# Religious fanatism in the US public sector **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 15, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434 "2003-08-15T18:05:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/161 "2003-08-18T20:23:04Z")
> [@](#): > > I limited the time period to 2003; you’re drawing from 2001-2003. Yes, that’s part of my point - if you’re arguing how many times Dubya mentions God, what exactly is the point of limiting your search? I did not misrepresent the data in any way. > [@](#): > > If you look even closer, you find that most of those uses are boilerplate closing lines to his speeches, e.g., “Thank you for coming, and God bless.” I don’t get your point there either, Walloon. It doesn’t count if he mentioned God at the _end_ of the speech? Even if you limit it to this year, 131 times in 7 1/2 months is still quite a bit, a far cry from the _4 times_ that you wanted us to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/162 "2003-08-18T20:26:25Z")
Meanwhile, a reminder of Aldebaran’s account: > [@](#): > > \*\*Let me quote for example president Bush: > > Word word word God word word word sentence word God word word God word word God sentence God word word God…\*\* ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/163 "2003-08-18T20:29:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*I don’t get your point there either, Walloon. It doesn’t count if he mentioned God at the _end_ of the speech? > \*\* I would say that coming at the closing of a speech, in a phrase like “thank you and God bless” is a _lot_ different than a mention of God during the body of the speech, or a mention of God that has a different context. Putting it at the end sounds like a reflex rather than an intentional statement. Almost like me saying “Bless you” when people sneeze. Julie ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/164 "2003-08-18T20:29:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*Even if you limit it to this year, 131 times in 7 1/2 months is still quite a bit, a far cry from the _4 times_ that you wanted us to believe. \*\* If you wil look at my posts, every time I stated **very clearly** that I was drawing from his radio addresses and his press conferences. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/165 "2003-08-18T20:31:46Z")
Again, I’m not necessarily defending Aldebaran, but the example you quoted is obvious hyperbole - I don’t think he was contending that Bush _literally_ said “Word word word God word word word sentence word God word word God word word God sentence God word word God…” However, your response was presented as supposed fact. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/166 "2003-08-18T20:55:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*If you wil look at my posts, every time I stated **very clearly** that I was drawing from his radio addresses and his press conferences. \*\* I never suggested otherwise. But Aldebaran very clearly stated that he was _not_ limiting it to those sources. And I don’t see any reason why we _should_ limit it to those sources. I did not accuse you of lying; I merely suggested that it’s disingenous to only include sources that help your point, while leaving out those that hurt it. I already gave you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you did it on purpose, but maybe I should ask you - Did you omit speeches from your search inadvertently, or did you purposely do so? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/167 "2003-08-18T21:07:24Z")
My response _was and is_ fact, clearly stated, and with citations. May I also add that in the “speeches and remarks” database, the same speech often appears several times (I found one speech appearing four times), tagged with different headlines and photos according to different spins the White House press office was putting on the speech at different times. The 131 uses of _God_ in his 2003 “speeches and remarks” is a gross total; if you weed out duplicates, the number is smaller. Why the concentration on the president’s radio addresses and press conferences? Because those two bodies of addresses (with the scattered direct television addresses) are directed to **the general public**. Most “speeches and remarks”, on the other hand, are tailored for and made to specific groups of people, not to the general public. When President Bush addresses the **general public** , as he does in his radio addresses and press conferences, he seldom uses religious terms. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/168 "2003-08-18T21:44:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > My response _was and is_ fact, clearly stated, and with citations. But disingenous nontheless. > [@](#): > > May I also add that in the “speeches and remarks” database, the same speech often appears several times (I found one speech appearing four times), tagged with different headlines and photos according to different spins the White House press office was putting on the speech at different times. The 131 uses of _God_ in his 2003 “speeches and remarks” is a gross total; if you weed out duplicates, the number is smaller. Wait a sec - after misleading us into thinking that Bush had only mentioned God **4 times** in the last year, now you’re gonna nitpick the total? I don’t care _how_ much you nitpick it, it’s still a far, far cry from 4 times. > [@](#): > > Why the concentration on the president’s radio addresses and press conferences? Because those two bodies of addresses (with the scattered direct television addresses) are directed to **the general public**. Most “speeches and remarks”, on the other hand, are tailored for and made to specific groups of people, not to the general public. And why would the question of whether it was made in an address to the general public or in a speech to a specific group of people be at issue? Besides which, the OP clearly stated that he wasn’t just talking about press conferences and weekly radio addresses, so can you see how annoying it might be for El\_Kabong to keep saying “He already _told_ you”, when in fact your refutation was not for the same point that the OP was making? ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/169 "2003-08-18T22:25:19Z")
