It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Ala. gov: Just Christians are his family

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11

No offense...but clearly you don't. I feel as if you are not even reading my posts.

Strangely enough, I have had the same feeling. I am reading your posts, but it seems we are thinking in two different contexts. I know you to be intelligent as well.

So let's start fresh again.

Are you criticizing the content of Bentley's statements, or that he made them at all? It sounds to me like you are criticizing the fact he made them at all, since the context of his statements (the arena in which he made them: a church) would suggest that a political statement as opposed to the religious ones he made would have been inappropriate.

In other words, he spoke at a church ceremony. It was not the time nor the place for him to express political views. It was the time and place for him to express religious views. He expressed religious views (and I earlier stated the Biblical context under which they were made) which are only offensive when taken out of their religious context. He did not express political statements; there was no mention made of what he planned to do as Governor.

What if he had said, "I know there are some here who do not have as much money as I do; but I really want you to have as much as I do."? It is essentially the same thing; he was stating a desire for others to have what he has, something he considers important.

The date thing is throwing me as well. The ceremony was in honor of Martin Luther King's birthday. To not participate could (and in all likelihood, would) have been seen as an insult to the black citizenry... not to mention I would have seen such an oversight as a character issue. So he had three choices: attend the ceremony as a citizen and speak when invited to do so, which he did; attend the ceremony, but not speak because he was afraid to speak in a private religious setting, a definite restriction on his freedom of speech; or not attend the ceremony, also meaning he was forced by political 'correctness' to abandon his freedom of speech.

He chose the former. He stated his religious convictions in a religious setting, as is his right. Now he is attacked and forced to apologize for exercising his freedom of speech.

Do you see my point now?

If your concern is the content of his statements, then this becomes an issue of religion as opposed to politics, and his position as Governor has no bearing on what he said.

Is this making any more sense to you?


Let me know if you want a laundry list and I will provide other examples.

I hope I can take a rain check on that offer. It is two years before Ms. Palin will have the opportunity to gain political power. A lot can happen in two years, and I normally ignore the details of those not my elected representatives this early in the cycle. Plus, there's no real need to derail this thread.

I will concede that I may have missed some statements to that effect. Luckily, the good thing about written words is they are persistent and can be accessed when needed.

TheRedneck




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
So let's start fresh again.


I like that plan.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Are you criticizing the content of Bentley's statements, or that he made them at all?


Hmmm...Content, but within "context" is my biggest contention.

Put it this way...if he made the comments in casual conversation during a backyard BBQ where I was present, I would think the statements were questionable, but it would not even warrant a response by me as people "say stuff" all the time that are questionable, including myself. Nobody is perfect.

I continue to believe that despite the venue of a church, the timing brought political context to his statements and perhaps that is our principle disagreement.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Now he is attacked and forced to apologize for exercising his freedom of speech.


This is where we continue to be stuck.

He was not forced to apologize...he could have made his case...and if he felt personally that he was just in his comments then I would argue he should have not apologized, that way the public could come to conclusions within an honest debate.

And again...."Now he is attacked.....for excercising his freedom of speech"

lets just shift the wording here "Now he is attacked...for the things he said while excercising his freedom of speech"

His 1st amendment right was excercised when he made the remarks as was it excercised by his critics. To interject it into the debate is irrational.

which is a more honest and accurate statement. Yes I am attacking him for the things he said while excercising his freedom of speech...just as you and I are doing the same to eachother....all the while the 1st amendment remains intact and not under threat....and to imply it is changes the argument to a "they want your freedoms" false rhetorical debate.

If I show up to rhetorically oppose the KKK in a non-violent way during a KKK rally...have I attacked their right to assemble? Or just equally excercised my own right to assemble?

Criticism of public statements should never be equated to being anti-free speech or an attempt to deny someone there 1st amendment right...Unless someone states " I think we should repeal the first amendmendment or alter it to forbid such statements"...otherwise what happens is pretzel logic where the person excercising thier free speech in issuing the criticism is accused of violating the very "right" that they are excercising...Pretzel, false rhetoric..

I am slipping into ramble here, but hopefully there are some rational nuggets you can salvage as we try to speak eachothers language.

I get you on the church/religious venue thing...I simply disagree and feel his Innaugraition, political office etc. trumps the venue when it comes to context...whether it was pure religious speak or political. On that front, try this...was he introduced to the congregation as "Our new Governor?"...get where I am going?
edit on 26-1-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

What if he had said, "I know there are some here who do not have as much money as I do; but I really want you to have as much as I do."? It is essentially the same thing; he was stating a desire for others to have what he has, something he considers important.



