Non-Christian - not my brother

@Arella Mae,

his responsibility as the Governor of the state is equally distributed to all its citizens. Forget religion, any statement that suggest preferential favor of a part of the population is incredibly inappropriate. I worry less about the feelings of non-Christians, and more about whether their Governor will protect their rights (like speech etc).

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Phoenix32890,

I have already stated that I don't think he should of made the remarks and some of the things being said on this thread is (or should it be are?) the exact reason why.

I think the problem is people have read into his remarks "....and since you aren't my brother or sister, I don't care about you or what you want" but he never said that. He never said he was going to show favoritism to anyone. He was speaking in a church setting about his religious beliefs but people took that to mean basically "screw you cuz ya ain't my brother/sister" and that's not what happened at all. The bible tells us to love our enemies (not calling anyone my enemy and not saying he did either), we are told to feed the hungry, help the sick, etc. The bible doesn't say only do that to those that are your brothers and sisters.

I didn't think Obama was trying to divide the populace when he stated "We are no longer a Christian nation." That is how he sees it. He had the right to say that.

0 Replies

@Phoenix32890,

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Arella Mae- Let's look at this another way. You are part of the majority of Americans who are Christians. Suppose Christianity was not the majority religion, and the person who made the remarks was from another group that WAS the majority.

Would you think that what he said was appropriate in that scenario? Would you feel like this public servant was dividing the populace into two groups...........us and them, based on their religious preferences? Think a bit on it!

That's a good perspective Phoenix is offering. It raises the point that it's often hard for majority members to see why a minority feels bullied. None of us is immune to this. Phoenix and I, for example, seriously butted heads not too long ago because I felt she had joined a Judeo-Christian mob ganging up on New York Muslims. As for myself, I know for a fact that at least one Black A2K member considers me appallingly insensitive to the problems of belonging to a racial minority in America. I don't think he's right, but perhaps he is. It's way too easy to accuse a minority of whining when you're not in it.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

What a rare and delicate flower you are if you consider yourself insulted when told you are being obtuse. Now you sink into special pleading because you can't force your argument.

More foolish appeals to your "club thesis" do not address the issue of revealed truth and scriptural inerrancy which i brought up quite some time ago, and which you have never directly addressed. I haven't offered a definition of club, nor have i attempted to use any definition of club to make my point. My point is that religion is not a club in that it consists of a belief set in which one need only profess a belief in order to participate, and a belief set which claims a knowledge of truth based upon an untestable appeal to divine authority. Definitions of "club" aren't relevant to that special nature of religion. And it is not begging the question to point out that aspect of religion, for however inconventient to your argument.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Do you really find his comments "incredibly" inappropriate.

I think I would save that adjective for a governor who told the people of his state that he saw non-Christians as second class citizens, or that he wanted to fry and eat them.

I still don't see what the big deal is. Being mildly concerned that this guy will not treat non-Christian Alabamans the same as those he considers his brother and sisters is hardly the same as being oppressed or even rationally afraid.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

You said that better and in a lot fewer words than I was able to. But, I'm a woman and you know how we are prone to using too many words:lol: Just kidding about that!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Would it be inappropriate for the governor to say "all Christians are my co-religionists, and all non-Christians are not my co-religionists?"

No, that would be fine. After all, this way of phrasing it wouldn't be raising any expectations of preferred treatment for co-religionists.

Well, isn't that exactly what he said, albeit in different terms? Are you saying that it's the word "brothers" that really crosses the line?

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
OK, I'll play along. Would what he said on MLK Day have been appropriate if he had delivered those remarks a month later in his own church in Tuscaloosa?

"Appropriate" goes a little too far. But yes, I would have much less of a problem with it, to the point where I wouldn't care.

Oh, wait a minute, it's not the word "brothers" that is the problem. It's the date and location of Bentley's remarks that bug you.

1 Reply

@wayne,

My apologies wayne.

I misread the following statement of yours to be sarcastic, and then assumed you were atheist yourself.

Quote:

How considerate is it to tell the atheist you'll pray for them.

I was wrong on both counts.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

To assess if ones reasoning constitutes question-begging, it often helps to recall what the question was. In your case, it was "What is a religion but a type of club?" My response is that religions are a particular kind of clubs, and that the particulars matter to this case. That's a valid answer to your question, not a begging of it. I never said that religions aren't clubs.

