Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State

18
Jan
2011

Alabama Governor Insinuates Non-Christians Are Second-Class Citizens

admin's picture
Author: admin /

Governor Bentley (Photo by AP)

Governor Bentley did not waste any time creating controversy in the state of Alabama. The new governor stated during a speech at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church, “Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”

Bentley later said he did not intend to insult non-Christians with his comments. Bentley’s Communications Director had to back pedal his comments a bit and said, “He is the governor of all the people, Christians, non-Christians alike.” I hope Bentley’s Communications Director advised him of that.

Bentley may not have intended to insult non-Christians in Alabama, but he did. And Bentley’s view that only Christians are his “brothers and sisters” relegates non-Christians in Alabama to a second class citizen state in his mind. How can we trust Bentley now when he has to choose between two competing bids for a state contract and one is owned by a Christian and the other a Hindu, Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim, or atheist?

The irony of Bentley saying this where Martin Luther King, Jr. used to preach, where MLK spearheaded the quest for Civil Rights, does not escape me. If Bentley does not view all citizens of Alabama as equal, and elevates Christians higher than non-Christians, then he has failed Mr. King’s test and ideals. Civil rights are not just about race. Civil rights encompass race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc.

Bentley said he wasn’t trying to insult anybody. That is not good enough for me. I want to know that he will actually treat all of Alabama’s citizens equally and that he is truly sorry for making non-Christians in Alabama feel like second class citizens.

Mr. Bentley, I would ask you to re-read your inauguration speech where you said, “I am the governor of all Alabama: Democrat, Republican and Independent. Young and old, black and white, rich and poor.” You also said, “I have said all along, now I work for you, the citizens of Alabama.” You mentioned several times that you were a “servant of the people.”

Well, Mr. Bentley, I am one of those people you serve, and if you view me as a second-class citizen because I am not your “brother in Christ,” then you do not serve me. Reaffirm your oath and your vision and reassure every Alabamian, regardless of religion, that we are all equal and you will uphold your oath to the Alabama Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom and has one of the best Establishment Clause statements of any state constitution (Article I, Section 3).

I will not hold my breath waiting for your apology or your assurances.

Robert Bentley Sworn In As Alabama's 53rd Governor
Gov.-elect Robert Bentley intends to be governor over all, but says only Christians are his 'brothers and sisters'

by Blair Scott

Since posting this blog, the following news items have come up with the American Atheists' response:
Alabama Governor: Only Christians are my Brothers
Faith leaders consider Gov. Bentley's brother-sister classifications
Gov. Bentley's Religious Comments Stir Controversy
New Alabama Gov. Criticized for Christian-Only Message

Comments

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 01/19/2011 - 13:18

This really sickens me, and watching the lady in the view stick up for him is equally as sickening...

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 01/19/2011 - 13:38

Governor Bentley has apologized:
http://www.waaytv.com/news/local/story/Bentley-Apologizes-For-Remark/AQg...

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 01/20/2011 - 14:08

Haha - of course! Isn't that what politicians do now? Say crazy stuff first, apologize later? :D

I'm just kidding, maybe he really is sorry. I think when people get all swoon-y with emotion, they can say some really poorly thought out things. He doesn't look like a particularly swoon-prone man, but you never know. :)

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 01/21/2011 - 05:37

Yeah... because clearly we've deleted all your posts here and have not let you talk. The Facebook page is FOR atheists. It is not for you. Just like a lot of Christian FB pages are FOR Christians and atheists get banned in them. We don't get all pissy and whine and cry about being denied our freedom of speech. We understand that it's a page FOR Christians and they have every right to ban us by their own rules. I personally don't go to those pages. I find it annoying when Christians come to our page so I don't go and do the same to theirs.

So you can whine and cry all you want and cry foul... but you just look childish. Especially since not a single one of your posts has been deleted here.

And since you know where I work... I'll ask again. Stalker much?

