Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
imho, you can only effectivley govern if you view all people - race, religion, creed as equal. Yes, I believe that and believe our founding fathers believed it to.
I agree with what I think you're intending to say here. I think we both agree with the founders that we are all equal before the law. But I don't think they believed that we are equal in every other way. Even on the face of it, that is not true--certainly cannot be true in your religious belief. If you view your religion as equal to all other religions, or all other religions as equal to yours, and, even further, you see all atheism and agnosticism as equal to your religion, that's a nice egalitarian attitude, but it eliminates any reason to have your religion.
As a conservative, I want the government out of my life. If I want to have witch orgies in my basement with fellow practitioners, its my business. As a private business owner, I should be allowed to hire only witches if thats what I want.
Again, I mostly agree with your sentiments, but go easy on wanting government out or your life. Not only ain't that gonna happen, but we sometimes get so sick of big brother intruding that we forget it's our duty to kick him out of where he doesn't belong. The Lone Ranger ain't gonna do it for us. Unfortunately for our peace of mind we must be more, not less, involved with government. I think the founders wanted that.
But for a public official, I think its different. He/She should not express preferential treatment for anyone. I can see your and scotts point that this took place in a church and he was addressing fellow Christians and I think that adds some context to his statment. But its a slippery slope.
I don't think Bentley was expressing preferential treatment, rather he was expressing personal religious attitude. I saw no expressed nor implied intent to treat those outside of his religious community with politically preferential treatment. If some wish to take his statement as a threat, I can see how they could--all statements of personal preference or belief can be seen as a threat to those of differing persuasion, even if no threat was meant. It could, as you say, be a slippery slope--even in a direction other than you imply. If we are cowed into not making overt statements of belief for fear of offending or threatening others, freedom of speech may become a dead letter. Again, I understand that in a public forum, his statement would be inappropriate, but in a private congregational setting, it was an expression of brotherhood with co-religionists.
Last edited by detbuch; 01-19-2011 at 02:07 PM..
Reason: typo
I don't think Bentley was expressing preferential treatment, rather he was expressing personal religious attitude. I saw no expressed nor implied intent to treat those outside of his religious community with politically preferential treatment. If some wish to take his statement as a threat, I can see how they could--all statements of personal preference or belief can be seen as a threat to those of differing persuasion, even if no threat was meant. It could, as you say, be a slippery slope--even in a direction other than you imply. If we are cowed into not making overt statements of belief for fear of offending or threatening others, freedom of speech may become a dead letter. Again, I understand that in a public forum, his statement would be inappropriate, but in a private congregational setting, it was an expression of brotherhood with co-religionists.
For me the issue is that he said it, and whether intended or not, it became public news. His non-Christian constituents may perceive that they may not be treated the same as the "brothers and sisters" that are Christian. Doesn't matter if it was said in church or on the town square. Everything said in front of more than a handful of people, especially strangers, is going to become public if there's anything remotely controversial.
Remember, perception is reality.
Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
Alright, I know I shouldn't click on videos you post, but my curiosity got the best of me. That one is strange, but explain to me why the video below is listed as the top "suggestion" video when you go on Youtube and watch the video you posted?
Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
For me the issue is that he said it, and whether intended or not, it became public news.
For me it is not an issue. I am not of his brand of religion, nor do I wish to constrain how he expresses it, so long as his pursuit of happiness doesn't deny me mine.
His non-Christian constituents may perceive that they may not be treated the same as the "brothers and sisters" that are Christian.
He was schmoozing his base. Politicians are always in campaign mode. Like any "good" politician, I assume he'll say something different when he addresses a non-Christian audience. Or, he might actually be a true believer and will always speak this way. Then, of course, he should immediately be thrown out of office. Anyone who is dumb enough to speak the truth in politics, cannot be trusted to govern. And we know how those Christians are out to trample our freedoms.