I re-read your response and you are correct. You said that religions are also about doctrine. I apologize.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

What a rare and delicate flower you are if you consider yourself insulted when told you are being obtuse aren't Gov. Bentley's brother.

Thanks for playing along.

Setanta wrote:

More foolish appeals to your "club thesis" do not address the issue of revealed truth and scriptural inerrancy which i brought up quite some time ago, and which you have never directly addressed.

Sure I did. I think I made it pretty clear that it's irrelevant.

Setanta wrote:

I haven't offered a definition of club, nor have i attempted to use any definition of club to make my point. My point is that religion is not a club in that it consists of a belief set in which one need only profess a belief in order to participate, and a belief set which claims a knowledge of truth based upon an untestable appeal to divine authority.

It is indeed a special kind of irony when someone says that they don't offer any definitions and then, in the next sentence, offer a definition.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I'm not to be considered a player if you attempt to make your unwillingness to acknowledge your ruses into a game. That you claim that religious appeal to scriptural inerrancy and divine authority are irrelevant is not evidence that that is true--it's mere ipse dixit on your part. Finally, i offer no definition of club by asserting that a religion is not a club--it is only inferentially a defintion to the extent that i've said what it is not. It is also not a rake, nor an annuity. That hardly constitutes a discussion of what a club is.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

a big stick?

0 Replies

Sometimes, certainly.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Do you really find his comments "incredibly" inappropriate.

Yes. You'd feel the same if Obama one day decided to offer some sort special relationship and status to African-Americans. The point is that such statements divide the population into first and second class citizens. Bush Sr. made the same mistake...

George H.W. Bush wrote:

I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.
Thursday, August 27, 1987

It doesn't matter if it's a divide over religion, gender, race, etc. The suggestion that some citizens are somehow of greater importance to those put in office to look out for the whole public's interest is a serious reason to be upset.

Yes, incredibly inappropriate.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I think I would save that adjective for a governor who told the people of his state that he saw non-Christians as second class citizens, or that he wanted to fry and eat them.

Saying that some of the citizens are your brothers and sisters, more importantly that others aren't, is pretty much saying that, Finn.

Frying and eating? Come on, Finn. That's appealing to the extreme, extremely.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I still don't see what the big deal is. Being mildly concerned that this guy will not treat non-Christian Alabamans the same as those he considers his brother and sisters is hardly the same as being oppressed or even rationally afraid.

What you're describing is some sort of middle status between inequality and oppression. I suppose if neither is applied to you, what's the difference right? Come on, Finn. you're smarter than this. Why defend the guy? It was a dumb thing to say, and I hope for the sake of Alabama, it's a lesson for him about what job he has and who he serves.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Gee, art, I didn't know G. H. W. Bush said that. Egads and little fishes.

0 Replies

I am not trying to start anything here but I cannot tell you how many people (that I have personally heard say or post it in a chatroom) think because we now have a black man as President that the black population will receive favoritism. I think that is just as ridiculous as I do about the brother/sister thing.

2 Replies

@Arella Mae,

Arella Mae wrote:

I am not trying to start anything here but I cannot tell you how many people (that I have personally heard say or post it in a chatroom) think because we now have a black man as President that the black population will receive favoritism. I think that is just as ridiculous as I do about the brother/sister thing.

Sure. So then you can understand exactly how inappropriate it would be if Obama was to one day make a statement that that confirmed this perceived (and feared) bias. There is a difference in the public perception of bias, and then a public office affirming that bias.

The Gov of Alabama affirmed his bias in his statement.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

Favoritism, sigh.

That is the nugget of the now many years' divide.

Bakke.

2 Replies

@failures art,

No he did not affirm his bias. His "bias" is being taken for granted. At no time did he imply, state, affirm, etc., that he was going to show favoritism to anyone. That's why I said it's just like some think about Obama. It is something people are taking for granted and not anything affirmed.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

The thing that is irking me is he did NOT state any favoritism but yet so many are trying to force it upon him that he did. I don't get it. So because Obama is black I should think he'd show favoritism to blacks? If he was Jewish I should think he'd show favoritism to Jews? Don't we have enough real problems in this world that we need to go around putting words or thoughts into someone else's mouths/minds?

People are screaming "can't we all get along" but then get upset over something like this? It just doesn't make sense to me.

1 Reply

Non-Christian - not my brother

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know