New Alabama Gov...

[WyldRanger]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians

By JAY REEVES, Associated Press – Tue Jan 18, 11:39 pm ET
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.
[Read more: The First Amendment, explained]
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.
Click image to see photos of Ala. Gov. Robert Bentley

AP/Dave Martin
"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.

Not sure what he's trying to prove, being a Christian myself he almost seems to be making a point to create a divide when he should be attacking the state's problems (whatever they might be, as I'm not from or in Alabama, I cannot make that judgement).

[Callie Del Noire]

Wow... talk about political suicide. That is a major case of 'Foot in mouth' disease there.

Of course in Alabama the impact might be mediated a bit.

[Oniya]

I agree with Taufique.  It's treading awfully close at best, and should be toned down.  I don't care if he shows up to church every Sunday in the gubernatorial limo, or sets aside an hour a day where he can pray for guidance, but when he says [Group A] is not 'my brothers and sisters', it implies a bias.  All citizens of Alabama should be 'his constituents' and treated as such.

[Jude]

I think this is much ado about nothing, look at what he said.

"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.

I interpret that to say that he's being candid about the fact that he relates better to people of his own faith, and also that he wants other people to join his faith.  Is any of that really shocking?  Isn't what he said true of essentially everyone if we are honest with ourselves and others?  We all relate better to members of our own social sect.  He hasn't said anything demeaning about us godless heathens yet (which plenty of politicians have like Bush 1.0), and these comments were clearly made in his personal capacity, not as the governor.

Now, I believe Separation of Church and State is not only vital to ensuring the rights of private citizens, but also our country's future.  But I just don't see this as that egregious.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think this is much ado about nothing, look at what he said.I interpret that to say that he's being candid about the fact that he relates better to people of his own faith, and also that he wants other people to join his faith.  Is any of that really shocking?  Isn't what he said true of essentially everyone?  We all relate better to members of our own social sects.  He hasn't said anything about godless heathens yet, and these comments were clearly made in his personal capacity, not as the governor.

Now, I believe Separation of Church and State is not only vital to ensuring the rights of private citizens, but also our country's future.  But I just don't see this as that egregious.

I think you're being a lot more compassion than the media and groups will have. No one wants to take the 'best view' on anything anymore. Sadly.

[Will]

He didn't say it in any sort of hateful way, so I'm not sure what all the anger is about.  Was it stupid and inappropriate?  Of course.  He's a governor, not a preacher, so he doesn't need to be trying to evangelize a crowd.  But it seems like that's all he was doing, really - evangelizing.  Trying to convert people. 

I'm not really sure how this is news.  If you thought a conservative candidate in Alabama wasn't going to push the agenda of the religious right, then I really don't know what to say.  But I fail to see how any of this directly implies that he's going to discriminate against people on an individual basis because of their faith or lack thereof. 

[monicaclassycoed]

The only "brothers and sisters" elected officials have are big campaign contributors.

[Jude]

I'll take out my pitchfork when he starts making comments about how atheists are immoral, untrustworthy, and don't deserve full citizenship (like Bush 1.0 did), until then I think I owe everyone the benefit of doubt whether or not they agree with me on the issues (or religion), so long as I remember in the back of my mind that I could be wrong about them.

It really bothers me the way groups jump to offense at every little thing they can, then demand apologies.  This is why politicians don't speak candidly anymore on anything that could actually be deemed a risk, and instead opt for marketing speak choked full of symbols that don't actually mean anything.

[kylie]

         It's the thing about "wanting to be" that makes it problematic for me.  Under the same sort of exclusivist, in-group logic of recognition that he's using, then well: 

         If he really wants to claim 'sibling' status with others, and if being a member of the same religious persuasion is all that is required to do so, then he could be flexible enough to declare himself a Muslim in the company of Muslims (and then he could call himself a brother much as many Muslims might).. 

         Or an atheist in the company of atheists -- that is, if "fellow travelers" of that persuasion even bother with such hefty terms as brother/sister to mark it off as central to who they will and won't give special treatment...   

         It's not that he said he "was" something.  It's that he implied that others aren't up to standards, and took an evangelical pose about it.  Even as an evangelist, if he must go into evangelism at all:  There is a real difference between saying, well I happen to think it would be cool if others had the same religious camp.  As opposed to emphasizing as one of your first public appearances in that term:  Hey, you Other people:  You're just not in my ball game and I'd be so much happier about you if you were.  It's striking that he spoke to a church group but phrased it as a demand or warning addressed at people in other groups.

[Oniya]

According to later news articles, the remark was made as a result of his prior experience as a minister - he was speaking in front of a church group, he'd been governor for only a few hours, and got caught up in the moment.  He seems to be accepting the egg on his face, and backing away from any exclusionary interpretation.

[Will]

He never said anything about special treatment, at all.  He never even implied it, unless you're actively looking for him to have implied it.

And if he isn't a Muslim or an atheist, how would he be "flexible enough" to extend that sibling stuff to them?

Also, I wasn't aware that he phrased it as a "demand or warning."

[Jude]

Well, you're not seeing the threat or the demand because it's simply not there.  He uses the language of "I want," mentions no ultimatums, and doesn't even use language that implies rejection of Jesus makes you a bad person -- just that you aren't a part of his religious brotherhood.  There's nothing shocking here.  He's a man speaking candidly about his faith in a very typical fashion, who believes he has found eternal truth, who is expressing his wish to share that with other people in a very benign way.  This isn't a campaign stop.  He's not at the Governor's mansion.

If a politician ruled to the benefit of his actual brother or sister that would not be deemed acceptable.  As such, I don't see why people think the fact that he's declared a group of people his metaphorical siblings is reason enough to assume bias.  It just doesn't follow.

[kylie]

         Well first in fairness, it may be that the Yahoo report cut short what he actually said in that church?  He seems somewhat more apparently concerned with speaking to a ritual than and there, than he did in the Yahoo rendition of it:

http://www.newser.com/story/110059/alabama-gov-if-you-arent-saved-you-aint-my-brother.html"If we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. 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," Robert Bentley told a crowd at a Baptist church soon after taking the oath of office, the Huffington Post reports.

Also granted it's an exercise in picturing boundary lines either way...  It's possible I guess that he didn't put a lot of thought into it or didn't mean it in a particularly political sense.  After all, he's an ex-deacon and some religious figures speak like this "all the time."  But in all honesty...  It surprises many people that he could fail to imagine such a critical reaction, when he's also just been sworn into office two days back.  One has to at least wonder, isn't it a little striking that a governor was given the podium to make a sermon -- if that could be all this is in some eyes -- so soon? 

         Perhaps old habits die hard, but that is also part and parcel of the struggle takes to attempt a real separation of church and state too.  By having this sort of speech a couple days after being elected, when he's newly responsible to another unit that commonly claims "family" as a metaphor for who will be taken care of and who will not -- namely, the state...  At a time when most politicians would presumably expect to be receiving extra scrutiny (justified or not), he drew a predictable enough reaction.  If he cannot be cautious of the impression he gives immediately after being elected in terms of what religion may mean for his views of people (who is more "in" than who in whatever way you cut it), then it seems fair enough to assume he will also continue to gather support among political figures by cultivating the same customs. 

          It is a state with a pretty strong Christian constituency.  Just in saying "Christian constituency" we have to recognize that he was (in a political sense at least) speaking in a way that -- point of fact, guess as we might over his specific intent -- would tend to serve one political faction more than others.  Of course people are going to look for him to affirm their membership [Edit: in the constituent sense, it's translating into an expectation of relative influence] or not.  He's just been elected governor.  Many of the Christians in a state where the political rhetoric is so often charged with exceptionalism and "familly values" would want to hear that yes, now that I've won I'm really (again) going to stand up for those things.  And others would interpret it in a similar way. 

         It's not as if only people from other religious backgrounds would see it that way.  Religion has not in fact been neatly disentangled from American politics, so whoever is conscious of that entanglement on all sides has to see something there.  Now, people who imagine that the governor simply stops being a political figure when he steps into his church may not see it so.  In which case, Obama should likewise have no problem whatsoever tagging along with Rev. Wright any time he pleases either -- because that's just his choice of spiritual counsel, no constituency and no political impact to be expected...  We know how that one turned out.  And that was primarily over things that Rev. Wright, and not Obama has said.  Which I think should be a pretty significant difference, but nonetheless there we are.         