Whether the OP was talking about press conferences and weekly radio addresses or something grander than that is moot. Whether Bush has inserted the word God in some form or another, be it in the body of a statement or as a closing remark, every single day of his administration is also moot. The OP contends that a significant enough proportion of American public officials are [fanatics](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=1&q=fanatic) as to be worrisome. **When Americans, who have far greater access to the positions and commentary of our own public officials have said, no, in fact very few of our officials are even staunchly religious, let alone _fanatics_ the OP has argued that we are wrong, that his _opinion_ on the matter is fact**. The OP also contends that he is well versed enough in both the American political and religious climate and the opinions of the “rest of the world” to speak with legitimacy and accuracy about both. However, the OP does not have a firm grasp on the American climate, as he admits that his knowledge is based primarily on news reports and anecdotal reports from friends. And, as I pointed out in a prior post, given that the “rest of the world” is comprised of more than 5.7 _billion_ people, no individual has _any_ capacity to make claims about the beliefs or perceptions of the “rest of the world.” The OP’s entire argument in this thread is intellectually and generally dishonest; he is attempting to project his opinion onto a larger number of people to give it more importance than it has, he refuses to provide cites or any independent confirmation of his position, and even when he is unquestionably wrong his reponse is “I didn’t see that/missed that/didn’t understand that, **but** …” In short, this isn’t (and never was) a debate. This has been another example of this particular OP using the wrong area of the board to post a rant, and the rest of us getting sucked into trying to have a dialogue with someone who isn’t open to outside perspectives, as shown rather clearly by both his tack in this thread and his history on the board in general. We’re wasting our time. If someone would like to start a legitimate **Great Debate** about the appropriateness of the frequency of mentions of God and various religious concepts by President Bush ( **Blowero, El\_Kabong, Walloon?** ) I think that’d be an interesting issue to discuss. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/170 "2003-08-19T07:48:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tlw \* > Whether the OP was talking about press conferences and weekly radio addresses or something grander than that is moot. > > Whether Bush has inserted the word God in some form or another, be it in the body of a statement or as a closing remark, every single day of his administration is also moot. It’s _never_ acceptable in a debate to use misleading tactics to make your point appear stronger than it is, and disliking the OP’s style or attitude is certainly no excuse to use such tactics in refuting him. What you are saying in a nutshell is that it’s unimportant that people used misleading debating tactics against the OP, because the OP did it too. I disagree. I think you’re right that this thread is a waste of time, but when I see not only Walloon insinuating that Bush only mentioned God 4 times, when I know for a fact that I’ve personally heard Bush mention God far more times than that, but also to have El\_Kabong keep harping on the point, over and over, like a broken record, when the point is so obviously misleading, it requires a response. A misleading statement uttered in one thread often makes its way into _other_ threads, and if left unchallenged, can be tacitly accepted as fact. It may not be _your_ point, but it is an important point that I think needed to be said. ---
**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:** [August 19, 2003, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/171 "2003-08-19T07:56:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > > If the government can “acknowledge” God, is it permissible for the government to “acknowledge” Jesus Christ? > > Free speech covers a lot of ground. Free speech isn’t the issue here. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals, not the rights of the state. An individual citizen of the United States who happens to be a U.S. congressman can make a profession of faith accepting the lordship of Jesus Christ; the United States Congress can’t. Citizen Roy Moore can proclaim the Ten Commandments to be his moral code. The Chief Justice of the State of Alabama cannot. ---
**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:** [August 19, 2003, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/172 "2003-08-19T07:59:20Z")
> [@](#): > > If a ban on the mention of God was the intent of the founding fathers, I would expect it to be better spelled out. Oh, and while I don’t really see any problem with a “ban on the mention of God” _by the government_–just as the government has no business “mentioning” the nonexistence of God, either–I think a proclamation that the God of the Bible is _the_ God, to be worshipped in a particular way and on a particular day, goes beyond just a “mention of God”. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/173 "2003-08-19T08:08:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > **I think you’re right that this thread is a waste of time, but when I see not only Walloon insinuating that Bush only mentioned God 4 times** Please explain what you mean by “insinuating”. I stated **very clearly** , not once but **twice** , that these numbers were from his weekly radio addresses in 2003 and from his press conferences in 2003. ---
**Author:** ![TeaElle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8491ac/32.png) [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/174 "2003-08-19T10:10:24Z")
**Blowero** , I’m fairly well convinced that this is a matter of interpretation. You believe that **Walloon** was being intentionally misleading; Walloon claims that his intent was to provide an illustration that the OP was less than accurate, which, in fact, he did. Is there really a reason to argue about this? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/175 "2003-08-19T14:01:09Z")
Actually, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama can declare the Ten Commandments to be his moral code. What he cannot do is force that code on others. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/176 "2003-08-19T18:09:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tlw \* > **Blowero** , I’m fairly well convinced that this is a matter of interpretation. You believe that **Walloon** was being intentionally misleading; Walloon claims that his intent was to provide an illustration that the OP was less than accurate, which, in fact, he did. Well no, it’s not a matter of interpretation. The OP said Bush refers to God “constantly”, which _is_ a matter of interpretation. But I’M talking about the response that Walloon gave that was stated as a matter of fact, not of interpretation. > [@](#): > > Is there really a reason to argue about this? Well, you wouldn’t think so, but then you guys keep rehashing it. Seems to me that if you don’t want to argue about something, you should maybe stop arguing.😉 This is really pretty simple. The OP made a blithe reference to Bush mentioning God “constantly” IN HIS SPEECHES. IMO that’s an exaggeration, but it _is_ true that Bush mentions God a lot. Walloon responded by pointing out that Bush only mentions God 4 times IN HIS RADIO ADDRESSES AND PRESS CONFERENCES. O.K., that’s not really sticking to the point, since the OP was talking about speeches, and Bush has mentioned God numerous times in his speeches. But at least Walloon was clear and documented what he said. So far no biggie. Although his reasoning seems somewhat Clinton-esque IMO: While it’s not technically a lie to leave out pertinant information, it _does_ seem vaguely dishonest, in the same way that Clinton said he didn’t have “sex” with Monica Lewinsky, even though they had _oral_ sex. But the train _really_ derailed when El\_Kabong started insisting the the OP acknowledge that Walloon had proven his point, a point which was not even related to the OP’s original assertion. > [@](#): > > You have not in fact responded directly to this post. > > Here is a statement from your most recent post: > > ## quote: > > ## And if you hear Bush, you hear the word God. Most of the time every few sentences and often enough more then once in a sentence. > > This statement is false, as shown by Walloon’s above. If you had already acknowledged the factual basis of Walloon’s post, you could not have this statement. > > Do you want to continue making a complete fool of yourself, or do you concede the point? Of course, Walloon’s post does _not_ disprove the OPs point, because they are talking about different things. And again: > [@](#): > > Here, once again, is the first sentence from his original post: > > ## quote: > > ## President Bush makes a weekly radio address to the nation. Since 2003 began, he has made 31 of these addresses. > > It’s clear the OP simply doesn’t understand English well enough to respond coherently in debate here. I suggest he stop posting until he has a better command of the language. What amazes me is that there is any argument about this _at all_. The point seems almost trivially obvious to me: You can’t refute the contention that Bush refers to God a lot IN HIS SPEECHES, by citing how many times he refers to God IN HIS RADIO ADDRESSES AND PRESS CONFERENCES. It doesn’t matter how well-documented or honest the argument is, it’s still comparing apples and oranges. If you really want this argument to go away, simply concede my point and stop talking about it. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/177 "2003-08-20T01:03:05Z")
> [@](#): > > But the train really derailed when El\_Kabong started insisting the the OP acknowledge that Walloon had proven his point, a point which was not even related to the OP’s original assertion. Yo, **Blowero** , it shows pretty bad faith on your part when I apologize and promise to depart the thread, then find that you are continuing to smack me around for whatever obsessive reasonyou may have. I’m guessing the reason you’re sounding like a broken record yourself is because you’re trying to make some sort of point about my posts to **Aldebaran**. Well, sorry, but you have completely misunderstood my intent; I tried to explain it to you but you haven’t listened; furthermore you are lowering yourself to what you my level, which you have already gone on record as saying was abhorrent to you. If you please, from this point forward leave me out of this. I apologized for my behavior, said I would leave the thread, and nothing I have done in this thread is anything that the OP has not done himself, here and in many of his other postings. I say again, leave me out of it, 'kay? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/178 "2003-08-20T02:19:31Z")
Hey, all I know is Aldebaran hasn’t responded to \*\* MY \*\* post. 😕 That’s twice on the same subject of fundamentalism. I’m patient. Maybe he has something interesting. ---
**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:** [August 20, 2003, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/179 "2003-08-20T05:38:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > Actually, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama can declare the Ten Commandments to be his moral code. What he cannot do is force that code on others. I would say that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama _can’t_ declare the Ten Commandments to be his moral code, although Roy Moore may. The only codes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama is governed by are the constitutions and laws of the United States of America and the State of Alabama. Whatever person happens to currently hold the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama will naturally have his own personal moral code (which may be a religious one) which he lives his life by. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434/180 "2003-08-20T06:19:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by El\_Kabong \* > \*\*Yo, **Blowero** , it shows pretty bad faith on your part when I apologize and promise to depart the thread, then find that you are continuing to smack me around for whatever obsessive reasonyou may have. I’m guessing the reason you’re sounding like a broken record yourself is because you’re trying to make some sort of point about my posts to **Aldebaran**. Well, sorry, but you have completely misunderstood my intent; I tried to explain it to you but you haven’t listened; furthermore you are lowering yourself to what you my level, which you have already gone on record as saying was abhorrent to you. It’s not true that I haven’t “listened” to you. I read your posts and have noted everything you said. I’m sorry to bring it up again after you left the thread, but Walloon and tlw keep rehashing the matter, and claiming I am arguing a non-point when in fact I believe the point is far from trivial. Apparently several people seem to think that the difference between mentioning God 4 times and mentioning God hundreds of times is unimportant; I do not agree. I am only re-explaining my point to the extent that people continue to respond to me in an obtuse manner. It ends as soon as y’all concede the point.🙂 So I apologize for bringing you back into it, but you can blame Walloon and tlw for that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-fanatism-in-the-us-public-sector/195434.md?page=10)