How's that not appropriate? if he said that at an official government press conference then no I don't think it would be appropriate. However he was in a church when he said it. Fact is all Christians sincerily would love for everyone to convert. I can say right now I wish you were my brother in Christ, is that inappropriate?

The Bible specifically instructs Christians to be fishers of men, essentially to spread their faith and bring others to it. Him saying this is just in line with what he believes. He never said it forcefully, he never said it in office or to Government employees. To my knowledge from reading the article he never even said it at a press conference.

He said this in a church to other Christian's. Not only that but it is a common statement and any non-Christian or Christian knows that it is a key idealogy of Christianity. It wasn't meant to offend anyone. Now the wording could have been alittle different, but the meaning remains the same.

Example I myself would have chosen the words, All Christians are my brothers and sisters and I would hope all non-Christians become my brothers and sisters.

But the meaning would remain the same. Fact is the context of the statement is very important. he was simply pointing out he wishes that all non-Christians were Christian. That is a wish all Christians share and him expressing that wish is perfectly acceptable.

In God We Trust was added as the motto and to the currency much later on, early American wasn't fundamentalist. Indeed the Senate ratified the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 (back when many of the Founding Fathers were still around) wit the text:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"

I have no problem with him saying that he is a Christian, and that as such he believe in Jesus. But saying he wants everybody in his state to convert to Christianity is simply not an appropriate thing for a governer to say in any context. Religious beliefs of leaders should be personal, they should never try and spread them while in office.

Didn't help that most of the important founding fathers were Deists.

Creator doesn't reffer to God. As for the rest, read a Rath's post, and then do some research on the US.

@Joelcool7:

How's that not appropriate? if he said that at an official government press conference then no I don't think it would be appropriate. However he was in a church when he said it.

He's the governor, regardless where he is.

Fact is all Christians sincerily would love for everyone to convert. I can say right now I wish you were my brother in Christ, is that inappropriate?

That is terribly inappropriate.

The Bible specifically instruct...

Seiously? That lame excuse again?

It wasn't meant to offend anyone.

But it does offend people, and any rational "smart" politician would see that.

Example I myself would have chosen the words, All Christians are my brothers and sisters and I would hope all non-Christians become my brothers and sisters.

he was simply pointing out he wishes that all non-Christians were Christian. That is a wish all Christians share and him expressing that wish is perfectly acceptable.

It's perfectly acceptable if you genuenly don't care if you offend others, and don't care if people like you or not. For someone who has the pretense of being be an elected official, governing over people who come from several backgrounds (including religious ones), it's a very inappropriate thing to say. Not to mention that all these religious pandering is just a method politicians use to recieve unearned trust from silly religous people.

Your right and wrong.

Your right using your office to spread your religious views is wrong. If he used any of his authority to do so undemocratically it would be wrong. Such as funding only Christian projects and or calling a press conference to publically demand non-Christians convert.

Your wrong about the fact that one should keep his religion to himself. That would impede his abilities to practice it freely something guaranteed by the US Constitution and the very basis of democracy. The man should continue going to church as he always has, worship like he always has and pray as he always has. What he does with his religious beliefs is up to him and keeping it private and hiding it would be to hide who he is.

Again all he did was reference the Bible and say he wished all people would become his brothers and sisters in Christ. He did not do anything wrong, he didn't do anything stupid or insensative or anything of the sort. He practiced his religion in a religious building with other followers of his religion.

Plus isn't saying something like that in a church keeping your religion to yourself? he didn't go out and release a press release, he didn't go on television and say it using his office. he did not pass any Christian law he simply stated a religious fact in the privacy of a religious facility.

He addressed a crowd of fellow believers in his church. Are you saying that a man in office should not be allowed to attend church or talk of his religion in a church? Are you saying a pastor or missionary shouldn't take office because they talk in a church about Christianity?

The basis of this whole debate is the religios rights act and freedom of speach. Its law and its democratic thats all their is to it. Theirs nothing of bad taste it was all done in a respectful and legal manner.

