Again, it's not just Yahoo, it's the Birmingham Post that broke the story, and it's not just 2 sentences, they htranscribed what appears to be the whole paragraph, read the article before you say there's no context: http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/01/gov-elect_robert_bentley_inten.html It actually makes him look worse if you read the whole paragraph, becuase he precedes with saying he's color blind, but that he's not religion blind. I have a hard time reading his words as transcribed as if there's some message of religious tolerance forthcoming - particularly in light of the fact that he more or less acknowledged saying it later and because he hasn't cried "missing context" in his own defense, jsut offered a weak semi-apology.
From his speech; Clearly using the common vernacular of "brother and sister" to refer to fellow believers in Christ, born again Christians, etc. This is really not a big deal.
The Yahoo article is the article I'm referencing and they DID only use 2 sentences. Lazy reporting. Reading the whole paragraph, it's pretty clear that he's referring to "brothers and sisters in Christ" like justtxyank says. finalsbound understands what he meant and I think it's safe to say she's not exactly biased towards Christians. I mean, when he says: is everyone who doesn't share the same daddy as him supposed to be offended too? I'm surprised Yahoo didn't go with the headline ALABAMA GOV: JUST PEOPLE WITH THE SAME DADDY ARE HIS FAMILY. This just seems like a non-story to me.
A bunch of Christians saying "what's the big deal?!" with everybody else standing around saying "...f'real?" kind of tells the tale here.
A bunch of liberal non-Christian Texans feigning outrage over the comments of a Republican Christian government of another state...kind of tells the tale here.
In Alabama a more appropriate headline might be ALABAMA GOV: ALMOST EVERYBODY IS TECHNICALLY MY FAMILY
Finals said it best,comments that were, at best, rude, and at worst, unnecessarily divisive. I'd find the comments in poor taste coming from anybody, be they atheist, jewish, hindu, whatever.
The story it tells me is that the theological literacy of Americans has plummetted in the last couple of generations. I wouldn't expect non-Christians to put much store by the brothers-in-Christ concept, but in earlier times they would have at least been familiar with the concept. Even if he didn't say it in a speech, he'd still believe it, along with millions of born-again Christians, since it is tied up in the core concepts of the religion. To say such a person shouldn't be a Governor is to say Christians should not be, generally. That seems to me to be more intolerant than the imagined slight of not being his brother-in-Christ.
look around this world we made, equality our stock in trade, come and join the brotherhood of man. oh what a wide contented world, let the banners be unfurled, hold the red star proudly high in hand!
It's really not that hard. It stems from the biblical translation of brethren that occurs throughout the New Testament. The term "brethren" or some form of it is the commonly accept translation of the word from the original text. It is often the term used to describe fellow Christians. Even someone who does not believe in Christianity should be able to grasp the concept by just looking at Christianity as a social group. They refer to each other as brothers and sisters in their organization (the body of Christ). If you aren't part of the organization, you aren't a "brother or sister" (member).
We all get that "brother/sister" is meant in a figurative way to represent likemindedness in terms of spirit/religion. But what rubs me the wrong way is having a head of state publicly saying he wishes everyone was his religion. Whether his intent or good or not, it is still a little unsettling as a public official. I expect everyone to proselytize, and I'm not offended or upset when they do... but when you are an agent of the government, and a representative of ALL people, saying something like that... when you hold a seat of power, it raises some serious flags. Maybe he's the MadMax of Alabama and won't govern in a biased manner, but I'd feel a lot more confident in thinking that if he hadn't made these remarks. Again, try and flip the script, and put somebody of a different faith (or lack thereof) in that office, and change out "brother/sister" with some other term of physical/mental/spiritual kinship. The resulting backlash would be pretty ugly. No need to divide people like that.
looks like he just issued a formal apology - anybody still want to argue that this is based on a single phrase taken out of context? http://www.startribune.com/nation/114232034.html
