# Bush thinks only Christians should be president **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 12, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460 "2005-01-12T23:21:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/61 "2005-01-13T02:12:43Z")
Look at [this](http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050111-101004-3771r.htm) Washington times article it adds context to his statement: > [@](#): > > ``` > Mr. Bush said he leans heavily on his religion every day that he is in the Oval Office and **cannot imagine any man handling the pressures of the job without leaning on God.**"I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit," Mr. Bush said. "That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit. > "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord," he said. > > ``` He certainly doesn’t mean only Christians should be President and I am sure Diogenes is smart enough to realize that. Diogenes chose to exaggerate and take Bush’s statements out of context to take a shot at Bush. A good number of Dopers happily joined him in this endeavor much like countless other Bush bashing threads. I just don’t see the need for this Bush says plenty of stupid things, has made plenty of stupid mistakes and does plenty of bigotted things. Why do people feel the need to exaggerate? Look at this thread it should have been about Bush’s cuntacular statement but instead its about whether or not Diogenes lied. On Preview: > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > And who is “the Lord” in Dubya’s mind? (Hint: his initials are JC) Well gee I am gonna have to take the obvious answer of God. If he meant JC he would have Jesus. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I think he pretty much DID say that. He didn’t say it should be the law, but he essentially said that IHO you can’t be prez without a relationship with Jesus. Again he never mentioned Jesus. Second he said he doesn’t know how someone could be president without a relationship with the Lord. Its the same as if I said ‘I don’t know how women give birth without painkillers’. I know exactly how women do it but I don’t know \* how \* women do it. I hope that is clear. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/62 "2005-01-13T02:14:27Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Diogenes led off and then others have followed. > > 1. Not once does Bush mention Jesus, Christ or Christianity all he said was ‘relationship with the Lord’. > > 2. He never said only Christians should be president. You know **Treis** , I generally like your posts. You, unfortunately, hit one of my… I dunno, ‘buttons’. You do **not** call me a liar. I take my honesty and my honor very seriously. So, I will ask you to retract and/or apologize for your accusation that I am lying. 1. Now, either you are being purposefully obfuscative or something… I just don’t get it. Who on earth do you think Bush was refering to when he said The Lord? Was he, maybe, talking about Mohamed? Krishna? Set? Appolo? Come on. He was talking about the Christian-deity-whose-only-son-is-Jesus. 2. Yes, he did. He said that he can’t see how anybody who is not a christian could be president. In other words, he thinks that only christians can be president. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/63 "2005-01-13T02:19:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You are a very sick puppy, **Dewey**. Well, I could have passed on making a joke out of that typo, but that would make the Baby Jesus cry, thus rendering me unfit for high office. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/64 "2005-01-13T02:19:58Z")
**Treis** that isn’t context, that’s editorialization. Come on! > [@Treis](#): > > He certainly doesn’t mean only Christians should be President and I am sure Diogenes is smart enough to realize that. Diogenes chose to exaggerate and take Bush’s statements out of context to take a shot at Bush. A good number of Dopers happily joined him in this endeavor much like countless other Bush bashing threads. How do you know he ‘certainly’ doesn’t mean that? That’s what the quote certainly implies. Moreoever, I object to your false-to-facts characterization. I’m not just mindlessly bashing Bush, nor am I lying. But you are fast approaching Broad Brush Lane. > [@Treis](#): > > I just don’t see the need for this Bush says plenty of stupid things, has made plenty of stupid mistakes and does plenty of bigotted things. Why do people feel the need to exaggerate? Look at this thread it should have been about Bush’s cuntacular statement but instead its about whether or not Diogenes lied. Why is anybody exagerating or lying? Jeez, can’t you at least admit that such an interpretation is at least somewhat convincing to those who believe it? Otherwise, you are accusing us of putting forth a position we do not agree with in order to stir shit up. In other words, trolling. So cut it out. > [@Treis](#): > > Well gee I am gonna have to take the obvious answer of God. If he meant JC he would have Jesus. So you’ll split hairs over whether he meant the Christian God or Christ? Come on! Besides, father, son, yada yada yada? