# Dubya as preacher: Religion in government **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2001, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472 "2001-11-15T05:20:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RaCha\_ar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@RaCha\_ar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaCha_ar)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/21 "2001-11-16T17:26:19Z")
One more thing, **Thunderbunny** , that I just thought of on further reflection. No one is asking _you_ to marginalise your beliefs. No one is telling _you_ that Christianity can’t be a big, important part of your life. I would never take away your right to practise your faith because it is not my own – that’s part of allowing people freedom of religion. The question here is whether it was appropriate for George W. Bush, in his capacity as President of a nation that _does not_ have a state-mandated or even state-supported religion and indeed supports any and all religions, to quote Scripture in a speech intended to assure everyone in that nation; and, as an extension of that question, whether it is ever appropriate for government officials, acting in their official capacity, to proselytise, quote holy texts, or otherwise proclaim their religion. You as a private citizen are not in question here, so I’m not entirely sure why the marginalisation of your beliefs are an issue in regards to this thread. If you could explain this I would appreciate it greatly. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/22 "2001-11-16T17:34:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by themoon \* > \*\* > > And obviously there can be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion. \*\* I have no idea what that means. We can’t be allowed to practice religion until we have no exposure to religion? > [@](#): > > What if they [atheists] feel that their rights are being marginalised? What rights are we talking about now? ---
**Author:** ![DaveX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/96bed5/32.png) [@DaveX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveX)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/23 "2001-11-16T17:35:03Z")
As much as I’d like to see distinct seperation of church and state, I’m enough of a realist to realize that isn’t going to happen. I’ve resigned myself to “god willing”'s and “god bless you”'s and the like. But I feel it’s in appropriate when you start bringing specific elements of some factionalized mass religion into it, because it draws perilously close to a specific state mandated religion. In this case, I think that Bush was out of line. The scariest part for me, however, is I got the distinct impression that the scripture quotes were the _only_ thing Bush brought to that speech of his own volition. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/24 "2001-11-16T17:37:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ThunderBunny \* > You can be assured that we as a nation took into account George Bush’s religous nature when we gave him the presidency. Frankly, that was one reason I voted for him over Gore. I’m curious about this. From all public accounts of which I am aware, Gore is just as religious as Bush. Bush just wore his religious belief more on his sleeve. Is the public display of religiousity important to you? Or did you make a judgment about the sincerity of each candidate’s belief? Related, how did Lieberman’s very public displays of religious belief during the campaign play with you? I am an atheist, but please don’t take these questions as a veiled attack in any way. As for the main point of your post, I’m in complete agreement (I dispute your “marginalization” and “special rights” assertions, but they are tangential to the discussion). Sua ---
**Author:** ![RaCha\_ar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@RaCha\_ar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaCha_ar)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/25 "2001-11-16T17:48:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Munch \*\*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > What if they [atheists] feel that their rights are being marginalised? > > What rights are we talking about now? \*\* Argh, I’m sorry, that’s my mistake. That ought to read “beliefs” (as it did in **Thunderbunny** ’s original post) and not “rights.” My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/26 "2001-11-16T18:49:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\* > > I’m curious about this. From all public accounts of which I am aware, Gore is just as religious as Bush. Bush just wore his religious belief more on his sleeve. Is the public display of religiousity important to you? Or did you make a judgment about the sincerity of each candidate’s belief? > Related, how did Lieberman’s very public displays of religious belief during the campaign play with you? > Sua \*\* GREAT questions. **DaveX** , how is quoting a Bible verse coming close to a state mandated religion? Sure, I believe in slippery slopes, but I don’t see this one. ---
**Author:** ![DaveX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/96bed5/32.png) [@DaveX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveX)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/27 "2001-11-16T19:07:28Z")
Munch, IMO, it’s supporting a _specific_ religion (i.e. christianity), and that is what I don’t care for. I think the precedent of using secular religious references has been established, but I don’t think religion specific references are a good way to go. I don’t think you see the “slippery slope” because you are a christian. You agree with his theology, so that’s understandable. I, however, have felt extremely alienated and excluded in a lot of the proceedings since the 11th. Guess that’s just my problem, eh? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RaCha\_ar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@RaCha\_ar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaCha_ar)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/28 "2001-11-16T19:10:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DaveX \* > \*\*I, however, have felt extremely alienated and excluded in a lot of the proceedings since the 11th. > > Guess that’s just my problem, eh? 🙂 \*\* Not just your problem. I have the same feeling. So much uniting under God makes me feel left out, quite frankly. Be patriotic, just as long as you’re being Christian, too! I know this is untrue, but it’s a feeling I keep getting. That might just be because of where I am (Virginia) but it’s almost reassuring to see that someone else is having this same problem. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/29 "2001-11-16T19:28:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DaveX \* > \*\*Munch, > IMO, it’s supporting a _specific_ religion (i.e. christianity), and that is what I don’t care for. \*\* Quoting Psalm 23 is endorsing a _specific_ religion? Sorry, but I don’t see that. It’s from the Old Testament, which means that traditional Jews hold to it as well. So would most Muslims, since this Psalm does not contradict anything in the Koran. Heck, Psalm 23 is a very generic, non-sectarian statement about seeking comfort in God. That’s something which most God-believing people would believe in, even those who aren’t Jewish, Muslim or Christian. For that matter, I’ve even known atheists to quote from Proverbs and other Biblical books. And why not? Even if you don’t believe the Bible to be God’s Word, that doesn’t mean you have to reject everything in it. The Bible is widely recognized as a work of literature and a source of wisdom, even among those who reject many of its tenets. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/30 "2001-11-16T20:29:12Z")
Nice point about the interfaith aspects of Psalm 23, but you are excluding: [li] Those who do not believe in _any_ God[/li][li] Those who believe in a God along deist lines, who does _not_ intervene in the world[/li][li] Those who do not know or who believe we _cannot_ know whether there is a God[/li][li] Hindus[/li][li] Buddhists[/li][li] Sikhs[/li][li] Confucianists[/li][li] Neopagans[/li][li] Taoists[/li][li] Zoroastrians[/li][li] Non-Christian New Agers[/li][li] And a mixed bag of other monotheists, polytheists, pantheists, and whatnot[/li] George W. spoke as a Christian in a society that is pluralist but largely Christian. I think anyone hearing him might consider that in his limited perspective, he was trying to sound the right notes of determination, outrage, comfort, etc., and chose from his repertoire words and phrases that fit the occasion in his mind. I’m quite confident, especially considering his castigation of the Pat and Jerry Show within a short time, that he had no intent of being exclusivist, but was trying to be _pater patriae_ to the country which elected him. (Anyone criticizing that last sentence on the basis of Florida will have a gory ox dropped on him.) ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2001, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/31 "2001-11-16T21:11:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > **Nice point about the interfaith aspects of Psalm 23, but you are excluding: > [li] Those who do not believe in _any_ God**[/li][snipped for brevity] Yes, I’m aware that those people would not necessarily put stock in Psalm 23. Remember though, I was merely addressing the statement that quoting Psalm 23 is endorsement of a particular religion. It is not. I do agree with what you said below: > [@](#): > > **I think anyone hearing him might consider that in his limited perspective, he was trying to sound the right notes of determination, outrage, comfort, etc., and chose from his repertoire words and phrases that fit the occasion in his mind. I’m quite confident, especially considering his castigation of the Pat and Jerry Show within a short time, that he had no intent of being exclusivist, but was trying to be _pater patriae_ to the country which elected him.** Agreed. Besides, as I mentioned before, the Old Testament is also a work of literature, and is frequently quoted as such. (Interestingly enough, this same sentiment was echoed by a non-religious person url=“[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=99444](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=99444)”]in this thread.) I’ve known people to quote Confucius and the Torah, without subscribing to these as religious authorities. Similarly, people have been know to quote the Bible without insinuating that we must all follow Judeo-Christian beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![ThunderBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@ThunderBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThunderBunny)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/32 "2001-11-17T02:50:18Z")