It does make a difference where he said it and under which context. If he issued a press release from his office demanding people convert to his faith, or suggesting they should that would be misusing his authority. Where as if he is going to a church and practising his faith and says something to that effect it is not misusing his authority.He was practising his religion in a church he had every right to do so.

How is it innapropriate for me or anyone else to wish you shared our faith? You find it offensive that anyone has a different view then you? How dare they want you to understand their faith. Its illogical and frankly more offensive to get upset and ridicule someone for saying they wish you believed in their faith. Don't you wish everyone else agreed with your idealogies? Is that not equally offensive? No it isn't it isn't offensive at all. Every few days I run into a Muslim or a Jehovah's witness or a Jew and every few days they say we wish you believed as we do. Yet I don't go around getting offended a pissed off, neither should you. It isn't offensive at all.

Umm lame excuse? You mean the foundation of my faith? You mean the foundation of one third of the worlds faith? Yes its so lame. Fact is the Bible is the guide to life for any and all Christian's following it is the main principle of our faith. It's like if a Muslim said he couldn't sleep with a women before marriage because the Qur'an says not to. Man what a lame excuse the guys Holy Text says he shouldn't how lame. I know you lack any faith but you can't go calling people's holy texts lame. That is far more offensive than anything anyone has said in this thread thus far.

Well you don't care about offending one third of the worlds population. I've read many of your threads and posts isn't it alittle hypocritical of you to think its okay to offend everyone else but when a man offends you suddenly all hell brakes loose? I do care about offending people but that statement wasn't offensive. A politician should not purposely offend people under his authority. However as I said the statement was not offensive, if offence was caused it was unintentional.

Honestly silly religious people? Should I dignify that with a response. No I shouldn't it just shows how you don't care about offending anyone. You just care about being offended.

In the end you want your politicians to agree with you and you alone. You don't want them having a faith or belief. You don't want them to practice their belief. That my friend is not democracy its dictatorship!

@Joelcool7:

How is it innapropriate for me or anyone else to wish you shared our faith?

It's very inappropriate, provided you wan't to get along with that person. If you simply don't care, well, then go ahead and say whatever you liked.

You find it offensive that anyone has a different view then you?

I find it offensive when others criticise my views, and try to convert me to their religion.

Don't you wish everyone else agreed with your idealogies? Is that not equally offensive? No it isn't it isn't offensive at all.

No really. And even if I did, I wouldn't tell it to them (unless I actually wanted to insult them).

Every few days I run into a Muslim or a Jehovah's witness or a Jew and every few days they say we wish you believed as we do. Yet I don't go around getting offended a pissed off, neither should you. It isn't offensive at all.

I find such people annoying, and I just ignore them.

Umm lame excuse? You mean the foundation of my faith? You mean the foundation of one third of the worlds faith? Yes its so lame.

Yes, it is lame. I'm using my freedom of speech to express my views openly, disregarding that I may be offending you. Do you like it? Why are you being a hypocrite? I'm just expressing my beliefs.

Well you don't care about offending one third of the worlds population. I've read many of your threads and posts isn't it alittle hypocritical of you to think its okay to offend everyone else but when a man offends you suddenly all hell brakes loose?

If I offend other people, that's OK, as I don't care if people like me or not. I actualyl don't mind that you feel offended. You're only making my point for me, which is: you should be careful what you say IF YOU WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO LIKE YOU. If you don't care if you may offend other people, then you can say whatever, and the offended people have every right to make their feelings known.

A politician should not purposely offend people under his authority. However as I said the statement was not offensive, if offence was caused it was unintentional.

Any level-headed person would realise that what he said was downright offensive.

Honestly silly religious people? Should I dignify that with a response. No I shouldn't it just shows how you don't care about offending anyone. You just care about being offended.

By "silly religous people" I meant people who gain trust in a politician because he goesto Church and makes speeches like this one. I was reading lots of posts on forums from peopel saying they trust htis guy because he's a Christian, and that's really not a good reason to put your trust into someone, though it's a tactic politicians often use.

