New Ala. gov: Just Christians are his family

reply to post by maybereal11

It's unlikely that Republican Gov. Robert Bentley will suffer politically from his inauguration day remarks, which he made from a church pulpit at a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday service Monday.

emphasis mine

Source: news.yahoo.com...

Sorry, but it was not at his inauguration speech. Had it been, I would have agreed it was out of place. Bentley has the right to religious freedom every day. There is no reason he cannot attend a church gathering and speak at it in that context just because he also was sworn in as Governor that day.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


You have a point, but you have to acknowledge he was not speaking as a parishoner...He was up there speaking as the new Govenor...I doubt it was just his turn to get up and speak.

He took the podium as Govenor.

The Bible says there are only two groups, children of wrath and children of God. You're either one or the other, a believer in Christ Jesus, or a non-believer. We aren't "all the same." (Ephesians Ch. 2).

The only way in which we're "all the same" is we're all sinners in need of a Savior.

reply to post by maybereal11

He took the podium as Governor? What, as Governor of the church?

You're grasping at straws here. Bentley is also a citizen, just like Reid, Pelosi, and Obama (who also used churches quite a bit, but in a purely political endeavor). the biggest difference I see is that Bentley has yet to make a name for his administration, good or bad. All he has done is to speak his mind at a church gathering. Bring on the tar and feathers!

I'm starting to wonder from some of the posts in this thread if there is anywhere outside of Alabama that still allows the free exercise of religion or freedom of speech...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

He took the podium as Governor? What, as Governor of the church?

You're grasping at straws here.

Who is grasping at straws?

Why did bentley apologize...ponder that one.

Why was he speaking?

Were those in attendance his new constituents?

Had he just taken office that same day?

To pretend that it was not a political speech is blind.

Again....bentley knew enough to apologize and I respect him for it...I don't know what to say to one his supporters who apparently think he was wrong to apologize.

Strangely....I am now supporting Bentleys position while you oppose it. Have at it...I stopped caring once he owned his mistake.

reply to post by maybereal11

The apology was obviously a political move to counter the accusations... and in that sense, I understand why he did it.

He was speaking because he was invited to speak.

Those in attendance were his constituents... and so is everyone else in the state.

Yes, he had just taken office that day. I still don't know why you want a 24-hour moratorium on free speech.

You seem to have this idea that I support Bentley blindly. Nothing is farther from the truth. I simply believe that demonizing a man for his religion, regardless of what that religion is, is the mark of someone who either doesn't understand freedom or doesn't want freedom.

A year from now, I may be praising Bentley or complaining about him'. I don't know yet which. I do know I will not be doing either simply due the fact that he is a church member and spoke as such in front of a congregation.

I look for more substantial reasons to demonize.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

I still don't know why you want a 24-hour moratorium on free speech.

Hey red...You are better than this. No one is arguing against free speech. He could have gotten up thier and spewed racist remarks and I would still defend his "right" to do so....And you should respect my "right" to criticize those remarks without accusing someone of being anti-free speech.

That is a lame and false defense tactic.

Thinking his remarks were divisive and ignorant is not the same as thinking he didn't have a right to say it.

Dissapointing to see you fall back on Sarah Palinesque defense rhetoric.

I simply believe that demonizing a man for his religion, regardless of what that religion is, is the mark of someone who either doesn't understand freedom or doesn't want freedom.

Glad we agree his remarks were innapropriate then

Never demonized his religion...just the opportunistic, divisive manner in which he vocally employed it the day he was innaugriated.

reply to post by maybereal11

Better than what?

I have made no presumption whatsoever on Gov. Bentley's performance, good or bad. I am only defending his right to make religious statements in the context of a religious gathering without having political accusations leveled at him based on a misunderstanding of the religion context of those remarks. Others in this thread have made such accusations, even when confronted with the religious text addressed and the fact that he was not speaking in his capacity as Governor.

If that is "Palinesque", then perhaps Ms. Palin would make a good President after all.

Your entire argument centered around the fact that this speech happened on the same day as his inauguration. Tell me, would it have been better in some way if he had made it the next day? I think we both know the answer... it would have made no difference to those who wish to denounce him over his religious views. That does irk me, yes, especially when voiced by those who obviously hate the state and do not live here.

That said, I do not deny your right to state your opinion, just as much as Bentley had the right to state his and I have the right to state mine. There is no animosity intended in my posts; it wouldn't do any good if there were. My main reason for continuing this exchange is to somehow try to understand one aspect of your position:

Why does it matter if it was on the day of his inauguration, as long as it was not at his inauguration?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

Better than what?

I have made no presumption whatsoever on Gov. Bentley's performance,

Better than equating anyone that criticizes someones statements with being against free speech.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

I still don't know why you want a 24-hour moratorium on free speech.

I thought I made that clear in my original post?