You know, **Saffostarr** , my day wouldn’t have been complete without having to defend the statements I put out earlier. If anything, thankyou for taking the time to read. Let’s try a hypothetical situation. Rather than Christian, let’s make Bush a practicer of some weird religion, in which people appease the god of the market by going out and spending money on frivilous things, like, say, gas-guzzling SUV’s. Now, if after September 11 he said we should all go out and buy yet another SUV, I’d shake my head and say he was an idiot. But I’d also recognize that the people of the United States put him in that position, and as such, he is reflecting their perspective. He has more than just a right to say that we should buy more SUV’s; he has an obligation. Because the citizens who elected him did so with the understanding that it’s what he would do. So, when you turned my words around and quoted: > [@](#): > > _Atheist_ values have a dramatic impact in who I am and how I interact with the world. I refuse to have my beliefs marginalized just because some _Christians_ insist that the constitution gives them special rights. I just saw that as silly. Sure, if we voted an atheist into power and she said we should… um… (nothing fits here, so bear with me) _abstain_ from prayer today for better healing and guidance… I’d laugh. And I’d be sure to try harder next time to see that he wasn’t elected again. But I wouldn’t go around crying “foul” because he was saying something that he shouldn’t be allowed to say. Let the man speak. We put him there not only recognizing his beliefs, but some of us voted for him _because_ of his beliefs. In the end, I want to life in a land where people aren’t afraid to say what they believe. Do you see that, when you insist that government be devoid of religion, you are telling the people who have religion that their opinions don’t count? Now **that** is the real shame. Lets see… is there anything else I should respond to in your post… oh: > [@](#): > > This country does _not_ have a national religion; as such I see no reason at all why the majority religion and its adherents ought to be the only religious things respected in this country. First, sure we have a national religion… albeit somewhat watered-down, in that it tries to include all Judeo-Christian monotheist views. Sorry if you don’t like that, but guess what, some people do. We all have to compromise if we want to live together. Second, I never said we should be the only religous things respected in this country… it’s not good form to take your opponents words and stretch them to a rediculous absolute so that you can easily refute them. All people’s beliefs should be respected. If you think about it, that’s the core concept of my post in the first place. And finally: > [@](#): > > The question here is whether it was appropriate for George W. Bush, in his capacity as President of a nation that does not have a state-mandated or even state-supported religion and indeed supports any and all religions, to quote Scripture in a speech intended to assure everyone in that nation My answer: sure it is appropriate. Because we as a democracy put him there. If we gagged him and said he wasn’t allowed to quote from scripture when he was in power, that would be a crime. And that’s what it looks to me like people are trying to do when they cry “separation of church and state”. Sorry about the long post… at this rate my fingers will fall off before I hit my 1000th. Peace, dude. ---
**Author:** ![ThunderBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@ThunderBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThunderBunny)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/33 "2001-11-17T02:51:34Z")
Let me put it another way. You can’t separate church and state. Because the state represents the values of the people, and the church has a big influence on just that. Religion isn’t something you turn off when you’re in a government seat. It is a part of you, and it influences the things you do. ---
