BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley told a church crowd just moments into his new administration that those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior are not his brothers and sisters, shocking some critics who questioned Tuesday whether he can be fair to non-Christians.
"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.
The Anti-Defamation League on Tuesday called Bentley's remarks shocking.
"His comments are not only offensive, but also raise serious questions as to whether non-Christians can expect to receive equal treatment during his tenure as governor," said Bill Nigut, the ADL's regional director.
Speaking at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church after the official inaugural ceremony, Bentley told the crowd that he considered anyone who believed in Jesus to be his brothers and sisters regardless of color, but anyone who isn't a Christian doesn't have that same relationship to him.
"If the Holy Spirit lives in you that makes you my brothers and sisters. Anyone who has not accepted Jesus, I want to be your brothers and sisters, too," Bentley said.
After his speech, Bentley said he did not mean to insult anyone.
Responding to questions about it, Bentley's office released a statement Tuesday saying he believes "he is the governor of all of Alabama."
"The governor clearly stated that he will be the governor of all Alabamians — Democrat, Republican and Independent, young, old, black and white, rich and poor. As stated in his (inaugural) address, Gov. Bentley believes his job is to make everyone's lives better," the statement said.
Ashfaq Taufique, president of the Birmingham Islamic Society, told The Birmingham News he wasn't sure how Bentley's remarks were intended.
"Does it mean that those who according to him are not saved are less important than those who are saved?" Taufique said. "Does he want those of us who do not belong to the Christian faith to adopt his faith? That should be toned down. That's not what we need. If he means that, I hope he changes it. We don't want evangelical politicians. They can be whatever in their private life."
The official with the Anti-Defamation League, which fights discrimination against Jewish people, said it sounded like Bentley was using the office of governor to advocate for Christian conversion.
"If he does so, he is dancing dangerously close to a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids government from promoting the establishment of any religion," Nigut said.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
New Ala. gov: Just Christians are his family
Sounds like someone hasn't learned the lesson of the Good Samaritan.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
What kind of a moron does it take to end with jews and muslims agreeing on ANYTHING?
I mean HOW HUGE OF A MORON DO YOU HAVE TO BE?
Pastorius,
If Robert Bently doesn't see anyone who doesn't share his faith as his moral equivalent, I'm also worried that he won't be able to govern fairly. The United States is not a nation for Christians only.
Nor should it be a nation for Christians only
Are serving governors allowed to speak on personal matters at any time, or at all? This was not part of an inaugural speech, but comments after made at a subsequent unofficial event, in a church no less.
Why all the sanctimonious presumtion of universal brotherhood? Actually, If you weren't born of my mother, then you aren't my brother.
And what about the good Jew...I mean Samaritan....but wait wasn't he a Jew....or shall we go back to words having meaning, even if we disagree.
Maccusgermanis,
Its not that he doesn't have the right to say this, its that its rather disturbing, especially for someone in his position to be saying it.
Damien,
It really doesn't much disturb me when the little old ladies in ridiculous red hats say I can't be a member, having neither a vagina, nor a silly red hat. I don't see this as much different.
That said, and my resistence to the presumption of universal brotherhood, being already stated, Bentley's behavior in the primariries was unforgivable. A DNC chair and AEA boss spent money attacking Bentley's opponent for essentially not loving Jesus enough. Bentley denied involvement right up to the point when contributions where filed with the FEC on the eve of the deadline.
It's a question of having enough brains and judgment to govern.
Our gov just told the NAACP they could 'kiss his butt' if they did not like that he did not want to speak at the MLK breakfast.
Why even SAY such a thing?
Just say 'no thanks'.
Plenty of enemies and opposition accrue via principle, why add with stupidity
Macus,
There are three ways to look at this,
1) Does he have the right to say it?
2) Does it portend good faith as a governor for him to believe such a thing
3) is it moral
The answers to numbers 2 and 3 are, as far as I'm am concerned, an unequivocal NO.