        The reaction shows that there is also a population with a strong aversion to that sort of shades of grey whereby common religious language and practice slips itself into national political agendas.  Of course it is not technically illegal.  Neither is it illegal for Republicans in particular to resist bills in Congress that would enforce equal pay for equal work by women.  But these things are signs of regular, fairly open and crass discrimination on the basis of very broad social categories.  It's not illegal, just very visibly non-inclusive (also known as discriminatory) to a lot of people.  So, they often draw a backlash when people wade in this way.  The point is not whether he was in church or which religion he was per se.  The point is more that he is a figure with a lot of official power at the moment, and he said something that carries a lot of very real connotations about where he stands in a political landscape.  Perhaps if he was not in a party known for so consistently riding religion (a Bush reference or several may fit here, if you like) as an excuse for economic inequality, gender discrimination, and other social control, then it might not create quite the same fuss.

[Noelle]

A religious man uses a term that is extremely common to the nation's prevalent religion to describe people with common beliefs. He didn't say "fuck you atheists, you can suck my shriveled penis". This is not news. :(

[HockeyGod]

Wow... talk about political suicide. That is a major case of 'Foot in mouth' disease there.

Of course in Alabama the impact might be mediated a bit.

This isn't political suicide. He's the Governor of Alabama. Stats I've seen - most Christian state, most church attendance, etc.

[AtlasEros]

I really wish everyone understood that your job is to achieve what is stated to be your job, not to use your job (or title) as a platform to work your personal agendas through.

[The Dark Raven]

As an Alabamian, I take offense at the general public (not Alabamians) throwing a fit over this. 

First, the man was in his own church, talking (as a Deacon of that church), about brothers and sisters in Christ.  Are Deacons not allowed to do that anymore?

Second, he had been governor for what all of a day or less?  He's still trying to figure out that what he says in the bathroom becomes news.

Sure, he made a faux pas but hours after he realized the oops and apologized.  It was on the local and state news.  If his faux pas made it to the national media but not the apology that is a failing of national media, not Governor Bentley.  If you don't live in Alabama, and don't plan to move here during his tenure, his views shouldn't be an issue (according to the glory of the Constitution and the idea that states can make their own rules and have their own opinions).  If you live in Alabama and don't like the man's views, you can either leave the state or ignore his views.  That's why we have the opportunity for a new governor in 4 years.

Yes I'm conservative, yes I live in Alabama. hate me if you will for my views but I love my country, I understand foot-in-mouth disease acutely from personal experience, and I feel sorry for the guy.  No one should be jumped for voicing their true beliefs in this country.  It's what our founding fathers wrote into our Constitution to make sure we wouldn't fall into the mess of ever having to watch what we say lest we offend someone, or get executed for it.

[HockeyGod]

As an Alabamian, I take offense at the general public (not Alabamians) throwing a fit over this. 

Forgive me if I'm not understanding your full argument, but aren't you basing it on freedom of speech? Freedom of speech includes enjoying what people say and not enjoying what people say.

I also think that Alabama is a state in the United States and as a lawful tax paying member of that country, I do have the right to question lawmakers. In this case, Alabama received $3 billion in tax payer money just from the stimulus. Alabama didn't pay $3 billion in federal taxes. They're getting money from states like mine which pay more taxes because we have higher salaries and lower unemployment. Therefore, this Governor will now have control over money I gave to the federal government. I have a right to demand that the money be used in accordance with our Constitution and (because I'm an American) my views.

It's what our founding fathers wrote into our Constitution to make sure we wouldn't fall into the mess of ever having to watch what we say lest we offend someone, or get executed for it.

I think this gets at the gist of the problem. He's not just an average every day citizen, but an elected official charged with working towards the common good of all Alabamians.

First Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The outcry isn't that he spoke his mind. The outcry is what he said. Politicians say stupid things all the time and we laugh hysterically. In a nutshell his words are being interpreted as - I'm with you Christians and the rest of you are not my people. I would assume, contrary to what many think, not all Alabamians are Christian. Will the non-Christians now be persecuted for not believing the Governor's Jesus? Will all children now be required to pray in school to Jesus? Will Jews, Muslims, non-believers, and others be further marginalized in the state? That's the crux. How can he, as an elected official, work for all people and not just his brand of Christian brothers and sisters?

