# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/101 "2005-01-13T15:07:20Z")
Does anyone else see the similiarity between this discussion and the neo-con approach to quotes and comments? Neo-con X says Y, something that hints or even outright states intolerance or a rigid position. Media report the moderate to extreme Z’s reaction/comment to statement Y. Then the attack dogs come out. X comes in swinging, how dare you? How can you judge? The righteous indignation is thick on the ground. And Z gets tied up in knots trying to defend their reaction. And sentences are parsed to oblivion. End result: story becomes about Z and their foibles, rather than X’s intolerance/POV. I am sick of this particular dog and pony show–it has gotten old. IMO, W is throwing more reassurance to his base–and hey, he may well believe what he said. I can’t speak to his motive or sincerity here. I think his thought process is muddled, as is his speech. But I can say that although I realize that some folks don’t need AA or substance abuse counselling to truly be dry/sober/clean for years, I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly do without… Side note: it is my understanding that when evangelical Christians use the term “the Lord”–they are indeed referring to Jesus. To them, the two terms are synonymous. Given any EC use of “the Lord”–I would assume that Jesus is whom he meant. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/102 "2005-01-13T15:08:35Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > If I were a telephone company lineman and I said “I don’t see how anyone could do this job without a safety helmet,” would that mean I’m really saying “Only people wearing helmets should be allowed to do this job!”? > > Of course not! Then you are not a passive-aggressive Minnesotan. Where I come from those statements are equivalent, though the more typical usage would be, “A lot of guys wouldn’t do this job without a safety helmet,” which means, “Only an idiot would do this job without a safety helmet.” ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/103 "2005-01-13T15:20:28Z")
You realize there was more to the quote, right? [Here](http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Bush-says-he-has-God-on-his-side/2005/01/13/1105582653852.html?oneclick=true) > [@](#): > > “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,” he 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 as you see fit.” ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/104 "2005-01-13T15:24:53Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > You realize there was more to the quote, right? > > [Here](http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Bush-says-he-has-God-on-his-side/2005/01/13/1105582653852.html?oneclick=true) Ya, but that part can’t really used to tag on GW, so let’s just ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/105 "2005-01-13T15:42:51Z")
Let’s go down the check list, here. Username? Check! One-liner? Check! Content free slur on the integrity of one’s political opposition? Check! Yep, it’s a authentic **Brutus**. ---
**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, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/106 "2005-01-13T15:45:17Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > C’est la vie, **LouisB**. Wasn’t that a Bob Seger song? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/107 "2005-01-13T15:57:03Z")
Parting words, Marie Antoinette to Louis XVI. His response is not recorded. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/108 "2005-01-13T16:14:46Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > You realize there was more to the quote, right? > > [Here](http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Bush-says-he-has-God-on-his-side/2005/01/13/1105582653852.html?oneclick=true) I quoted that part in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/109 "2005-01-13T16:17:30Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Ya, but that part can’t really used to tag on GW, so let’s just ignore it. Wow, you guys really do invent your own reality as you go along. I didn’t “ignore” that part, dumbass, I put it in my OP. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/110 "2005-01-13T16:22:52Z")
A mere fact. ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/111 "2005-01-13T16:32:04Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Let’s go down the check list, here. Username? Check! One-liner? Check! Content free slur on the integrity of one’s political opposition? Check! Yep, it’s a authentic **Brutus**. Let’s go down the check list, here. Username? Check! One-liner? Check! Content free slur on one’s political opposition? Check! Yep, its an authentic \*\* elucidator \*\*. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/112 "2005-01-13T16:41:57Z")
Ooooh, burn! Very witty, **Treis**. Borrowed wit, to be sure, but a nice complement to the half you were born with. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/113 "2005-01-13T17:11:44Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Wow, you guys really do invent your own reality as you go along. I didn’t “ignore” that part, dumbass, I put it in my OP. Irrelevant if you quoted it or not; you ignore the point. Not suprising, coming from you. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/114 "2005-01-13T17:34:42Z")
