Those who make up their minds before they have a clear understanding cannot be argued with.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m comfortable with my assumptions, just as I’m sure you’re comfortable with yours. In this case, until and unless he comes up with a really significant re-interpretation of his remarks I’m fine with feeling uncomfortable for my relatives in Alabama.
Alabama Governor Apologizes for Controversial Religious Remarks
And then he forgets about the non-religious folks. Dumbass.
Regardless of religion, nobody is my brother unless they are a male and have the same parents I do. As it happens, I have no religion and I have no brothers.
What a bizarre thing to say and/or care about.
I thought it was a sin to lie.
You are right, he didn’t forget about them, he just purposely excluded them.
In my rush to get out of my office and on the roads before the Colorado drivers who can’t drive in snow were out in full force, I did not express myself with as much clarity as I should have when answering this question. I apologize and will try to clarify.
I do, and have, “called out” politicians when they have invoked religion as a way of denigrating others or placing others in a hierarchical context. The invocation of God, per se, is not as offensive to me, and in fact, is often not offensive to me at all.
It’s when God, of any stripe, is used by elected public officials as a way of openly or covertly communicating that certain people are not as valued and important as others that I become offended. And that is what happened here.
Elected officials should not use or express their personal beliefs that people who disagree with them are not as valued.
Are they entitled to express those beliefs? Yes.
Should they? No. And I believe that we as a secular society should be more vocal in our dismay when an elected official invokes religion in this way.
ETA: And I see the governor has issued the obligatory “I apologize if anyone was offended” remarks, which are of course a non-apology and, as we have discussed on this board before, a tacit admission that he still doesn’t understand that he should not say shit like that.
How can you parse his words any other way than:
Since you haven’t accepted Jesus as your savior, you’re not my brother. I want to be your brother. Therefore, I want you to accept Jesus as your savior, so you can be my brother.
You know, It’s one thing for this asshole Christian to mention that all Christians are his brothers. It’s another thing for him to specifically mention that non-Christians aren’t his brothers. It’s like when Sideshow Bob got on TV and promised not to kill Homer, Marge, Lisa, or Maggie.
I had a bunch of outrage all prepped to go but then I saw that he said it at his church. I tend to assume that most Christians feel this way. Though, truth be told, I can’t even imagine the shitstorm that would erupt were an atheist politician to say “I think that the religious are delusional” in private company and it got out. It would be biblical.
At least this guy didn’t say that atheists aren’t citizens like a certain other nutjob.
That sounds like a decent apology to me.
No, that sounds like “I’m apologizing because I’ve been told I need to but I don’t believe a word I’m saying.”
Dudes why the big fuss, he is just saying he would like all of you to be his brothers and sisters in Christ. Just like most atheists saying hey would everyone to be a non believer.
He did not in any way say that non Christians would get a raw deal. What is there to be frightened about?
Great Og, you guys get worked up over fuck all, but I guess that’s what the interwebs are for!
I’ll let him pull a few more boners before concluding he’s an asshole of the Bush/Cheney mold.
Palin never would have apologized like this, she’d’ve reloaded.
Yeah, better than Palin isn’t high praise, but so far the guy has made an effort to put things right. That should count for something, even if it doesn’t meet the most stringent requirements for pol-grovelling.
It can also be viewed as an address to members of the church. He said “anyone here today…” He might be trying to tell the audience, as church members, that it is their duty to accept Jesus or whatever. He might not have that standard for everyone else in the state, or even care if they’re religious, but he damn well expects fellow members of his church to live up to certain standards. That’s the view of one hard core atheist’s anyway.
The big, obvious Bible quote here is the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Luke 10.25-37) I would say that what Gov. Bentley said is inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings. However, it’s pretty parallel with the sort of language that Paul uses in his epistles; he frequently addresses his audiences as “brothers and sisters,” and the subtext is that they are “brothers and sisters in Christ,” a phrase that gets thrown around nowadays whenever someone wants to be inclusive of a Christian community.
{Didn’t notice that appleciders posted essentially the same thing.}
This.
Actually, on further review, I notice that appleciders comment is not what I posted and what kaylasdad99 quoted. For me, as a Latter-day Saint (aka Mormon), the Gospel does, indeed teach that we are all brothers and sisters.
Can atheists at least be the governor’s 16th cousins?
Well, I learned it as a Catholic, too. And I try to teach it to my daughter as a Religious Scientist.