I can see both sides of the coin, on one hand he's expressing personal religious views but on the other hand he's promoting a religion as a public servant.

Yet, you'd still be wrong.

Why?

This sounds like a fantastic excuse to go to a rally and shout "ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM!"

So, some good came of this.

EDIT: Or, looking at the definition of that word, I suppose "ANTIANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM" would be a better cry.

I agree with Highway, and Kasz. This isn't "wrong" persay, but it is in poor taste. Alienating the people you are elected to represent by saying "Some of you that I am elected to represent I hold in special esteem, and the rest of you are heathens" publically to everyone is in bad taste, even if it's not violating separation of church and state.

You are suggesting someone should be forced from office based on a statement unrelated to his office.  Or you are suggesting that government officals shouldn't be able to express their religious beliefs.

You wish to either violate someones freedom of speech or freedom of religion AND freedom of speech.  

Oh yeah, totally in bad taste.  But hell, lots of people are in bad taste.

The mayor of Las Vegas for example.  Or ex mayor i forget which... you wanna talk about in poor taste he PASSED A LAW that if a movie is shot in Las Vegas he has to be in it.  In the final cut no less.

That's exactly what I'm saying. As a representative of the Government you shouldn't express any religious beliefs (or lack of such beliefs). The actions of Governemnt officials are reflected upon the whole Government. Another good reason is that you're bound to piss someone off, especially if you treat people from other religions with disrespect like this guy.

Man Sapphi dude you and the guy who wrote the article are blowing things way out of porportion.

There is something called religious freedom in the US and other democratic countries. If the man wants to express his faith he has every democratic right to do so. The US is a free country, he is not breaking seperation between church and state by stating his own religious beliefs. He did not over step his bounderies he simply stated all Christians are his brothers a fact based on the Bible and biblical beliefs. The statement was not imposing his beliefs on others it was stating fact and he did not indicate that his power would be used to convert people.

Everyone who believes in Christ is my brother and sister. Now if I were a politician and said this suddenly tons of people blow this out of purportion. Its innocent and my right given to me by the constitution and my great country whether it be Canada , US , U.K or which ever other democratic country I make the statement.

I get really pissed when people attack Christians in Government or so by stating they can't speak their beliefs due to seperation of church and state. Their is something called freedom of speech,freedom of expression , freedom of religion. Imposing your anti-Christian sentiment on them is not Democratic it is communist it is facist. Every man woman and child in a democratic country deserve to be able to practice their religious beliefs.

They should be able to speak their religious beliefs freely without ridacule and persecution. All he said was that all Christian's are his family, his comment about non-Christians not being his family and wanting them to be his family is perfectly appropriate.

It's like if you didn't like my sister and I said my sister was family and you weren't. Then you get upset because your like family. But you aren't and its a fact. All Christians are his brothers and sisters in Christ and non-Christians simply aren't. Just because you dislike this fact doesn't mean it isn't true.

Yes.  Which means you are

A) Persecuting people for having religious beliefs.

B) Violating peoples right to free speech.

You can't understand how you'd be wrong with that?