[Sure]

Forgive me if I'm not understanding your full argument, but aren't you basing it on freedom of speech? Freedom of speech includes enjoying what people say and not enjoying what people say.

I also think that Alabama is a state in the United States and as a lawful tax paying member of that country, I do have the right to question lawmakers. In this case, Alabama received $3 billion in tax payer money just from the stimulus. Alabama didn't pay $3 billion in federal taxes. They're getting money from states like mine which pay more taxes because we have higher salaries and lower unemployment. Therefore, this Governor will now have control over money I gave to the federal government. I have a right to demand that the money be used in accordance with our Constitution and (because I'm an American) my views.

While you have the right to say what you want about it, you have no right to demand that the money be used in accordance with your views. Any strings attached to the money were attached when it was given and both you and the Federal Government have any right to do anything further because of it. What you have just said is a bare faced assertion with no legal ground to stand on.

I think this gets at the gist of the problem. He's not just an average every day citizen, but an elected official charged with working towards the common good of all Alabamians.

First Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That law does not apply to him, seeing as he's the Governor of Alabama and not a member of Congress. He can make laws banning gays on religious grounds and making Protestantism the official religion of Alabama until the cows come home, and it would be perfectly legal (if not incredibly dumb politically). The Constitution of the United States is the governing document of the Federal government, not the states. States have their own Constitutions.

The outcry isn't that he spoke his mind. The outcry is what he said. Politicians say stupid things all the time and we laugh hysterically. In a nutshell his words are being interpreted as - I'm with you Christians and the rest of you are not my people. I would assume, contrary to what many think, not all Alabamians are Christian. Will the non-Christians now be persecuted for not believing the Governor's Jesus? Will all children now be required to pray in school to Jesus? Will Jews, Muslims, non-believers, and others be further marginalized in the state? That's the crux. How can he, as an elected official, work for all people and not just his brand of Christian brothers and sisters?

In the same way a Christian can talk about the Brotherhood of Christ, or a Muslim can talk about the Ummah, or a Jew can talk about the Chosen People, and then not proceed to shun everyone with different beliefs than them. In the same way an atheist does not necessarily think everyone who believes in religion is dumb and misguided. Everyone always believes their own beliefs are correct, a great majority of people can still get along with those whose beliefs are different.

By the way, until you show any evidence he did anything that moves towards persecuting non-Christians, requiring prayers, or marginalizing non-Christians, you are merely speculating based on one comment which implied a Deacon wanted to convert you to Christianity. Which is to be expected, I would think.

[Noelle]

Well...no, not really. Your argument doesn't jibe well with the 14th Amendment. States can't really give the Constitution the finger and do what they want. I'd recommend looking it up.

[HockeyGod]

While you have the right to say what you want about it, you have no right to demand that the money be used in accordance with your views. Any strings attached to the money were attached when it was given and both you and the Federal Government have any right to do anything further because of it. What you have just said is a bare faced assertion with no legal ground to stand on.

I was reacting to the fact that the poster was noting that she was frustrated with people speaking their mind about Alabama and then using the argument that people are free to speak their mind. I was giving an example. I was speaking my mind. He doesn't have to follow it.

That law does not apply to him, seeing as he's the Governor of Alabama and not a member of Congress. He can make laws banning gays on religious grounds and making Protestantism the official religion of Alabama until the cows come home, and it would be perfectly legal (if not incredibly dumb politically). The Constitution of the United States is the governing document of the Federal government, not the states. States have their own Constitutions.

Um...that doesn't seem to be true. There's the 14th Amendment and there's a supremacy clause in the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government. (Note that the word "shall" is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

Err...darn Noelle for beating me to it!  ::)

[Sure]

You are right that what I just said couldn't happen, but it's because of other amendments, other laws (which you were kind enough to provide). What alx (can I call you alx?) cited specifically has no effect, because it specifically regulates Congress.

