HERBIE1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Let's all remember that this was not his inaugural address but a speech in a church to his fellow believers and I am pretty sure they were all on the same page. Does this make his comments any less reproachful, I am not sure. I would bet if he were in a public forum and not a religious forum like he was in that day, that his remarks would have been different. I could be wrong but I think he felt the venue allowed his comments. I truly don't think that these remarks would have made me question whether he would be a fair governor for all of Alabama but then again I wasn't there to make the judgement Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk Well the PLACE and audience he made the comments to is certainly appropriate, but just not coming from a sitting governor. Clearly context is important here, but he is ALWAYS the governor- you cannot flip a switch and say- OK, now I am speaking for myself, not as a governor. Do I think this will hurt him? Not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crotchitymedic1986 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Religion is all in your life, like it or not, where do you think our laws come from ? Hint, the ten commandments for starters. In many states, you can not buy alcohol on Sunday, why do you think that is ? Truett Cathey does not open his Chickfila restaurants on Sunday, and he often speaks of his faith, does that make him a holly roller ? And what makes being a holly roller a bad thing ? I have more respect for Johova Witnesses than any other religion, why; because the give up all of their wordly posessions and actually go out and preach/live by what they believe. Unlike most protestants who are in the liquor store or strip club on Saturday night and in church Sunday morning. Are you saying that anyone who is religous can not hold public office ? With all the sex and money scandals I would say we need more religous people in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Religion is all in your life, like it or not, where do you think our laws come from ? Hint, the ten commandments for starters. In many states, you can not buy alcohol on Sunday, why do you think that is ? Truett Cathey does not open his Chickfila restaurants on Sunday, and he often speaks of his faith, does that make him a holly roller ? And what makes being a holly roller a bad thing ? I have more respect for Johova Witnesses than any other religion, why; because the give up all of their wordly posessions and actually go out and preach/live by what they believe. Unlike most protestants who are in the liquor store or strip club on Saturday night and in church Sunday morning. Are you saying that anyone who is religous can not hold public office ? With all the sex and money scandals I would say we need more religous people in office. This isn't about religion, it's about the particulars of what those in that religion believe. Was he elected to govern his entire state, or just the folks he considers to be his "brothers and sisters?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crotchitymedic1986 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 He was elected leader of the whole state, so does that mean he should not lead everyone in the State to be the best they can be. I imagine one of the biggest expenses of his budget is Medicaid, should he not promote healthy living among his citizens to reduce those cost by asking them not to drink, smoke, do drugs, be obese ? If he takes a hard stance against criminals and corruption to protect the innocent, is he not being a good leader ? If he takes such a stance is he pushing his moral views upon his citizens ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paramedicmike Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 In many states, you can not buy alcohol on Sunday, why do you think that is ? In only 14 States can you not buy alcohol on Sunday. I guess that could constitute many... if you could count just slightly over one quarter of the states as "many". Truett Cathey does not open his Chickfila restaurants on Sunday, and he often speaks of his faith, does that make him a holly roller ? Private business owners don't compare to a public official. Apples and oranges. And what makes being a holly roller a bad thing ? Well, holly is particularly hard to roll what with the pointy leaves and such. The berries are a little messy when they get smashed during the rolling process. So if you like stained hands with multiple puncture wounds then I guess holly rolling isn't a bad deal. I have more respect for Johova Witnesses than any other religion, why; because the give up all of their wordly posessions and actually go out and preach/live by what they believe. But only 144,000 of them will see any reward for it. So it's like one big competition to see who can get into heaven. Rather takes the purpose of religion out of it, don't you think? Unlike most protestants who are in the liquor store or strip club on Saturday night and in church Sunday morning. Are you saying that anyone who is religious can not hold public office ? With all the sex and money scandals I would say we need more religious people in office. You mean like born again Christian Tom Delay who was recently convicted on money laundering charges? How about former Florida Congressman Mark Foley who claimed to be a Catholic yet was caught flirting with male congressional pages? (Or maybe he just should've been a priest?) Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford? Chip Pickering who cheated on his wife while attending a Christian retreat? Or John Edwards who claimed faith was an "enormous" part of his life? There are plenty of other "religious" men and women who have clearly demonstrated themselves to be anything but practitioners of their faith. Using religious beliefs as a basis for suitability for public office is folly. How about we just focus on people who honor their oath of office, act in the best interest of their constituents while, at the same time, working within the bounds of the law, and who leave their personal lives out of the workings of a secular government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 He was elected leader of the whole state, so does that mean he should not lead everyone in the State to be the best they can be. I imagine one of the biggest expenses of his budget is Medicaid, should he not promote healthy living among his citizens to reduce those cost by asking them not to drink, smoke, do drugs, be obese ? If he takes a hard stance against criminals and corruption to protect the innocent, is he not being a good leader ? If he takes such a stance is he pushing his moral views upon his citizens ? Lead them to be the best they can be? How exactly does he do that? He's the governor, not their pastor, therapist, personal trainer, or life coach. Is it only possible to be your best if you consider the voters your brothers and sisters? It's irrelevant the origin of a law-whether it be from Zen Buddhists or Druids. His "stance" should be supporting the laws of the state and country, or actively trying to amend those he wants to change. He does not have the luxury- nor do any of us- to ignore the laws we disagree with without paying the price. Last time I checked, legislation does not deal with the religious relationship between the governor and the people and/or their other elected officials. Is there a law that mandates everyone needs to be "brothers and sisters", and if so, what is the penalty if you don't agree with it? What is the price tag for such a law? Any earmarks or pork associated with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crotchitymedic1986 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 So does that mean we can only elect atheist ? You point out the hypocrites who are not really religous to make your point. For every "one" of those, there are thousands of good religous people who live a truly christian life. Who do you think would do a better job of running your state, Howard Stern or Billy Graham (if he were healthy and younger) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bieber Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 So does that mean we can only elect atheist ? You point out the hypocrites who are not really religous to make your point. For every "one" of those, there are thousands of good religous people who live a truly christian life. Who do you think would do a better job of running your state, Howard Stern or Billy Graham (if he were healthy and younger) ? I don't think anyone is saying that we should only have atheists for our political leaders. I think what everyone is saying is that a person's religion really has no bearing on how good of a political leader that they'll be, and that it would be best if we stuck to the politics and left religion out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 So does that mean we can only elect atheist ? You point out the hypocrites who are not really religous to make your point. For every "one" of those, there are thousands of good religous people who live a truly christian life. Who do you think would do a better job of running your state, Howard Stern or Billy Graham (if he were healthy and younger) ? No, it means when someone is an elected official, they should not pontificate in public about their personal religious beliefs- especially if they mean excluding someone based on those beliefs. I don't care if you are an atheist, Druid, or holy roller who attends church ever morning. Your religion- or lack thereof, your morals, and political party certainly shape what you believe politically, but they also cannot conflict with the job you were elected to do. An elected official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. Nowhere does it say you can ignore the ones you do not like or pick and choose who they should apply to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Oversimplified, perhaps, but... Group A feels that anyone not of their religion is evil. Group B feels that anyone not of THEIR religion is evil. Hence, both regard each other, and anyone outside of either group, to be some variant of being a heathen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts