GWB on being president -- no non-Christians need apply!!!

[Irvine511]

Interesting...but no where in the article is he quoted as saying you have to be a Christian......

he says "the Lord" -- it's obviously Jesus. if he meant God, he'd have said God.

 

[coemgen]

Irvine, you're missing the obvious. I'm sorry.

You said: "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."

Exactly. You're defeating your own argument. Both sentences there of yours are basically saying the same thing.
The rest of us are seeing the last sentence of your quote there as Bush "simply saying that he doesn't see how he could have endured the presidency without faith," you see?
He's not linking the office of the president to religious faith. He's saying his own opinion. Nowhere does he say president of the U.S. should always be Christian.
Also, nowhere in the post of mine that you copied did I say God. I said Christ, which is Jesus. (and, of course, God, but I see what you're trying to say.)

 

[financeguy]

He was possibly trying to say (giving the benefit of the doubt) that without God in his life he would return to alcohol under the pressures of the presidency.

 

[verte76]

I don't know about the alcohol thing. But he's just saying that he personally could not do the job of president without the support of his own personal faith, and all of that implies. He's talking about his life, not the office of the presidency. I don't think he's saying you have to be Christian at all. Hell, he has both Jews and Muslims in his administration. Many of those controversial neo-con civilians in the Defense Department, who carry alot of weight in this Administration, are Jewish. If he had any problems with members of other faiths he would not have appointed these people and wouldn't be able to work with them.

 

[Irvine511]

Exactly. You're defeating your own argument. Both sentences there of yours are basically saying the same thing.
The rest of us are seeing the last sentence of your quote there as Bush "simply saying that he doesn't see how he could have endured the presidency without faith," you see?
He's not linking the office of the president to religious faith. He's saying his own opinion. Nowhere does he say president of the U.S. should always be Christian.
Also, nowhere in the post of mine that you copied did I say God. I said Christ, which is Jesus. (and, of course, God, but I see what you're trying to say.)

i'm not giving up on this one!

the sentences are saying two different things. he even uses the phrase, after he says how freedom of religion and freedom from religion are good things, "ON THE OTHER HAND ..."

that indicates a contrast.

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." and by "the Lord," as you agree, he means Christ.

don't see what i'm missing here.

 

[Irvine511]

maybe everyone else sees this as just a projection of his own experience with nothing more to be inferred from it. grammatically -- and we know that's not this president's strongest suit -- it should be inferred by the contrasting statement "on the other hand."

however, as i've said, given how this administration has fused church and state 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), i think this was another one of his not-so-coded verbal hand-outs to the religious right.

remember when he made the Dread Scott comparison in the 2nd debate and no one knew what the f he was talking about? and then we realized that anti-choice people view the fetus as a human, and make the argument that we're treating the fetus as 3/5ths of a human like the Dread Scott case affirmed that, yes, an African-American was only 3/5ths of a white person?

that's what i think is going on here.

but i'll fully admit to being very, very suspicious of GWB.

 

[verte76]

I am not a supporter of George Bush. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I know he uses religious arguments for alot of his policies, gay marriage for example. I don't agree with this stuff. I still don't think, in these statements, that he's claiming that you've got to be Christian to be president. He's saying *he* couldn't do it without his faith, and that's fine with me.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

No offense Irvine , but given that you're suspicious of him, maybe you can be prone to reading things into what he says that aren't necessarily there

I'm not denying that the way he uses religion can be inappropriate, but I agree w/ verte.

I think it was a very valid point, the one that was brought up about what if you just inserted Allah, etc.

 

[Irvine511]

I think it was a very valid point, the one that was brought up about what if you just inserted Allah, etc.

of course no offense taken.

but if he had said Allah, Shiva, Yahweh, or Zeus, along with the statement ANYONE which was preceeded by the contrasting statement ON THE OTHER HAND, i'd say the same thing.

and if he had made the same quote, only with the atheist example i gave earlier, then religious leaders across the land would be up in arms.

 

[strannix]

I've gone back and forth on this while following this thread today, but I'm inclined to agree with Irvine here. In fact, earlier I was going to write the exact same thing about the use of the phrase "on the other hand". If all he's talking about is his own experiences, the preceding bit about religious freedom is completely irrelevant. Why would any contrast exist between the two ideas?

Plus, he doesn't say "I don't see how I could be President ...." He says, "I don't see how you can be President." So it's more than fair to question if he's talking about himself or not.