In the end you want your politicians to agree with you and you alone. You don't want them having a faith or belief. You don't want them to practice their belief. That my friend is not democracy its dictatorship!

I don't have any problems with them holding whatever religious beleifs they want. But when they start proselytising, that's when I have a problem with it.

He wasn't trying to convert anyone. he was stating fact and saying that he wanted everyone to be Christian. I don't see how that is trying to convert you it was stating fact and opinion.

Really you think that you telling someone your beliefs is offensive?  I don't buy for a second that you don't want anyone to believe as you do, its human nature to want others to share your views. Also judging from past threads I'd say you very much like people to agree with your opinions. Theirs nothing wrong with that, are you saying every time you go on about your beliefs to users of VGChartz you are personally trying to offend them? I know of a few times you have sided with me and others where we have been against each other. But in every case you do preach your point of view, i'd hate to think you are actually purposely trying to offend people? Fact is it isn't offensive you seem to be the only one offended by people sharing their different views with you or you with others.

I myself do not find people of other faiths annoying. While I disagree with their idealogies I like the fact that they actually care about my soul. They just want to save me and that is a good thing it shows their is humanity out their that people still care about one another. I do in most cases ignore them because lets face it we disagree but I am not offended nor do I find them annoying. Infact you can learn alot about other peoples faiths and their decision making process by talking to these people. Its very enlightening.

Not being a hypocrit. I was pointing out you being a hypocrit. Note I used sarcasm and did not actually persecute you for your belief or statement. I didn't belittle you in any way I was simply pointing out irony and hypocracy. It is your democratic right to hold your beliefs if you believe the Bible is lame good for you. But saying such incites hatred and animosity something I didn't think you believed in. Unless as you said you don't mind offending everyone.

I'm actually not making your point as I do enjoy debating things with you. I don't dislike you because of your beliefs and statements. Some times they get pretty offensive but that doesn't make you a bad person nor does it change my views of you. Now yes if you were a politician you'd be insaine to call the Bible lame or its followers silly. But again that is far more offensive then what this man said. Proving my point, he wasn't being offensive he was just stating fact and opinion in a non-offensive fashion.

Another insult (Calling me not level headed) it's all about context. It wasn't offensive in any way shape or form. The speech was not aimed at non-Christians it was aimed at the church's followers. He wasn't proselytising he was talking to fellow Christians about his faith at a church.

If you meant blind sheep maybe you should have said Blind sheep and explained your comment. Rather then saying silly Christian's. You aren't refering to just Christians your refering to people of all faiths who trust their leaders based on their religion. Also that doesn't make them silly their are more politically correct ways of saying that.

Again he wasn't proselytising he was addressing Christians in a church. He wasn't going out into the streets trying to convert people. His comments were taken out of context then blown out of purportion. What he says in the privacy of his church is not proselytising.

Anyways I find it funny that you are always talking about seperation of church and state and American laws and constinution and religion. When you yourself are Romanian. Then I a Canadian come in to defend the US laws and constition and always take the other end of the debate. While neither of us is American. That is sort of funny!

Who gives a fuck in what year it was added? That doesnt make diffrence. The fact remain, its still a motto of a country, and you can keep spining it how ever you want to make yourself feel better about it. its not gonna change the fact that God is mentioned couple of times in the beginning of american politics. I gave clear examples from the Constitiution and the Decleration of Independece, two most important documents in american history, both hold much more value than Treaty of Tripoli. Not to mention an american currency which is also has a very religious statement ''In God we trust'' And no where does it actually say that they worhsip Christian God or that they are christians, its simply says ''God'' or ''Lord'', ''Creator''. So they reffer to God but not to a specific God from specific religion. So whole Treaty of Tripoli text isnt really disporiving me because no where does it says that America is founded of Christian religion ( even though 100% of americans were christians back than ) just the belief in God, not in christian God.