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/22/2011 - 08:27

"...but I’m not sure why you would want to do so… except to control the available information."

Argument from ignorance.

You cannot understand the concept of having a place OF atheists and FOR atheists and therefore you must interject your own nonsense into the gap that you cannot understand: hence there must be an ulterior motive for deleting all Christians that come to the FB page.

If you honestly think that is how it goes then you truly are suffering from a persecution syndrome.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/24/2011 - 05:40

Excellent response Blair. I like that the Huntsville Times used your points about MLK and civil rights in their piece.

As an Alabama native and life long resident, I too cannot acknowledge such a pathetic excuse for an apology.

I and other members of the Southeast Alabama Freethought Association composed a response and sent it to Governor Bentley early last week and have yet to receive a reply.

Also, there is one other statement that is not being reported on that I would like Governor Bentley to address as well. During his inaugural address, which you can see here (forward to the 15 min mark), Governor Bentley quoted the Declaration of Independence and said that our “rights cannot be surrendered, bought or sold because they come from our creator, not from the government.” Thus he falsely claims that our rights as citizens of Alabama and the United States come from his “Creator.”

As you know, quoting the Declaration of Independence is a popular tactic used by Evangelical Christians in an effort to rewrite history and deny the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. That being said, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document; it is not the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is a legal document and clearly states that our rights come from no power higher than “We the People.”

I think this statement is important to correct as well and I mentioned it in my personal letter to the governor, yet to be responded to as well. I would be great if American Atheists would bring this issue up in the press as well.

You, Dave and all the other folks at American Atheists are doing great work.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 01/25/2011 - 15:35

Actually, the Declaration of Independence was a legal document. It was a declaration sent to King George that outlined the grievances of the colonists and what they felt was their legal rights to defy the Crown. Many colonists had resisted revolution because they felt that the Crown was divinely appointed and that revolting would be rebellion to God. Also, they did not think that they had a right to rebel because the colonies belonged to the Crown. In the declaration the founders draw on centuries of political and theological thought and philosophy in order to make a case in favor of revolution. Theirs was not simply a group of men who craved power and wanted to break from the crown in order to rule. The Declaration carefully laid out their grievance and how they felt the Crown had abused and neglected them as human beings.

In that sense, the Declaration was saying to the Crown, "We have legal and righteous reasons for this revolution. We have tried several other steps to arbitrate this disagreement, yet we have found that our only option is revolution."

It was a legal document.

In that document the founders do not simply state that men have inalienable rights. They did not call on some philosopher or some biological grounds for these rights, but instead they stated that we are given these rights by our Creator and not by government.

Now, if we do not receive our rights and our worth from something more powerful than government, then what guarantee do we have that the government cannot simply legislate them away? If the gov't assigns us rights then how are they inalienable?

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 01/25/2011 - 16:16

They did not call on some philosopher or some biological grounds for these rights, but instead they stated that we are given these rights by our Creator and not by government.

1 might note that the term 'creator' was distinctly ambiguous: there was no reference as to which 'creator' they spoke of. An interesting distinction, as you seem to go on about the divine fiat they lived under previous.
It's a document that's an indicator of the times they lived in. Atheists were hated back then. Locke & Paine couldn't stand them, & Hamilton tried to smear Jefferson's presidential campaign by accusing TJ of being 1.
Also, the founding fathers were quite drunk, all of the time. They believed that water was bad for you. 1 historian remarked, "It's incredible they could write ANYTHING down." They also didn't get along very well.

Now, if we do not receive our rights and our worth from something more powerful than government, then what guarantee do we have that the government cannot simply legislate them away?

"It is the duty of the patriot to defend his country from its government" - Paine.

If the gov’t assigns us rights then how are they inalienable?