 

[stammer476]

he doesn't say "I don't see how I could be President ...." He says, "I don't see how you can be President." So it's more than fair to question if he's talking about himself or not.

If this were a written statement or part of a delivered speech, I could understand your argument. But when it's just part of an interview, I don't think this grammatical evaluation is relevant. When speaking off the cuff, we all mix pronouns, don't literally say what we're intending, and generally mess up our wording.

After all, this is W we're talking about.

 

[Do Miss America]

If this were a written statement or part of a delivered speech, I could understand your argument. But when it's just part of an interview, I don't think this grammatical evaluation is relevant. When speaking off the cuff, we all mix pronouns, don't literally say what we're intending, and generally mess up our wording.

After all, this is W we're talking about.

I agree. In all honesty I think George does believe you can't be president without "the Lord". But at this point I really don't care what he says in an interview. I mean he's a born-again Christian he has some very distorted views even about Christianity. I'm not surprised by the statement but I don't find it all that damning.

 

[strannix]

When speaking off the cuff, we all mix pronouns, don't literally say what we're intending, and generally mess up our wording.

After all, this is W we're talking about.

Yeah, the Lord knows you're right on that.

I certainly don't want to sound definitive. There's really no way to know. I'm just saying that Irvine's interpretation seems more likely to me, given the words on the page.

 

[Dreadsox]

he says "the Lord" -- it's obviously Jesus. if he meant God, he'd have said God.

Interesting....Lord to me is God.....

 

[Dreadsox]

I agree. In all honesty I think George does believe you can't be president without "the Lord". But at this point I really don't care what he says in an interview. I mean he's a born-again Christian he has some very distorted views even about Christianity. I'm not surprised by the statement but I don't find it all that damning.

Born again Christians have distorted Christianity?

 

[Anthony]

I for one can see what Irvine is saying, and, truthfully, the quotation really makes it very easy for anyone to interpret it in such a manner.

Also, I disagree that he should bring God into the whole argument really. Of course, its his right and prerogative to state his own opinion, and he's entitled to it, of course, but I think that there are too many people going around and talking about their relationship with God in dark times such as these.

Its just my opinion, of course. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't have said that a president needs to have a relationship with the Lord or anything that could be interpreted in such a manner. I just think that its not really the wisest thing to say.

Ant.

 

[coemgen]

Irvine, you know I respect you like a brotha from anotha motha, but I think you're splitting hairs on a bald head here. The phrase "On the other hand" is a transitional phrase into his own personal opinion, not a set up to a contradictory statement. I see how you're reading it, but I don't think that's how he meant it or even how most people would take it. The phrase "at least from my perspective" is the key here. It's a personal opinion. He's talking from his own experience, his own perspective. He has every right to do that. If anything, he's sharing his faith, but he's not saying every president must be a Christian. He says "I don't see how YOU can be president..." meaning "I don't see how one can be president," or "someone can be president." That's a general statement from his own experience.
Of course, after reading this, you'll probably still have your stance and I'll have mine.
In the end, we just wasted a day dissecting a statement from the least eloquent president ever.

Hey Ant., how can people talking about their relationship with God during dark times be a bad thing?

 

[strannix]

Born again Christians have distorted Christianity?

Personally, I think anyone who wants to argue one way or the other about Bush's religious views has a long road to hoe. The man is maddeningly vague about what his religious views actually are. He's constantly talking in cryptic phrases and evangelical codewords but he never says anything more substantial or reflective than that.

 

[cardosino]

Interesting....Lord to me is God.....

No disrespect intended, but Irvine is making quite a few assumptions.

1. He is assuming that if W meant "God", he'd had said "God" and not "Lord". Now, I don't know W personally, blmost every Christian I know uses God and Lord interchangeably.

2. He is assuming that W's opinion is that he feels he thinks a belief in God is a requirement to be President, and he is not referring to his faith as his support structure.

Huge assumptions in both cases, neither of which I believe is what W intended.

 

[pax]

Um, I hope no one minds that I'm going to close this thread...no one has been abusive or anything, but I just think we're at a point where we're splitting some serious hairs (e.g. the "you" argument on the previous page), and I think we're all going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

The arguments have been made, and there have been some good ones, and I'm not pinning this on anyone or yelling about anything. Like I said, I just think we've come to the end of the productive road.