Yes, that is Palinesque. Those who criticize her...want to take away your freedoms. Silly, lazy, ugly, unfounded, emotional, defensive rhetoric.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Why does it matter if it was on the day of his inauguration, as long as it was not at his inauguration?

TheRedneck

Because his Inauguration day is the only day that he will recieve (with certaintity) the amount of press coverage that he did. It is the day that AL residents pay attention more so than other days. They are listening with interest. What is the plan for AL? What is our new Gov. like? and what he stated was that those who were not christians were not his kin, while those that were christian were his brothers and sisters.

Bad choice of phrase on his part. He apologized for it and I have no idealogical need to continue to harp on him and wish him a successful tenure in office. In his apology has already demonstrated an awareness that he needs to be mindful of his words now that he is Governor and that is great.

i live in Alabama and i personally dont think religion has no place in politics, i did not vote for Dr. Bentley because all of his policies are horrible for education and for the state itself. his entire acceptance speech was christian based, over and over again he was going to make alabama the state God intended it to be and etc. things like that, not verbatim, but i remember it being irritating. and this little speech of his doesnt surprise me any little bit, and the fact that he apologized for it makes it worse to me, if youre going to say something like that, stand up for it, dont apologize for it as soon as someone tells you they're offended...

reply to post by maybereal11

Better than equating anyone that criticizes someones statements with being against free speech.

I do believe I see where the argument between us lies.

I believe that everyone... that includes, you, me, Bentley, the wino lying in the gutter, the doctor living on the hill... everyone has the right to state their opinion on any issue, with the one caveat of inciteful speech... in other words, slander or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. If an issue arises where one disagrees with what someone else has said, that person may freely speak their opposing position.

Where politicians are concerned, I also make a distinction between their duties and their personal lives. I do not hold anyone's religious views against them, as long as those religious views, as with free speech, do not infringe upon the rights of others (human sacrifice or picketing of funerals, for instance).

If Bentley had made a promise to a church congregation to enact a law or sign an executive order, then I would take that as political speech in the course of his duties. If Bentley had signed an executive order or vetoed a bill with the explanation that it went against the wishes of his congregation, or perhaps that his religious views took precedence over his duties, I would consider that an atrocity. If Bentley takes an official position on any aspect of government that is against my wishes as a constituent, I will take offense to it and either speak out or take action, as is appropriate to the situation.

But I will not take offense at a statement made by him in a religious meeting outside his official duties.

It is ironic that you use your freedom of speech in this instance to condemn and deny the freedom of speech of someone else. Make no mistake, that is what you do. I do not deny nor disparage your right to speak freely; I only exercise my freedom of speech to present my position against yours.

I have yet to see an instance where anyone of consequence has stated that disagreeing with Sarah Palin is anti-free speech. I have seen many high-ranking officials (including Congressmen and women) try to paint criticisms of Barack Obama's actions as racial 'hate speech', in an apparent attempt to deny freedom to disagree with his (their) policies. I have seen the same thing when people try to speak out against illegal immigration.

So sorry, I am not the one disagreeing with freedom of speech for everyone. You are, by stating plainly that a statement made in a religious gathering that referred to no law, bill, or other government function was somehow improper because of the date. Disagree with his actions, his positions, his methods, but do not disagree with his right to express his religious and speech freedoms in the proper venue for them.

Or, if you insist on doing so, be prepared to be called on it.

TheRedneck

reply to post by bjt1ngle

While I obviously would disagree with your assessment of Bentley, I have to vehemently agree with one thing: he should not have apologized.

TheRedneck

Yea...way to go Governor...I'm glad to be on the coast...lot better attitude...
Can't believe this moron was the lesser of two evils in the election...
well there was Perry in Texas....HA HA...anyway....
Since moving to 'Bama I have had quite a few WTF moments as far as how the
State Government operates....
Still love it...it is one of those things in life that just IS WHAT IT IS...
when SHTF...I believe I'll be happier......sadly

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by maybereal11

Better than equating anyone that criticizes someones statements with being against free speech.

I do believe I see where the argument between us lies.

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

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It is ironic that you use your freedom of speech in this instance to condemn and deny the freedom of speech of someone else.

Here you go again...try this for plain language from my earlier post..I have said it in every post with you...I have no other option to believe that you aare being intentionally obtuse, cuz I know you are not dumb.

Originally posted by maybereal11
He could have gotten up thier and spewed racist remarks and I would still defend his "right" to do so

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I have yet to see an instance where anyone of consequence has stated that disagreeing with Sarah Palin is anti-free speech.

Oh lord...seriously??? How about Palin herself?

Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights
blogs.abcnews.com...

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

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

I am trying to understand your thinking here...And as I read you, you are claiming that criticizing someone's speech is denying thier 1st amendment right to speak.

Which is false of course.

Saying someone should not have said something is different than saying they did not have a 1st amendment right to say the same.

You get that don't you? I have said it a dozen ways...and like I said, I know you aint dumb.