On the flip side, the constitution ratified slavery.
Also note, the UN's universal declaration of human rights does NOT dispense rights on a basis of any sort of divinity whatsoever.
Your efforts to introduce some watered down inclusion of divine command theory is duly noted, but epic philosophic fail.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 01/28/2011 - 13:28

Ok Krys, you've seem to have taken to a copy/past tit-for-tat sort of juvenile form of responding to what I am saying, so I'll ask you this:

The UN's Declaration on Human RIghts... as you say, it has not attributed anything to a higher power of any sort.. so what foundation outside of their own beliefs do they point to in order to say, "These are true?"

I say health care is not a human right.
The UN says that it is.

Where do we turn to decide?

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 01/28/2011 - 15:14

Ok Krys, you’ve seem to have taken to a copy/past tit-for-tat sort of juvenile form of responding to what I am saying,

It's called fisking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking
Which you would know if you did any research whatsoever. It's a standard in blogging, it's legitimate & it's not 'juvenile'.
(& the word is PASTE.)

so what foundation outside of their own beliefs do they point to in order to say, “These are true?”

That's idiotic. Why should they turn to a foundation outside themselves? You realize that it's about biology, not ideology?

Where do we turn to decide?

Obviously not to the Great Dane, the Wrong Way Peachfuzz of historians, the Inspector Clouseau of philosophy, the fudger of facts.
The simple use of logic combined w/empathy usually works wonders.
Don't bother imputing either of those qualities to 'something outside ourselves' - it's tired, not droll anymore, & is a PRATT:
Points Refuted A Thousand Times.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 07:12

"(& the word is PASTE.)"

It's a typo and it's standard in typing.

As I've already said, Wikipedia isn't research. Also, it's such a "standard in blogging" that I don't see anyone else on this article or the others that I've read who do it. I guess they skipped the Wikipedia too?

Either way, what you're doing is just copy/pasting bits and pieces and making snide responses. It's like the "cool" kid standing in the corner trying way to hard to attract attention to himself.

Have fun with it.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 07:36

As I’ve already said, Wikipedia isn’t research.

We've covered that already, but you are overly fond of repeating yourself. Wiki is, however (& I repeat myself again!) fine for standard stuff, like looking up who created hospitals, basic definitions, etc.

Also, it’s such a “standard in blogging” that I don’t see anyone else on this article or the others that I’ve read who do it.

You should get out more.

Either way, what you’re doing is just copy/pasting bits and pieces and making snide responses.

Actually, no. I'm also addressing you point-by-point & showing how you're incorrect. Whinging on about how I address them is just another logical fallacy.

It’s like the “cool” kid standing in the corner trying way to hard to attract attention to himself.

All efforts to modulate the conversation according to your standards will be ignored. Furthermore, I could care less if everyone here applauds or detests it - it's a part of my style, & I will continue to use it.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 07:39

I also note that the Great Dane is deliberately avoiding any of my points by criticizing how I communicate.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 01/28/2011 - 22:33

Ok Krys

Most folks call me KA. You, however, can call me Kryst.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 01/29/2011 - 07:08

Ok Kryst

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 01/30/2011 - 14:11

Atheists deserve as much respect as any of God's creation. ANTI-theists are destructive, spread hatred in their strange love/hate relationship with God... and have no right to HATE anyone.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 01/30/2011 - 18:11

ANTI-theists are destructive, spread hatred in their strange love/hate relationship with God… and have no right to HATE anyone.

Can't have a relationship w/something that ain't there.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/31/2011 - 05:09

Well, I hate to be on the same side of the fence as Krys in some way, but I think that ANTI-theists deserve respect too in spite of whatever they do. I sort of agree with you COPYMAN, but not quite.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 01/30/2011 - 14:13

Ooooh. "Moderation": newspeak for "censorship".

Pages

Get our Website Updates!

Do you want the latest AA news as soon as it happens?

Sign Up Icon

Sign up using the link below and be the first in the know! 

Website Update Email List

American Atheists Visa

Apply for the American Atheists Visa Card

and show your support with every purchase you make!

AA Visa.jpeg

 Apply Today!