Same thing, Dio. Just an opinion. No attempt at prohibition that I can see.
In all fairness, the exact quote from GWB doesn’t support what Dio claims. It’s just the standard GWB Appeal to Authority, strongly implying he’s tight with God. And of course the equally routine appeal to fundamentalist voters.
IOTW, just an unusually blatant politician’s pandering. It’s the ol’ morality thing, doncha know. No politician will speak out against it, but GWB is unusually narrow in how he defines it: his way, Christian, fundamentalist, period.
Same old, same old.
Veb
Just stupidity and condescension.
Mr. Dahmer, meet Alton Brown…Mr. Brown, Mr. Dahmer.
Like I said, the first one doesn’t bother me any. I can easily see it as a (somewhat garbled) statement of need: didn’t have my plastic Jesus, couldn’t drive this here car.
The second starts off ok, kinda reassuring, as if to say he doesn’t think religion and patriotism are intermingled, or at least he objects to be attacked as if he thinks so. But then that tag line: “…thats just the way it is…” is probably a mis-speak, 'cause it doesn’t seem to really say anything. That’s the way what is?
After reflection, it probably doesn’t mean squat.
One of GeeDubya’s big problems is that he sees himself as a straight-forward, no-nonsense kind of guy, which is OK, but he is also an utterly inarticulate kind of guy. Which is to say, if that last nugget meant anything, his handlers would have come swarming in to clarify it out of existence. Washington Times being who they are, they would never have printed it if they thought it would reflect poorly on The Leader.
Most likely, it is just a bit of meaningless burble intended to underline his sincerity. Like “And thats that!” or “You can bet on that!”
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.
And what about the “patriotism” remark, SA? Would it bother you if someone said that Christians weren’t as patriotic as Wiccans?
You are a very sick puppy, Dewey.
you’re right, you caught me. I added the word good, interpreted “without a relationship with the Lord” to mean Non Christian, and cleaned up his syntax. Congratulations. :rolleyes:
Maybe when he said, “I don’t see how you can be president…without a relationship with the Lord” He was just referring to the unelectability of Non Christians. Perhaps this is the dawn of a new era, where Bush leads us into realms of religious toleration we have only dreamed of in the past. He talked about our successes in religious toleration, then “on the other hand” talked of our failures. That could be the interpretation.
Or we could interpret the reason that he doesn’t “think you can be president without a relationship with the Lord” as him thinking there could be a failing in people without a relationship with the Lord.
If he really meant “I can’t imagine how I could handle this job without a relationship with the Lord.” he misphrased it pretty poorly. I’m sure he’ll realize how he’s misphrased it and issue a clarification when he sees how the community reacts.
In the words of “probably the greatest president of the last century, Ronald Reagan:” “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” :dubious:
Diogenes, think carefully, but don’t you think that if you were faced with a presidential candidate who professed atheism, to compare to a candidate who aligned himself with fundamentalism, that you, as a good American, would cast a ballot in favour of the atheist ? All other claims being equal ?
When I first read it, I thought the “it” referred to the people who are afraid that he’ll condemn the non-religious. Sort of like, “Well, I’ve said nothing to support their fears, but they just keep on claiming it. shrug That’s just the way it is.”
Fuck it, if we’re going to live in the Republic of Gilead, I’m gettin’ saved. Praise Jebus!
I don’t understand the need to lie about what Bush said. Its stupid and offensive enough on its own why the need to add falsehoods?
Gotta disagree, Veb. I think Starving Artist is close to the truth, though not on the money. IMO, in Dubya’s narrow view, no man can do a good job as President who is not in a right relationship with Jesus. He strengthens and inspires him to do the good job he’s doing. (Dubya’s thinking, not mine! :eek: )
It is, however, an expression of opinion – IMO, a rather dumb opinion, though I can see where he’s coming from in feeling that way. It deserves Pitting for being a dumb opinion; I’m not sure Diogenes’s conclusion from it is altogether valid, though he too is probably not far from the mark in extrapolating what Dubya would say candidly if asked in circumstances permitting candidness.
Well, you can believe this or not but it’s simply not something I consider when I vote. I vote based on candidates’ positions on policy not religious philosophy. Professed atheistic candidates are rare but on the one occasion in my life where I had a choice between a theistic candidate and an avowed atheist I voted for the theist. He was more liberal. (The atheist won. He was a wrestler)
Naw, I deal with semantics and linguistics, not news.
… I did.
I’ll post it again, and parse it this time.
The phrase “I don’t see how you can be” means “I think that you can’t be.”
Imma have to call bullshit on that.
He didn’t say “function effectively as president”
He did say “be president”
I don’t see a semantic difference between the two.
And, come now, let’s not quibble over this silly thing. If I state a ‘belief’ that theists can’t be president, I’m still stating that I think theists can’t be president.
So he’s not saying atheists can’t be president. Just that they… um… can’t be president.
Or do you honestly think he’s saying “From my perspective, but hey, it’s only my perspective, and I’m probably wrong. And hey, my religious worldview is too narrow and…” Or is he really saying what he seems to be saying?
Because he’s one of the worst public speakers in the history of Universe
I disagree. If anybody else had said the same thing, I’d think that the words meant what they meant.
That’s pretty much on the mark.
If W had said, " I could never do this job without my relationship with the Lord," I never would have given it a second thought.
Who has lied?
Diogenes led off and then others have followed.
-
Not once does Bush mention Jesus, Christ or Christianity all he said was ‘relationship with the Lord’.
-
He never said only Christians should be president.
Sorry, Dio…things have started hopping around the house here. I’ll see if I can answer you later.
Regards.
[QUOTE=treis]
Diogenes led off and then others have followed.
- Not once does Bush mention Jesus, Christ or Christianity all he said was ‘relationship with the Lord’.
[quote]
And who is “the Lord” in Dubya’s mind? (Hint: his initials are JC)
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.