Bradley Byrne, the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Alabama, was quoted as follows: "I believe there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not." This raised no red flags for me, because you'll get similar answers from a lot of politicians who are trying to fit in the middle ground. What bothers me is that the candidate was pressured into amending his statement to "I believe the Bible is true. Every word of it."
This statement appeared in the Mobile Press-Register in November. Here is one example of the kind of feedback that has pressured him to amend his statement: "Just got a call from a person at my Church letting me know about this," said uafan1198. "My family will not be shopping at Ragland Piggly Wiggly stores anymore or anything else they own.... I don't shop at places that think it is OK to stand next to people who don't believe the Bible is all true" (Piggly Wiggly is a grocery chain that announced their support for Byrne).
My initial reaction to this was to be pissed off, but I think this raises an important question. Can we fault this man for reacting this way, or is he reacting the same way we do to the Salvation Army. I don't donate to the Salvation Army because of what they stand for, and where the money goes. Is this guy doing the same thing?
2 comments:
I dont' think it is the same. We don't support the SAL because of what they believe in, but there are other charities that make the same contributions to society who aren't bigots. If there is another politician who has the exact same policies but believes the bible is 100%, go ahead and think that way. But I don't think it's right to dismiss a store or politician just for their beliefs if they have a good, and unique, set of policies.
Technical note: The user's name was uafan1998. See the comments on that article.
Post a Comment