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/65 "2005-01-13T02:34:03Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You know **Treis** , I generally like your posts. You, unfortunately, hit one of my… I dunno, ‘buttons’. You do **not** call me a liar. I take my honesty and my honor very seriously. So, I will ask you to retract and/or apologize for your accusation that I am lying. Thank you for the compliment. I never specifically mentioned you nor did I mean to. I take someones posting history into context when evaluating a statement and Diogenes points to deliberate exageration. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > 1. Now, either you are being purposefully obfuscative or something… I just don’t get it. Who on earth do you think Bush was refering to when he said The Lord? Was he, maybe, talking about Mohamed? Krishna? Set? Appolo? > Come on. He was talking about the Christian-deity-whose-only-son-is-Jesus. I apparently give Bush more credit than you do in this department, I believe he was talking about a general God figure. I honestly think that he thinks religion not necessarily christianity is something that every person should have in their life. Obviously that manifests mostly in Christianity but I feel that is just becuase a) he is a Christian and b) most of the people he is talking to are Christians. If he wanted to say Jesus he would have its not very complicated. But like I said this shouldn’t even be an issue. He said Lord why not just fucking use what he said and pit him for that? Why must we put words in his mouth? Whats coming out is stupid enough already. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > 1. Yes, he did. He said that he can’t see how anybody who is not a christian could be president. In other words, he thinks that only christians can be president. If I say ‘I don’t see how a 42 year old could play professional football’ I don’t mean that I don’t think a 42 year old couldn’t play professional football. I just don’t see \* how \* they physically can do it but some do. Bush doesn’t see how people without a relationship with the lord can handle the presidency. He doesn’t mean that people who don’t have a relationship with the lord shouldn’t be president he just doesn’t see how they can handle it. On preview: > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Treis that isn’t context, that’s editorialization. Come on! Thats the reporter summing up what he heard Bush saying not any editorilizing on the reporters part. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I object to your false-to-facts characterization. I’m not just mindlessly bashing Bush, nor am I lying. But you are fast approaching Broad Brush Lane. The only person I specifically mentioned was Diogenes and yes I think he purposefully did what he did to add a little extra oomph to the stupidity. Looking at his posting history this is not an invalid conclusion. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > So you’ll split hairs over whether he meant the Christian God or Christ? Come on! > Besides, father, son, yada yada yada? I don’t think its splitting hairs at all. There is a difference between a certain religious sect and the more broad religious concept of a belief in God. One excludes over half the world (I think not exactly sure on numbers) and the other includes almost everyone. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/66 "2005-01-13T02:35:47Z")
I’d like to add for the record that I heartily disagree with Bush’s statements. He made need beliefs in myths to use as a crutch but I and many prominent atheists don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/67 "2005-01-13T03:10:34Z")
Since Bush himself can’t be President beyond 2009, and since he has no authority to set any rules for who can hold the office after him, I’m not actually sure what the fuss is about. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/68 "2005-01-13T03:25:41Z")
_People get ready, there’s a train comin’ You don’t need no baggage, just get on board._ - Curtis Mayfield _Jesus he knows me and he knows I’m right I’ve been talking to Jesus all my life oh yes he knows me and he knows I’m right well he’s been telling me everything’s gonna be alright, alright_ - Phil Collins ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/69 "2005-01-13T03:26:52Z")
The fact that Bush doesn’t see how an atheist can cope with a stressful position like the presidency without myths as a crutch. I find it personally pretty insulting in that he some how thinks I need religion in my life. Thats just me though. ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/70 "2005-01-13T03:31:26Z")
Bush can’t be President beyond 2009 _yet_. He has no authority to set any rules for who can hold the office after him _yet_. Give him time. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/71 "2005-01-13T05:15:25Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Thank you for the compliment. No prob, this is the pit but I figured I’d ask questions first and then shoot. For what it’s worth, I truly believe that the most likely interpretation of Bush’s words, and his inent, is as I’ve described it. I could very well be wrong, and I admit that. I just don’t think that I am. > [@treis](#): > > I apparently give Bush more credit than you do in this department, I believe he was talking about a general God figure. You do give him more credit than I. I’d not wager that he has a firm grasp of theological matters or realizes that the Christian God ™ isn’t any more the ‘real’ and ‘true’ God than Allah, Zeus, or Mickey Mouse. But that’s just me. > [@treis](#): > > I honestly think that he thinks religion not necessarily christianity is something that every person should have in their life. Quite possibly true. But let’s assume that was the case, by saying ‘the Lord’ that implies that only those with monotheistic faith need apply. Right? And, I mean, if Bush was talking about people who have faith in any pantheon, why not say that? The Lord has very specific connotations. > [@treis](#): > > Obviously that manifests mostly in Christianity but I feel that is just becuase a) he is a Christian and b) most of the people he is talking to are Christians. If he wanted to say Jesus he would have its not very complicated. Now, IANA Christian, but I’ve sure heard a lot from 'em growing up in America. I’ve heard many, many, many times “Jesus is Lord.” and that Jesus, God, and the Holy spirit are supposed to be the same triune entity. (I have no idea how accurate these beliefs are, and I await corection if I’m wrong.) But, if that’s the case and this is part of the popular mileu of Christianity in America, I would assume that for Bush Lord has the direct connotation of God/Jesus. > [@treis](#): > > But like I said this shouldn’t even be an issue. He said Lord why not just fucking use what he said and pit him for that? Why must we put words in his mouth? Whats coming out is stupid enough already. I’m not putting words in his mouth, I believe that he used the word Lord deliberately and in an invocation of the judeo-christian paradigm. > [@treis](#): > > If I say ‘I don’t see how a 42 year old could play professional football’ I don’t mean that I don’t think a 42 year old couldn’t play professional football. Ouch, too many negatives. > [@treis](#): > > I just don’t see \* how \* they physically can do it but some do. Bush doesn’t see how people without a relationship with the lord can handle the presidency. Okay, but that doesn’t change my view of what he’s saying. He’s saying that only Christians (or if you prefer those with a relationship with The Lord) can be president. Let’s not even say “allowed” because I don’t think he’s talking about legislation. But I find it insulting as all get out to be told that I ‘couldn’t be’ something because I don’t have the same superstition as he does. > [@treis](#): > > He doesn’t mean that people who don’t have a relationship with the lord shouldn’t be president he just doesn’t see how they can handle it. Right not shouldn’t , can’t. So fuck him for not seeing how non religious folks are just as competent and able as he is. (as much of a joke as that is) > [@treis](#): > > Thats the reporter summing up what he heard Bush saying not any editorilizing on the reporters part. Um… yes, that’s editorialization. No, not done by an editor, done by the reporter. And it’s a shabby tactic I might add. If Bush had said that, where’re the quotation marks? > [@treis](#): > > I don’t think its splitting hairs at all. There is a difference between a certain religious sect and the more broad religious concept of a belief in God. True, but even a broad belief on A God is not evinced by, say, Budhists. Taoists. Hindus. Wiccans. Pagans. Etc… > [@treis](#): > > One excludes over half the world (I think not exactly sure on numbers) and the other includes almost everyone. I don’t think so, I don’t think so it all. I think that ‘The Lord’ would only be worshiped by the big three monotheistic sects. If I’m wrong, again, please correct me. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/72 "2005-01-13T05:34:02Z")
The SDMB Regulars will continue to debate and argue the finer points of what Bush said, and did not say, as well as whatever implications all of this may turn out to be. Fine and dandy in a room full of people who try there best to keep up with what is really going on in the world and shred every word, phrade and nuance and get down to the nitty gritty. However, most of the people outside of our little room don’t think nor act this way. Enough people on both sides of the political fence _will_ take the quote as the OP offered _and that’s all that matters most_. The quote will make it to the other side of the planet and it will make it into the minds of Islamic fundies as further proof this is a holy war. Bush is his own worst enemy. What many fail to realize is he is taking all of us with him, whether we support him or not. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/73 "2005-01-13T05:35:41Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You do give him more credit than I. I’d not wager that he has a firm grasp of theological matters or realizes that the Christian God ™ isn’t any more the ‘real’ and ‘true’ God than Allah, Zeus, or Mickey Mouse. But that’s just me. I agree that he personally believes that he is right but I think he allows for others to have (slightly) different religious beliefs. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Quite possibly true. But let’s assume that was the case, by saying ‘the Lord’ that implies that only those with monotheistic faith need apply. Right? And, I mean, if Bush was talking about people who have faith in any pantheon, why not say that? The Lord has very specific connotations. Yes it is true but IIRC most of the world has a montheistic faith. Muslims and Jews make up what another billion people at least right? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Now, IANA Christian, but I’ve sure heard a lot from 'em growing up in America. I’ve heard many, many, many times “Jesus is Lord.” and that Jesus, God, and the Holy spirit are supposed to be the same triune entity. (I have no idea how accurate these beliefs are, and I await corection if I’m wrong.) > But, if that’s the case and this is part of the popular mileu of Christianity in America, I would assume that for Bush Lord has the direct connotation of God/Jesus. Yes that is the trinity but they are seperate entities (don’t ask me to explain it in detail becuase it is largely bullshit imho). If he wanted to say Jesus he would have said Jesus. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I’m not putting words in his mouth, I believe that he used the word Lord deliberately and in an invocation of the judeo-christian paradigm. Well which is it did he mean Jesus and just Christians or did he include Jews? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Okay, but that doesn’t change my view of what he’s saying. He’s saying that only Christians (or if you prefer those with a relationship with The Lord) can be president. Let’s not even say “allowed” because I don’t think he’s talking about legislation. But I find it insulting as all get out to be told that I ‘couldn’t be’ something because I don’t have the same superstition as he does. I agree 100% but thats not what the OP said. The OP said that Bush thinks that only Christians should be president. This is my point why not just pit Bush for the stupid ass things he actually said then use some wild conjecture spawning a page an a half discussion about what whether he actually said that? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Um… yes, that’s editorialization. No, not done by an editor, done by the reporter. And it’s a shabby tactic I might add. If Bush had said that, where’re the quotation marks? No its not editorialization its reporting of the facts. The reporter probably just boiled down the main idea out of a couple paragraphs of Bush speaking. There was probably no direct quote he could have used in its place. I don’t have any reason to question the reporters ability to accurately report what Bush said without directly quoting. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I don’t think so, I don’t think so it all. I think that ‘The Lord’ would only be worshiped by the big three monotheistic sects. If I’m wrong, again, please correct me. No you are right but the 3 monotheistic sects is a majority of the world while the christian world is not. (I am not entirely sure of the accuracy of the numbers but I think they are generally correct. To sum up my main problems are that (1) Bush didn’t mention anything specific to Christianity and (2) He did not say that people who do not have a relationship with the Lord shouldn’t be president (3) Bush’s comments were deliberately embelished to the point of lying by the OP to increase the ‘oomph’ factor of Bush’s statements (4) This embelishment was unnecessary becuase Bush’s statements were pretty fucking stupid and offensive as they stood. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/74 "2005-01-13T05:37:27Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > The SDMB Regulars will continue to debate and argue the finer points of what Bush said, and did not say, as well as whatever implications all of this may turn out to be. Fine and dandy in a room full of people who try there best to keep up with what is really going on in the world and shred every word, phrade and nuance and get down to the nitty gritty. > > However, most of the people outside of our little room don’t think nor act this way. Enough people on both sides of the political fence _will_ take the quote as the OP offered _and that’s all that matters most_. The quote will make it to the other side of the planet and it will make it into the minds of Islamic fundies as further proof this is a holy war. > > Bush is his own worst enemy. What many fail to realize is he is taking all of us with him, whether we support him or not. Good point. (What occurs to me is that his supporters may not realize that, while it’s OK for him to feel that he personally needs that relationship, the generalization is saying something offensive to non-Christian Americans.) And OT, but while you’re around the boards – when you get a chance, would you start a thread updating people on what’s been going on with Mt. St. Helens since the “eruption crisis” – the period when its fulminations were in the news? ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/75 "2005-01-13T05:55:20Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > And OT, but while you’re around the boards – when you get a chance, would you start a thread updating people on what’s been going on with Mt. St. Helens since the “eruption crisis” – the period when its fulminations were in the news? Hijack response - Will do in the next few days. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/76 "2005-01-13T05:58:38Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Now, IANA Christian, but I’ve sure heard a lot from 'em growing up in America. I’ve heard many, many, many times “Jesus is Lord.” and that Jesus, God, and the Holy spirit are supposed to be the same triune entity. (I have no idea how accurate these beliefs are, and I await corection if I’m wrong.) > But, if that’s the case and this is part of the popular mileu of Christianity in America, I would assume that for Bush Lord has the direct connotation of God/Jesus. > > \ > I’m not putting words in his mouth, I believe that he used the word Lord deliberately and in an invocation of the judeo-christian paradigm. Good frickin’ grief! The man is a Christian! He said he didn’t know how someone could function in the job without God’s/Jesus’/The Lord’s help. Big furshluginer deal!!! Extrapolate much? Whenever you hear someone say "Merry Christmas, do you perceive hateful insults and arrogance aimed at every non-Christian in the world? (Why do I fear the probable answer in your case is yes.) :rolleyes: This is what comes of this ridiculous notion that the populace has to have freedom _from_ religion rather than freedom _of_ it! Now it’s gotten to the point where we have a Christian president being roundly assailed for having the nerve to express his point of view from a Christian perspective. People in this country are supposed to be free to express their religious beliefs. Censorship and/or suppression of religion is just as bad coming from over-zealous do-gooders fearful that someone somewhere will be offended by it as it is by an official government seeking to eliminate religion for its own purposes. There is absolutely nothing in this nation’s history or Constitution that prohibits elected officials from speaking of their God, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/77 "2005-01-13T06:08:11Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Well which is it did he mean Jesus and just Christians or did he include Jews? ~laughter~ I was actually going to write judeo-(mostly)christian. I think Bush feels Jews are alright, long as they have faith in the ‘right’ God. (Think Bush would argue for a Satanist ‘patriotism?’ Or for Jews/Christians who embrace certain Gnostic/Kabbalistic views and believe in no external god who you can pray to?) But I must admit I have no cite for that, I just think he’s a miserable excuse for a human being and in general think the worst of him. Again, I may be wrong. He may have taken comparative religion courses in college. But I don’t think so > [@treis](#): > > I agree 100% but thats not what the OP said. The OP said that Bush thinks that only Christians should be president. This is my point why not just pit Bush for the stupid ass things he actually said then use some wild conjecture spawning a page an a half discussion about what whether he actually said that? Well, I still think that’s essentially what he said. > [@treis](#): > > No its not editorialization its reporting of the facts. I call bullshit on that. If it’s a fact, where are the quotation marks? No, it’s an editorialization. > [@treis](#): > > The reporter probably just boiled down the main idea out of a couple paragraphs of Bush speaking. I don’t buy it. If Bush said something which could’ve been used to support the claim, why not quote it? Good reporters don’t ‘boil down’ transcripts, they cite them. > [@treis](#): > > There was probably no direct quote he could have used in its place. Why? If it was a paragraph or a page of Bush speaking, there **has to be** textual support, or the editorialization is false-to-facts. If there is no direct quote, then all the reporter was doing is what we’re doing now: interpretation. > [@treis](#): > > I don’t have any reason to question the reporters ability to accurately report what Bush said without directly quoting. Erunh? The **only** way to accurately report what someone says is to quote them. Otherwise you are summarizing, and thus adding your own interpretation. > [@treis](#): > > No you are right but the 3 monotheistic sects is a majority of the world while the christian world is not. Are you sure? Last I heard there are about two or three billion Muslims and Christians, with the rest of the world belonging to other religions. AT at a population of six billion plus… I can dig up a cite, but I think my recollection is correct. > [@treis](#): > > To sum up my main problems are that (1) Bush didn’t mention anything specific to Christianity and I still think that he did. The phrase “The Lord” wouldn’t fit with, for instance, many Reform Jews who are busy removing all male-gendered refrences to God and making them gender neutral. Just an example. > [@treis](#): > > (2) He did not say that people who do not have a relationship with the Lord shouldn’t be president Just that he doesn’t think they can be. > [@treis](#): > > (3) Bush’s comments were deliberately embelished to the point of lying by the OP to increase the ‘oomph’ factor of Bush’s statements You’d have to take that up with the OP. But that does sound like an accustation of trolling, IANAMod and all that. > [@treis](#): > > (4) This embelishment was unnecessary becuase Bush’s statements were pretty fucking stupid and offensive as they stood. They are pretty stupid, I just think that the interpretation given is correct. YMM(O)V. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/78 "2005-01-13T06:09:45Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I never saidor implied that I thought that Bush was advocating that non Christians be _prohibited_ fro being president, I’m pitting his condescension in essentially stating that not being a Christian would be some sort of moral handicap. I can take exception to an insult simply as an insult without any paranoia that it will lead to legislation. Well, frankly, perhaps I’m guilty of the same type of thing I’m accusing **FinnAgain** of doing, and as a result I’ve been reading more into your thread title than was intended. While I still don’t think any kind of insult is contained in Bush’s comments, I can see how you might have meant that Bush merely thinks that only Christians should be president rather than that Bush thinks only Christians should be allowed to be president, which is how I percieved the thread title originally. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > And what about the “patriotism” remark, **SA**? Would it bother you if someone said that Christians weren’t as patriotic as Wiccans? Nope. I feel people have the right to whatever point of view they wish. If such a comment would express your point of view, I wouldn’t just accept it as being your view and let it go at that. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/79 "2005-01-13T06:10:16Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > This is what comes of this ridiculous notion that the populace has to have freedom _from_ religion rather than freedom _of_ it! Now it’s gotten to the point where we have a Christian president being roundly assailed for having the nerve to express his point of view from a Christian perspective. And apparently I am being roundly assailed for being offended by it. Do I not get to express my anger? Has it occured to you a Christian perspective may be offensive to others? Did it occur to you that some of us are able to get by without having to rely on the ‘Lord’s’ help and perhaps we don’t like our hard work to be seen as some blessing from above? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > People in this country are supposed to be free to express their religious beliefs. Censorship and/or suppression of religion is just as bad coming from over-zealous do-gooders fearful that someone somewhere will be offended by it as it is by an official government seeking to eliminate religion for its own purposes. Hello? Did you bother to read why we were offended or was this a pre-programmed rant? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > There is absolutely nothing in this nation’s history or Constitution that prohibits elected officials from speaking of their God, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or whatever. Who said there was? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/80 "2005-01-13T06:19:31Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > ~laughter~ > I was actually going to write judeo-(mostly)christian. I think Bush feels Jews are alright, long as they have faith in the ‘right’ God. (Think Bush would argue for a Satanist ‘patriotism?’ Or for Jews/Christians who embrace certain Gnostic/Kabbalistic views and believe in no external god who you can pray to?) > But I must admit I have no cite for that, I just think he’s a miserable excuse for a human being and in general think the worst of him. Again, I may be wrong. He may have taken comparative religion courses in college. But I don’t think so I agree with you Bush definately confines it to a monotheistic God in the lines of the Christian God but that doesn’t exclude non-christians. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I call bullshit on that. If it’s a fact, where are the quotation marks? No, it’s an editorialization. FinnAgain said that my belief that summarizing a persons statements without using quotation marks is editorialization and bullshit. Its an accurate statement of what you said without quoting you. It would be easy to directly quote you becuase you aren’t talking at length about this topic. In an interview setting it may be harder to get a direct quote that sums up what a person is saying. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Why? If it was a paragraph or a page of Bush speaking, there **has to be** textual support, or the editorialization is false-to-facts. If there is no direct quote, then all the reporter was doing is what we’re doing now: interpretation. I disagree. The reporter isn’t interpeting Bush’s quotes he is providing an accurate representation of what Bush said without a direct quote. See my example above. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Are you sure? Last I heard there are about two or three billion Muslims and Christians, with the rest of the world belonging to other religions. AT at a population of six billion plus… I can dig up a cite, but I think my recollection is correct. Meh whatever my point is that monotheism includes a great deal more people than just Christianity. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > They are pretty stupid, I just think that the interpretation given is correct. YMM(O)V. _shrug_ its pretty clear to me at least that you are mistaken but you are right the point is that Bush is an asshat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460.md?page=5)