I see. You have your own special definition of “ignore.” Very well. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/115 "2005-01-13T17:41:48Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Irrelevant if you quoted it or not; you ignore the point. Not suprising, coming from you. Here’s a hint, **Brutus**. _That’s not the part we’re objecting to._ If he had stopped right before the words “On the other hand” we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But he didn’t, did he? He couldn’t let a basic statement in support of religious freedom stand. He had to _qualify_ it. He had to hedge his bets. And not with a statement of his own faith, either. He didn’t just say “I don’t see how _I_ could do this job without a connection to the Lord”, which would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Nope. He decided to tote out his faith as a requirement for his office. He said that he doesn’t see how I could hold his position if I don’t share his faith. _That’s_ the stupid and condescending part. And the fact that Bush understands high school civics well enough to say that religious freedom is good doesn’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/116 "2005-01-13T17:43:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Parting words, Marie Antoinette to Louis XVI. His response is not recorded. He was cut off before he could reply. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/117 "2005-01-13T17:50:11Z")
Drag him out and shoot him. I’ll swear out the warrant later. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/118 "2005-01-13T20:51:37Z")
[Andrew Sullivan](http://www.andrewsullivan.com) put it better than I could: > [@](#): > > BUSH AND THE LORD: Did I over-react? It’s worth looking at the full quote as produced by the Washington Times: > > “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. 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.” (My italics) > > Now notice that Bush is explicitly qualifying his defense of religious freedom (or the freedom to have no religion at all) by saying that the presidency, in his view, should nevertheless be reserved for people with a relationship of a personal nature with “the Lord.” He isn’t simply saying that he doesn’t see how he could have endured the presidency without faith; he is asserting that he cannot see how anyone could be president without a “relationship with the Lord.” Now I can see how this might be simply a slip of the tongue: just a projection of his own experience with nothing more to be inferred from it. But given how this administration has consciously eroded the distinction between church and state - fusing the two with federal funds, using religious groups as its political base, incorporating religious leaders into policy-making, and defending public policy decisions on purely religious grounds (calling civil marriage licenses “sacred,” for example) - this is worrying. To put it bluntly, on the separation of church and state, I don’t trust these guys. > > FAITH AND ITS LIMITS: Look, I share Bush’s faith, admire it, respect it, and am quite sure it has helped him greatly in a terribly difficult time in the White House. More: I’m glad he has a relationship with Jesus to guide him. If he had said just that, it would be an inspiring and innocuous statement. Likewise, I have no problems with presidents’ invoking God in speeches and the like. But Bush went further. He linked the office of the presidency to religious faith. And as president, his words carry weight. No, he cannot legally prevent atheists from running for president (although his party would never nominate a non-Christian for president and would be hard-pressed to nominate someone who isn’t an evangelical). But if an atheist were to run, Bush’s position would logically be that, in his view, the man or woman would be unable to be an effective president, because they would not have the spiritual resources to withstand the pressure of the job. I do think that’s over the line. The deists who founded the republic would also be excluded on Bush’s reasoning. They had no “relationship with the Lord.” (And “the Lord” in this instance is quite obviously Jesus, not the Jewish God. So Jews and Muslims are excludable as well.) The deeper point is: the president represents all the people, including atheists. As president, he should not be opining that people who have no faith in “the Lord” are somehow handicapped for the highest public office. Imagine if an atheist president said that “I don’t see how you can be president, at least from my perspective, if you believe in something that cannot be rationally proved.” The religious right would immediately proclaim the man a bigot (and they’d be right). Bush is not a bigot. He just sees the world through the prism of his own life. As a man, that is his right. As president, he shouldn’t be sending signals that some people, because of their irreligion, are incapable of representing all the people. And that applies especially because an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with him. ---
**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, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/119 "2005-01-13T21:01:57Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If you’re going to mention Reagan as the greatest President of the century (hoo boy, that was fun to type)… heh, heh, heh…made you say it. Nyah, nyah… 😉 ---
**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, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460/120 "2005-01-13T21:05:40Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Wasn’t that a Bob Seger song? 😉 That post does have a rather melifluous sound, doesn’t it? 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thinks-only-christians-should-be-president/284460.md?page=5)