Family is not money. Family are those who love you whether you have money or not...at least for most people.

I understand the biblical and evangelical context of his statements. That choice of phrase is also condecending and divisive.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11

OK, as long as it is the content you are criticizing, then I retract my accusatory tone about you being against free speech. That was apparently where the confusion was coming from.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the context of the church. but I do have to ask this question: given that he has made no secret of his Christian beliefs during the campaign, and given that his inauguration occurred on the same day as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday (something he had no control over), how should he have handled the situation to assure that you had no qualms with his actions?


On that front, try this...was he introduced to the congregation as "Our new Governor?"...get where I am going?

I get what you are saying here, and I freely admit that a large part of the reason he was even asked to speak was because of his newly-acquired status, but whose fault was that? He did not invite himself to speak, nor did he even invite himself to attend (although I am sure he considered it an honor to be invited to attend and speak). Perhaps your argument is more toward the church itself than towards Bentley? Another phrase in your posts seems to suggest it is:

I understand the biblical and evangelical context of his statements. That choice of phrase is also condecending and divisive.

This is where I really start to have concerns. That particular verse is one I have never seen as divisive or condescending, even before I became Christian. It is an acceptance of all people based not on their race, their looks, their position in society, but on their beliefs... which can easily be extended to mean their morality, in my mind anyway.


Family is not money. Family are those who love you whether you have money or not...at least for most people.

Does that mean that no one who does not have physical kinship with elected officials have any sort of hope for representation?

Of course not. I simply illustrate how I believe you are blowing that statement out of proportion.

TheRedeneck



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

given that he has made no secret of his Christian beliefs during the campaign, and given that his inauguration occurred on the same day as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday (something he had no control over), how should he have handled the situation to assure that you had no qualms with his actions?


From what I have gleaned from a whole lot of googling, his other prepared remarks were inclusive, positive and I do not dissaprove of anything else he said at the gathering.

I had no problem with him speaking at the church or even discussing his faith...

So absent those pointedly divisive and offensive remarks aimed at non-christians, I have no issue with timing, venue, the rest of his prepared speech etc.


Originally posted by TheRedneck


On that front, try this...was he introduced to the congregation as "Our new Governor?"...get where I am going?

I get what you are saying here, and I freely admit that a large part of the reason he was even asked to speak was because of his newly-acquired status, but whose fault was that? He did not invite himself to speak, nor did he even invite himself to attend (although I am sure he considered it an honor to be invited to attend and speak). Perhaps your argument is more toward the church itself than towards Bentley?


I understand his obligation if in fact he was invited rather than volounteered.

But the rest of your argument seems reaching...was he obligated to include those words in his speech?


Originally posted by TheRedneck

Another phrase in your posts seems to suggest it is:

I understand the biblical and evangelical context of his statements. That choice of phrase is also condecending and divisive.

This is where I really start to have concerns. That particular verse is one I have never seen as divisive or condescending, even before I became Christian. It is an acceptance of all people based not on their race, their looks, their position in society, but on their beliefs... which can easily be extended to mean their morality, in my mind anyway.


I am not anti-christian...but I am against any religious rhetoric that speaks to division. I prefer "we are all gods children"....but that is niether here nor there in this discussion.

BTW - Please direct me to that verse he was quoting...I'd like to compare it to Bentley's remarks..

Originally posted by TheRedneck


Family is not money. Family are those who love you whether you have money or not...at least for most people.


Does that mean that no one who does not have physical kinship with elected officials have any sort of hope for representation?


The assumption in your analogy was Christian = Spiritual Wealth , Non-Christian Spritual Poverty...I disagree with this just as much as I disagree with the dividing the listeners into "My Brothers and Sisters...My family" and "Not my family".

Sidenote: I attended an Evangelical church for a while. they had a mission to an woefully impovershed region of Africa. The church members put up a slide show of horribly suffering kids and reported that they had converted over a two-hundred of them to the Family of Christ. After the presentation I asked one of the missioanries how the conversion worked...they sat there with a crate of food and as the starving children swarmed them they took them one by one and asked "do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior?" if they said yes....they got to eat, if they said no...then they went hungry.

I am not kidding...he explained it with a proud smile. I know in his mind he was saving souls, but it made me sick to my stomache.

I am not anti-christian, I just prefer Mother Theresa style christianity...she did not care what her orphans faith was, she simply did Gods work and understood we are all the SAME FAMILY.

