I know this topic has been discussed, and I spent the night watching Bush's defenders decry the "secular liberalists" on my TV. But there is something that I haven't heard anyone really touch on when being critical of Bush's "Lord" statement.
Here's the relevant part of his interview with 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."
The defense, of course, is that Bush is a religous man, and there is nothing wrong with professing his faith. And the fact that he can't see it is simply his view.
Church/State nightmares aside, my problem with this is the phrase "without a relationship with the Lord." He's obviously referring to the Lord Jesus Christ. He's not saying "I think you have to be a spiritual person to deal with the difficult decisions one has to make as President." He did not say "I feel that faith is important." He said Lord. He is claiming that you can't be President of the United States unless you beleive Jesus Christ is your lord and personal savior. Am I missing some Lords? Jewish people, Muslims, Bhuddists, our President doesn't think any of you are fit to run this country. What does that say about how he feels about you in any position?
Just wondered what people thought about this.