Doesn't matter if it was said in church or on the town square. Everything said in front of more than a handful of people, especially strangers, is going to become public if there's anything remotely controversial.
Every politician must make statements of political intent to get elected. One man's political intent is a threat to another man's opposite political desire. The opposition will always twist those statements into negative pretzels. All statements, in politics, are controversial, positive or negative. It's the risk of political speech. I prefer the pol who speaks his intentions truly and freely to the smoothy who tells you what you want to hear. As for Bentley, his constituents have his term in office to determine how he treats non-Christians. Then they can vote. But to demand that he immediately be thrown out of office becuase he told his religious bretheren that they were his brothers and sisters, and that those that didn't believe in Christ were not, but that he would like to be their brother--this is a more controversial and dangerous demand than what Bentley said.
Remember, perception is reality.
Only for those whose perception is clear and not fogged over by rhetorical nonsense. For the rest, reality is more like an apparition
Only for those whose perception is clear and not fogged over by rhetorical nonsense. For the rest, reality is more like an apparition
You sound a lot like Spence.
Seriously, this is a pretty big deal because the media made it one. Front page MSN stuff. You know as well as anyone that people are going to read the headlines and pass judgement based on what they read. Doesn't make it right, but it's how people are. You may use critical thinking (now I'm using Spencisms) when looking at something like this and dismiss it as nothing more than a politician targeting a specific group to get their vote. Most people don't put as much thought into things, especially all those dumbass rednecks down in the buttcrack of America (now I'm using JohnnyDisms).
Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
Thanks. But I can't even hope to achieve the Spencerian mythos of THE CENTER. I have the fundamental flaw of attaching to a specific point in space and time. The CENTER eludes me as it constantly shifts leftward into the nirvana of political perfection.
Seriously, this is a pretty big deal because the media made it one. Front page MSN stuff. You know as well as anyone that people are going to read the headlines and pass judgement based on what they read. Doesn't make it right, but it's how people are. You may use critical thinking (now I'm using Spencisms) when looking at something like this and dismiss it as nothing more than a politician targeting a specific group to get their vote. Most people don't put as much thought into things, especially all those dumbass rednecks down in the buttcrack of America (now I'm using JohnnyDisms).
That's true. Probably why those smartass bluenecks in the egghead center of America keep voting for the Barney Franks, and Kerrys, etc. But, since the regions have their peculiarities, what MSN thinks is a big deal might not impress the buttcrackers, and what Bentley says to them is, in its way, comparable to what Franks says to the Eastern airheads, and Bentley may shock the MSNers and get re-elected. Of course, the MSNers would prefer Jimmy's demand that he immediately be thrown out of office.
That's true. Probably why those smartass bluenecks in the egghead center of America keep voting for the Barney Franks, and Kerrys, etc. But, since the regions have their peculiarities, what MSN thinks is a big deal might not impress the buttcrackers, and what Bentley says to them is, in its way, comparable to what Franks says to the Eastern airheads, and Bentley may shock the MSNers and get re-elected. Of course, the MSNers would prefer Jimmy's demand that he immediately be thrown out of office.
yup, me and the MSNers see eye to eye.
uhhhh.......ok
BTW - read an article last week on Eric Holder. there was some crime against a black kid, maybe in georgia and holder dropped everything to go down there. His office stated something like " Mr Holder, as black man, thought it was important for him to be there" .
My immediate thought? He should be thrown out. he is making decisions based on race. He is showing preferential treatment to a case based on race, illegal.
BTW - read an article last week on Eric Holder. there was some crime against a black kid, maybe in georgia and holder dropped everything to go down there. His office stated something like " Mr Holder, as black man, thought it was important for him to be there" .
My immediate thought? He should be thrown out. he is making decisions based on race. He is showing preferential treatment to a case based on race, illegal.
The difference between Holder and Bentley, at this point, is that Holder is politically ACTING preferentially. Until Bentley does, there is no comparison here.
Hybrid Mode