The man is a jerk.
If a Muslim was elected to office and said the same thing, we would be condemning him in the strongest terms.
And, I do so here as well.
The man should remove himself from office immediately.
It is Christian doctrine to consider fellow believers as your brothers and sisters because they have been born again with you into the family of God. Unbelievers are not in God's family until they repent, believe, and are born again.
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers ?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers . For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Matthew 12:48
ron,
Do you see any reason to believe that you ought to treat anyone, believer or non-believer, differently, according to New Testament teachings.
The only distinctions I can think of are,
1) we ought to call our "brothers and sisters in Christ" to account for their sins, first personally, second, with another Christian or two, and third, in front of the body.
2) we are to greet each other "with a Holy Kiss." (this one sure doesn't seem very important, and you can rest assured, I'm not going to be kissing you
3) we are not to sue our brothers and sisters.
Other than that, our OBLIGATIONS are the same to everyone, and therefore, I believe the distinction is MOOT.
Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?
So why does the moot illicit such santimonious response? And, if islamic supremicism began and ended with my being excluded, from a club that I'd never intended to join, then I would also consider that moot.
You think I am responding out of emotion-based sanctimony, rather than thought.
Perhaps.
But, I can tell you that if I was actually sitting in that audience hearing the man speak those words, I would be offended, and I would likely approach him afterward and tell him what I thought. I do those kinds of things often.
Does it not occur to you that a guy like me, who does what he does - daily now, for almost 7 years - might do this with such dedication because I really believe in the Brotherhood of human beings, and I really am truly bothered by the fact that my fellow Liberals (who I have since parted with) are willing to give Muslims a pass on that one?
Remember, I am a Liberal at heart, as is Epaminondas, and several of the other contributors here.
I am surprised quite often, for instance, to find that AOW is more Liberal than I on certain issues.
That is the defining attribute of IBA, as opposed to almost any other anti-Jihad blog. We are classical American Liberals.
We're not UAF/Liberal-Fascist-sympathizers/apologists like Harry's Place.
But, we are Liberals.
And so anyone who doesn't agree with your presumption of universal brotherhood is to be decried as immoral and acting in bad faith? To have his resignation called for? How befitting free men, to presume to think for one another.
I'm disappointed that the assumption of universal brotherhood isn't seen as the danger that it is. This is the very basis for which the mis-named liberals give their "brother" a pass, on issues of greater importance than club membership. The basis for which critics have long been told that no distinction could be made, and decried as dividers.
I've other, more concrete, reasons to distrust Bentley, but think all he had confessed was that A is A. Damn him for apologizing.
Macus,
In MY OPINION, he is not living up to his avowed Christian worldview. In MY OPINION, he is living the opposite of it.
I call for him to resign because I don't like him, and I don't like him because I think he is tremendously compromised and immoral.
I don't say he ought to be thrown out of office.
You know, you have not dealt with another issue that both Epa and I have thrown into this; What is KEITH ELLISON said the same thing? Would you want him to resign?
Yes, I would, and I think you would too.
Right?
I am not Keith Ellison's brother. He need not resign for stating such. You do trivialize any objection to Keith Ellison's association with the Muslim Brotherhood by suggesting that he should be opposed simply for denying universal brotherhood. And, you might note that I have already addressed this.
from above,
And, if islamic supremicism began and ended with my being excluded, from a club that I'd never intended to join, then I would also consider that moot.
Ok, you have your opinion and I have mine. I don't agree with you, but I like discussing the subject with you.
Thanks, bro' and ditto.
Okay. My opinion here is that if he was at the church for a personal visit and not a government related speech or campaign or whatever, then I think what he said is actually both correct according to the New Testament and his right to believe, if he so chooses.
Is it offensive to some people? Sure. But hey, I am not going to ask the guy to stop believing what he's believing just because its offensive to me. And if he can't express his opinion in his house of worship...his opinion on his religion, then where else is he supposed to do that?