**Author:** ![ThunderBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@ThunderBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThunderBunny)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/34 "2001-11-17T03:04:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > I’m curious about this. From all public accounts of which I am aware, Gore is just as religious as Bush. Bush just wore his religious belief more on his sleeve. Is the public display of religiousity important to you? Or did you make a judgment about the sincerity of each candidate’s belief? > Related, how did Lieberman’s very public displays of religious belief during the campaign play with you? Good questions. Gore and Bush both said they went to church. Both said they were “saved”. Bush wasn’t afraid to say the words “Personal relationship with Jesus Christ” or “accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior” in front of a national audience. Gore was more hesitant, presumably because he thought it would alienate some people. He just stressed that he still “went to church”. In my mind, that says that Gore has less conviction, and is playing to the polls. It’s a fine line to draw, but… you asked. The public display of religion is important to the degree that it shows a candidate’s conviction, and willingness to stand up for what he believes in regardless of what the pollsters tell him. On that issue, Lieberman trumped them both. I really respected him for that. If he were the primary candidate instead of the vice, well, I’d have to think about it more. And thanks for asking. You obviously saw it differently… you say he just “wore it on his sleeve”. So, you interpreted the same actions as pandering to the religous crowd? Is that a correct interpretation? No offence, just curious. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Gazoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/67e7ee/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Gazoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Gazoo)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/35 "2001-11-17T03:17:09Z")
Or maybe Gore isn’t one of those braggedy, I’m-better-than-you-are-let-me-show-off-my-religion-types. Maybe his religion is a more personal thing. I think it’s just a big grandstand play to keep bringing religion into speeches. It’s not very hard to be a Christian in the US, just as it’s not very hard to be a Muslim in Pakistan. It’s the de facto state religion in both cases. In the US case, though, there is also the Constitution, which separates Church from State, which is a GOOD thing. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/36 "2001-11-17T03:35:05Z")
First off, I don’t think a politician making a public speech including a religious reference is a violation of SOCAS as such. One could still question whether or not it was an appropriate thing to say. How divisive does a religious reference have to be before it crosses the line? Clearly, many people believe that references to a generic monotheistic God are okay, and that references to the specific Judeo-Christian-(Islamic) monotheistic God are okay as well. What if a politician ended all his speeches by invoking Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity? What if he said something to the effect that “this evil act of terrorism exemplifies the total depravity of man, but those of us who are elected to salvation by God’s irresistible grace and the atonement of Jesus Christ which takes away the sin of those whom God has foreordained to receive the gift of faith know that we will, through his power, persevere to the end”? Are we just saying that if your religious references are inclusive enough that a majority of the people can agree with them–or maybe a super-majority, or maybe a majority + some “recognized minority”, like Jews–they’re okay? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ThunderBunny_ > First, sure we have a national religion… albeit somewhat watered-down, in that it tries to include all Judeo-Christian monotheist views. Sorry if you don’t like that, but guess what, some people do. We all have to compromise if we want to live together. > [@](#): > > You can’t separate church and state. Yes, people’s religious views (and other deeply held convictions) will influence their views on politics and public policy. However, we do not have a “national religion”–at least, according to the Constitution, we’re not supposed to–and in this country the church and the state _are_ separated. > [@](#): > > Do you see that, when you insist that government be devoid of religion, you are telling the people who have religion that their opinions don’t count? Government is about public policy. People’s religious views will inevitably color their views on public issues. (Pacificism, capital punishment, welfare reform, abortion…) However, the government should not promote one religion over another, or religion over irreligion. We have laws against murder; practically everyone agrees with those laws, some because the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill”, and others because murder violates their humanistic ethics, and others for other reasons. People disagree strongly about issues like abortion–there are pro-life atheists and there are pro-choice Christians, but religious doctrines strongly influence how many people come down on that issue. But whether or not to legalize abortion is still a public policy issue. What God to worship, how to worship him, or whether to worship any God at all are not deemed in this country to be issues which government has any business looking into. Furthermore, if the _only_ justification for a particular public policy stand is religious doctrine, then government has no business interfering on that issue. Thus, atheists may enjoy the institution of the weekend, and agree with labor laws which protect the 40-hour work week as being a legitimate public policy protecting the rights of workers (or of course a libertarian atheist may disagree). However, the state has no right to make laws ensuring that some particular day of the week be kept “holy”, nor does the state have the right to make laws which do this _de facto_; i.e., forbidding all human activities _but_ the worship of some particular sect on a particular day of the week. ---