[Jude]

That's not entirely accurate.  The First Amendment working in concert with the Fourteen Amendment is what makes the Establishment Clause applicable to the State and Local levels and not just the Federal.  The First verifies it as a federally recognized right and the Fourteenth says states have to recognize federal rights basically.  Without the first, there'd be no right to extend to the state level.

That law does not apply to him, seeing as he's the Governor of Alabama and not a member of Congress. He can make laws banning gays on religious grounds and making Protestantism the official religion of Alabama until the cows come home, and it would be perfectly legal (if not incredibly dumb politically). The Constitution of the United States is the governing document of the Federal government, not the states. States have their own Constitutions.

And what you said in that post is a great example of moving the goalpost when compared to what you said in the above quote.  You didn't say "the first amendment isn't enough to make that illegal" you said it was legal.  That was a blatant and utter falsehood.  Now you're arguing something else in an attempt to salvage the point you originally made after it was disproven, which makes me think this discussion is veering into the territory of pointless pride-based bickering and not actual debate.

Returning the original topic, no, he could not recognize Protestantism (even ignoring the facts that the term doesn't describe a religion to begin with, but a category of reformed post-Catholic Christian Denominations) as a state Religion.  Officially weighing in on religious matters as a government spokesperson is not legal, but it takes some serious squinting to see this as even remotely official speech.

[HockeyGod]

You are right that what I just said couldn't happen, but it's because of other amendments, other laws (which you were kind enough to provide). What alx (can I call you alx?) cited specifically has no effect, because it specifically regulates Congress.

Of course you can call me alx  ;)

I don't want to continue to argue Supremacy Law in this thread because that is not the topic. If you're interested you could start another thread. I suggest you to read it before starting the thread. No state can trump federal law. Never. They can be more stringent. For example, the feds could create a law that there must be at least 5 widgets in every doodad in the land. The state could say, in this state there has to be 7 widgets. They are meeting the federal law by having at least 5, but are making it more stringent by requiring 7. That is how they get around supremacy. If the state says, we only require 4...doesn't matter...the feds require 5, there must be 5 and doodads with only 4 are prosecutable.

I still stand by my remarks that it is a bit hypocritical to give the Governor free will to say what he wants and then get pissed when people say what they want because they aren't from Alabama. That litmus test is faulty.

Secondly, while his remarks are technically protected, they are tactless and obscure. If he were to say "I believe in the power of Mother Earth and those of you following the imaginary Jesus are praying to a myth," I would think there would be a mob in Alabama. It's only because the majority are Christians and believe him. Sad.

[Sure]

And what you said in that post is a great example of moving the goalpost when compared to what you said in the above quote.  You didn't say "the first amendment isn't enough to make that illegal" you said it was legal.  That was a blatant and utter falsehood.  Now you're arguing something else in an attempt to salvage the point you originally made after it was disproven, which makes me think this discussion is veering into the territory of pointless pride-based bickering and not actual debate.

Very well, holding to your exacting standards how does this contribute to your point? This is descending into petty name calling and unnecessary insults, in my humble opinion.

By the way, if saying the other party is right when they contradict you is not enough for you, very well: What I said was wrong.

I don't want to continue to argue Supremacy Law in this thread because that is not the topic. If you're interested you could start another thread. I suggest you to read it before starting the thread. No state can trump federal law. Never. They can be more stringent. For example, the feds could create a law that there must be at least 5 widgets in every doodad in the land. The state could say, in this state there has to be 7 widgets. They are meeting the federal law by having at least 5, but are making it more stringent by requiring 7. That is how they get around supremacy. If the state says, we only require 4...doesn't matter...the feds require 5, there must be 5 and doodads with only 4 are prosecutable.

As a suggestion for the future, if you want to end a conversation you should state that you are ending it and then not continue arguing. Otherwise it just seems like an attempt to get the last word in. Regardless, in accordance with your wishes I won't reply so as to end the conversation.

Secondly, while his remarks are technically protected, they are tactless and obscure. If he were to say "I believe in the power of Mother Earth and those of you following the imaginary Jesus are praying to a myth," I would think there would be a mob in Alabama. It's only because the majority are Christians and believe him. Sad.

I don't think anyone here is denying they are tactless, really, in the same way it's pretty tactless to lecture someone about their religious beliefs in line for coffee.