As for if a Muslim politician said in a mosque that only Muslims are his brothers and sisters, then I would say, "finally a Muslim who has the balls to tell the truth about his religion".
Now, I am not an American so I don't know if my opinion even matters. But I am aware of the American constitution and law and no where does it say that it is illegal to hold onto beliefs that might offend people, even for a politician.
They should not, however, bring these beliefs into poltics. If this dude treats non Christians differently than Christians AS A GOVERNOR, THEN he should resign but there is no sign he does that so I don't see any problem.
Maccusgermanis,
The reason this is rather disturbing, beyond the fact that its rather mean is that as one of our political leaders it, he is supposed to represent the interests of the people of his state regardless of weather or not they are Christians.
Now, as for Muslim Jihadist, off course it would be better if all the did was talk about their own inherent superiority, but they don't now do they?
However, that doesn't change the fact, that someone in Gov. Robert Bentley position should not be saying things like, "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,"
Not to mention the fact that like Pastorius, I'm upset with the modern left for giving Muslims a pass where they wouldn't give it to Christians. But that doesn't mean that in those cases, they should give Christians a pass.
Oh, I do want to add though that if he said that people should blow non-Christians up or something to that effect, then you've got serious problems!
But he ain't doing that.
Freedom of religion is a huge thing and I know personally how valuable it is. If my beliefs hurt someone's feelings, well that someone can just go ahead and kiss my butt. As long as I don't hurt someone physically with my beliefs, then I am doing alright, I think. Whaddya think?
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to SAY there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Thomas Jefferson.
If someone's breaking my leg or blowing me up though, then I think I would have a problem and so would Thomas Jefferson, I think.
It is back on. Someone grew a spine.
Damien, I see no evidence that he intends to use this special "brotherhood," to exclude other citizens of the state. That he did manage to get through his official inaugural speech, and down the road to the local Baptist church, before giving his clumsy altar call is evidence that he understands some separation between his duties as governor and his feelings of fellowship with co-believers.
I think Claire Berlinski makes a good point,
"I don't want a religious or a faux-kinship relationship with my elected officials at all: I want them to govern effectively in a secular state, where their powers are strictly limited, and otherwise stay off my back."
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Thanks-Governor-Bentley
Maccusgermanis,
I hope you're right.
In retrospect, "I see no evidence," should read that "This incident does not suggest."
The manner in which Bradley Byrne was attacked, and Bentley's complicity therein, is disturbing.
We have two discussions going on here,
1) those who are arguing according to the American Tradition (all of us are born with certain unalienable rights ...)
and
2) those who are arguing Christian theology
I want to address the following to those who are arguing Christian theology:
Do you see any reason to believe that you ought to treat anyone, believer or non-believer, differently, according to New Testament teachings.
The only distinctions I can think of are,
1) we ought to call our "brothers and sisters in Christ" to account for their sins, first personally, second, with another Christian or two, and third, in front of the body.
2) we are to greet each other "with a Holy Kiss." (this one sure doesn't seem very important, and you can rest assured, I'm not going to be kissing you
3) we are not to sue our brothers and sisters.
Other than that, our OBLIGATIONS are the same to everyone, and therefore, I believe the distinction is MOOT.
Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?
Also, consider this, the Bible tells you to "Love your neighbor as yourself." The Bible not only says that, it repeats it EIGHT TIMES.
So, if you are to love your neighbor as yourself, and you are a Christian, then how are you to treat you neighbor (who may or may not be a Christian?)
My point is, there is no distinction.
Right?
This thread and the comments are a SCHOOL on why religion has absolutely NO PLACE in govt.
It is difficult enuf to use the 10 commandments as the moral basis for law, but if it is not completely clear why no religious comments are welcome INSIDE GOVT I can't imagine what it would take.
The entire episode is a screaming negative
I feel even more strongly that the AL gov is a monor of the highest order.
Post a Comment