**Author:** ![RaCha\_ar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@RaCha\_ar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaCha_ar)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/37 "2001-11-17T04:35:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ThunderBunny \* > You know, **Saffostarr** , my day wouldn’t have been complete without having to defend the statements I put out earlier. If anything, thankyou for taking the time to read. Assuming this wasn’t sarcasm (“my day wouldn’t have been complete” kind of threw me), thank _you_ for posting to this thread and offering your POV. > [@](#): > > He has more than just a right to say that we should buy more SUV’s; he has an obligation. Because the citizens who elected him did so with the understanding that it’s what he would do. Tell that to my atheist parents, who most certainly did _not_ vote for Bush because of his religion. Your contention seems to be that every American who voted for Bush did so because he was Christian, and as such his “obligation” is to behave in a Christian manner in fulfilling the duties of his office, is that right? I’m sorry, I think you couldn’t be more wrong on this point. I can’t be certain without statistics, but my guess is that there’s a goodly chunk of people who voted for Bush considering only his politics, not his religion. I don’t think that those people expect nor demand Bush to be very religious in his office. Merely electing a president who is religious does not express an “understanding” that he’ll espouse his religion in the process of serving in his office. Unfortunately, I don’t know very much about the past Presidents of this country or I would make an analogy to one. Jimmy Carter was, I know, very religious; can anyone who knows tell us whether he brought that into the Presidency or not? Did FDR fall back upon Christianity to support the country during WWII and the Great Depression? > [@](#): > > Let the man speak. We put him there not only recognizing his beliefs, but some of us voted for him _because_ of his beliefs. And some of us voted for his politics and separated the man from his personal beliefs. I call to your attention John Ashcroft, a very very very conservative man who manages to keep his personal beliefs separate from the way that he does his job (so far as I’ve seen, anyway; if he allowed his personal beliefs to control what he did in his career I would be absolutely TERRIFIED). The President should not be acting according to what he feels best for himself; he should be acting according to what he feels best for the _country_. Since the country is not all Christian, was his quoting Scripture appropriate for the good of the entire country? > [@](#): > > Do you see that, when you insist that government be devoid of religion, you are telling the people who have religion that their opinions don’t count? Now that is the real shame. But why is it okay for you to say that the opinions of those who don’t have religion don’t count, either? 😕 This is what’s really boggling me about your responses. You are distressed that the beliefs of Christians are being marginalised but at the same time don’t seem to care very much about the beliefs of the millions of others who aren’t Christian. I understand that Christians (and whites, and males, and all others who suffer in the age of political correctness) can find the current atmosphere to be very difficult for them, when it’s just “not cool” to be Christian (or white, or male, etc.) I understand that it can feel like your right to be Christian is being challenged; but it is really fair to say that your beliefs ought to be honoured and respected above everyone else’s simply because you’re the majority? > [@](#): > > First, sure we have a national religion… albeit somewhat watered-down, in that it tries to include all Judeo-Christian monotheist views. Sorry if you don’t like that, but guess what, some people do. We all have to compromise if we want to live together. No. No no no, and no, and no again. There _is no national religion_. There is no ifs, ands, buts, or compromises. The compromise of this country as far as religion goes is “you do your thing, I’ll do mine, and we won’t give each other crap over it.” That’s freedom of religion. > [@](#): > > All people’s beliefs should be respected. If you think about it, that’s the core concept of my post in the first place. I apologise for this, but I haven’t seen any respect being accorded to the beliefs of atheists in what you have said so far. > [@](#): > > My answer: sure it is appropriate. Because we as a democracy put him there. I don’t see what “we as a democracy” has to do with whether Bush’s quoting Scripture in his official capacity as President of this nation was appropriate. Elaborate, please? > [@](#): > > If we gagged him and said he wasn’t allowed to quote from scripture when he was in power, that would be a crime. And that’s what it looks to me like people are trying to do when they cry “separation of church and state”. I’d just like to point out that I retracted my earlier declaration that this was a SOCAS issue. **MEBuckner** is right – it is an issue of appropriateness, not of freedom of/from religion or SOCAS. Actually I like **MEBuckner** ’s post very much, it sums up very nicely. > [@](#): > > You can’t separate church and state. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/38 "2001-11-17T07:59:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ThunderBunny \* > Gore was more hesitant, presumably because he thought it would alienate some people. He just stressed that he still “went to church”. In my mind, that says that Gore has less conviction, and is playing to the polls. Oddly, I thought it showed he had more respect for all the folks in the country who didn’t worship as he did. “Choose me for my record and my positions, not for whatever faith I believe in,” as it were. Why should polite discretion be considered as “hav[ing] less conviction,” as if it were a weakness? ---
**Author:** ![ssj\_man2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ssj\_man2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ssj_man2k)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/39 "2001-11-17T08:20:11Z")
Ok, i forgot who said it, but someone said something relating religion and bush, something like “that’s why we all voted for him, that’s why he’s in office.” Something to that effect. I must remind you that Gore got the popular vote, and bush only got the majority electoral vote. (hurray crappy voting system!!) when i’m president, im going to quote buddha (buddah?). I think he represents my beleifs more than Jesus does. Of course, though, im not aiming to be president, if i ever do the Pledge Of Allegiance in front of a big group of people, i’ll use under buddha instead of under god. How many people do you think would be pissed off? ---
**Author:** ![ThunderBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@ThunderBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThunderBunny)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2001, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472/40 "2001-11-17T12:03:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by saffostarr \* > Assuming this wasn’t sarcasm… It wasn’t. I’m sincere on this point; it’s nice to know someone reads the stuff I put up here. > [@](#): > > Your contention seems to be that every American who voted for Bush did so because he was Christian, and as such his “obligation” is to behave in a Christian manner in fulfilling the duties of his office, is that right? Again with the stretching to extremes. No, everyone didn’t vote for him because he was Christian. And if he alienates too many people by his actions, by not being “understanding”, he’ll be voted out next time. No problem with that. But when we voted for him, he was a “package deal”, and part of that package is his Christianity. I see no reason that he should “leave it on the doorstep” when he’s in the office. No more so than an atheist should leave their non-belief system on the doorstep either (interesting double-negative there). You are what you are. > [@](#): > > But why is it okay for you to say that the opinions of those who don’t have religion don’t count, either? 😕 Oh heavens yes they do count. Absolutely your opinions count. That’s why I concede that people shouldn’t be mandated to go to church on Sunday, their beliefs should be respected. What I don’t understand is, why you find public prayer to be so disrespectful. Is it fair to draw the analogy of likening Christianity to Homosexuality… would the president be out-of-line if he kissed his husband in front of the nation? No, no problem with that. > [@](#): > > is it really fair to say that your beliefs ought to be honoured and respected above everyone else’s simply because you’re the majority? Ouch, tyranny of the majority argument. Honestly, that’s your best point. We certainly have to be sensitive. But again, it’s not like the man is mandating that you go to church, he’s just quoting scripture for crying out loud. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > First, sure we have a national religion… > > No. No no no, and no, and no again. There _is no national religion_. “In god we trust” “One nation under God” “Mine eyes have seen the glory” “All mem are given by their creator certain unalienable rights” (I know it’s a misquote but it’s close) Sorry, it’s in our heritage. Not much point in arguing over this one, really though. > [@](#): > > Actually I like **MEBuckner** ’s post very much, it sums up very nicely. Oddly enough, I do as well. Wish I had time to respond – I gotta go put my treestand up and get ready for deer season. Peace. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dubya-as-preacher-religion-in-government/93472.md?page=3)