrong. I wouldn't take offense at the mention of the not-so-much-lord Jesus christ's name at all. I have no problem with him being a christian, but when he says that some of his fellow citizens are less his "brother or sister" than others it definitely implies that he doesn't see all his constituents as being equal.
It does remain to be seen whether this implication will have any affect on legislation so we'll see.
No Muslim who ran on a platform which included an intention to impose [i]Al-Shari'ah would ever win election here in the US--- at least, not at this time or at anytime in the foreseeable future.[/i]
I agree - but that doesn't address the point at all.
Equally doubtful for the Christian whose stated intention is to make it illegal to be an unbeliever.
Possibly. That's not the worry though. The worry about this is that he'll impose other laws that, while doesn't make it illegal to be an unbeliever, it will impose a preference. I.e. - forcing prayer in schools, forcing the teaching of religion in science class and other issues that may come up.
20 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawn[/i]You said there was no indication that he wouldn't ... but I'll take that as a yes.
Don't you think we've already covered this point? Asked and answered. Next!
[/i]
You didn't answer at all - at least not directly. You said there was no indication that he wouldn't ... but I'll take that as a yes.
No such attitude has been established, except in the minds of a handful of folks who will take offense at even the mere mention ng the teaching of religion in science class and other issues that may come up.
The only implication is what the tongue-cluckers are putting into it!
...but when he says that some of his fellow citizens are less his "brother or sister" than others it definitely implies that he doesn't see all his constituents as being equal.
Wrong. He doesn't recognize unbelievers as being apart of his family. Spiritual family. They're not less: they're non-existent! Spiritually. Not a difficult topic, really. He isn't equating spiritual status with citizen status. Those are two diametrically opposed arenas.
I agree - but that doesn't address the point at all.
Sure it does. You're inferring that the good governor intends to Christianize the state of Alabama, to act prejudicially on the basis of religion, and to purposely behave in an unprofessional and subjective manner.
Nothing put forth to date supports this absurdity.
The worry about this is that he'll impose other laws that, while doesn't make it illegal to be an unbeliever, it will impose a preference. I.e. - forcing prayer in schools, forcing the teaching of religion in science class and other issues that may come up.
I always thought the governor was the head of the executive branch of the state.
20 Jan 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThey're not less: they're non-existent! Spiritually. Not a difficult topic, really. He isn't equating spiritual status with citizen status. Those are two diametrically opposed arenas.
[b]You said there was no indication that he wouldn't ... but I'll take that as a yes.
The only implication is what the tongue-cluckers are putting into it!
...but when he says that some of his fellow citizens are less his "brother or sister" than others it definitely implies that he doesn't see all his constituents as being equal.
Wrong. ...[text shortened]... ]
I always thought the governor was the head of the executive branch of the state.[/b]
To those of us outside his spiritual "family" there isn't that much opposition.
As I said, it remains to be seen whether his "spiritual" bias will affect his legislative bias.
You're inferring that the good governor intends to Christianize the state of Alabama, to act prejudicially on the basis of religion, and to purposely behave in an unprofessional and subjective manner.
No, I'm not. I'm inferring that the not-known-whether-he-is-good-or-not governor will have a bias towards non-christians and yes, using an exaggeration to demonstrate a possible bias.
Nothing put forth to date supports this absurdity.
As I said, we'll see if his spiritual bias makes him legally biassed. I'm skeptical as to whether he will be able to separate the two... but we'll see.