My favorite story about Mother Theresa is when she was invited to meet the Pope for the first time. She was flown to Rome, arrived at the vatican and before meeting the Pope was told by one of his people that the plain and dusty gown she was wearing was not appropriate to meet the Pope.

She looked the attendant in the eye and simply said "This gown is good enough for God"...and she left.

When the Pope heard what happened he felt embarrassed and shipped a Limosine and driver to calcutta for Mother Theresa to get around in since he had heard she had no car and walked everywhere.

She sent the driver back and sold the car and used the money for the Orphange.

When she died her belongings consisted of a wooden bowl and spoon and one gown that she had worn for years.

I appreciate Christianity...I don't appreciate anyone telling folks that they are or aren't members of Gods family.

Again that is off topic and personal and not relevant to the debate about the Govs comments, but you poked at me on that front suggesting bias so I thought I would offer you some light as to my views.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11

So absent those pointedly divisive and offensive remarks aimed at non-christians, I have no issue with timing, venue, the rest of his prepared speech etc.


But the rest of your argument seems reaching...was he obligated to include those words in his speech?


I am not anti-christian...but I am against any religious rhetoric that speaks to division. I prefer "we are all gods children"....but that is niether here nor there in this discussion.

Apparently this is the crux of the disagreement. Division between peoples is a serious concern, but only when the divisiveness is exclusive... let me clarify.

I live in Alabama. Someone else lives in New York. There is a world of cultural differences between us, some benefiting New York, some benefiting Alabama. I prefer Alabama to New York; the person who lives in New York probably prefers New York. That in itself is a division between us, but it is not exclusive as long as we do not use our differences to disparage each other.

Person A works in a skilled trade with his hands. Person B works in an office environment. That is a division, but if neither Person A nor Person B looks down on the other, it is not exclusive.

Now, if I began lobbying that people in New York should pay more taxes than people in Alabama, or maybe that people in New York should give up rights that people in Alabama enjoy, then that would make the first example exclusive division. If Person A decided that Person B should be ignored because they are obviously not as important to society as Person A, then that would be exclusive.

There will be divisions. No matter if it is division over race, sexuality, origin, nationality, or how people like their eggs, there will always be divisions. As long as those divisions are not exclusive, as long as they are not used to disparage one group over another, the divisions do not matter.

Applying this to Bentley's statements, he has chosen to become a member of the spiritual family he spoke of. Others chose not to do so. That is a division. Is it exclusive, though? No, because his next statement was "but I want you to be my brother". That is an invitation to inclusion, not exclusion. He did not say "You must become my brother" or "If you do not become my brother, you will be sorry" or even "You are less important than if you were my brother". He said "I want you to be my brother".


BTW - Please direct me to that verse he was quoting...I'd like to compare it to Bentley's remarks..

It was a reference instead of a quote, but here it is again:

Matthew 12:

46: While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47: Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48: But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49: And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50: For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Source: www.blueletterbible.org...

And another version:

Mark 3:
31: There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
32: And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
33: And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
34: And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
35: For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Source: www.blueletterbible.org...

I have included the entire portion pertaining to Bentley's statements for context. You can read over what Jesus was preaching when this occurred by following the source links.


The assumption in your analogy was Christian = Spiritual Wealth , Non-Christian Spritual Poverty...

No, it wasn't. The only assumption was that Bentley was describing something he felt was precious and did not share with some others, and invited them to participate. I used the monetary example only because I could think of no other example that did not hinge in some way upon cultural or religious basis.

You see how easy it is to misinterpret someone's intent?


Sidenote:

I'm not going deep into this as it is straying from the topic a bit, but I do thank you for including it. I will take the opportunity to make my take on your two examples as clear as I can with my obviously limited command of the language.

The 'missionaries' did nothing more than have a vacation paid for by the church. They 'saved' no one; they 'converted' no one. They did feed some children, which is always a good thing, but they accomplished nothing more. The fact that they smiled when telling that horrendous story just shows how little they understood the religion and their place in it. I pity them.

Mother Teresa was indeed a saint and should be an example for all to follow. I would place her spirituality far above that of the Pope. I'm glad to see we agree on that point.

I am actually not surprised at either story; it has been my experience that those who are most distrustful of Christianity are also those who have seen the dirty side of those who, primarily due to a serious deficit in understanding the religion, use the religion to accomplish horrendous deeds. They are not the One I worship; they are as children, lacking understanding and wisdom. Sometimes it can be a little rash to judge a Father by the actions of some unruly children in the midst of disobedience.

Wouldn't you agree?

TheRedneck




top topics
 
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join