quote:

---

One situation is the president using his opinion or judgment to make decisions based on the constitution, democracy, current laws, and future needs of America in order to make this a free and structured environment. The other situation is the president expressing his opinions about his religious views, and what he feels God is or is not. Do you really see those two forms of opinion as the same thing?

---

quote:

---

Or have I misunderstood completely? Because I think it's silly to demand that the President does not voice any of his personal opinions while on the job, especially when it's completely obvious which of the two, say, a prayer to God is.

--------------------------------------------------
Religious beliefs aren't really any different to any other type of belief. They're just an opinion on whether or not X is true.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by xxo:

About George Bush praying in front of everyone before speeches... It seems to me like he just did it to draw attention to the fact that yes, he is a Christian and that "God supports him". More than anything, he was probably just doing it to gain further support from Christians who support him no matter what simply because he is a Christian. Bush should have prayed when he was alone, so as to keep it between him and God, instead of trying to bring the American population into it.

To those defending Bush's decision to pray in public, have you not read Matthew 6: 5-6?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

While there are more people at Microsoft than Bill Gates, it's pretty silly to say that when Bill Gates delivers a speech about the next Windows operating system at a software convention, he's not speaking for Microsoft.

Ash, I think you've misunderstood (or deliberately misrepresented) the opposing point of view. No one has said that since George W. Bush is president, he shouldn't be religious in his personal life; people have said that while acting in his capacity as president, he shouldn't endorse a particular religion (or religion at all). That doesn't just mean that he can't pass laws saying, "Christianity is the national religion"; it also means that when he delivers the State of the Union, he can't say, "Christianity is the best religion."

The idea is that he's a private citizen when he's on vacation in his ranch in Texas, but he's the president when he's delivering a speech to the nation, and he has two different sets of rights and responsibilities in those circumstances.

In the same way that a school can have a regulation that says that teachers should not speak obscenities while on the job, but that school can't say that teachers shouldn't speak obscenities at any time, the government has a regulation that says that government officials can't endorse a particular religion while on the job, but they can do whatever they want in their own time.

This is very much in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

I'm trying to boil this down. Let me know if I've got it wrong.

It's okay for Bush to say something that not everyone agrees with, ala the Iraq War, just so long as it's public policy. However, while speaking as President, he is not allowed to say anything at all which is not a view held and endorsed officially by the US government.

Would you then object to him saying that the way the Zimbabwe government treats its people is immoral? Or when he praised the Australian Prime Minister, saying that John Howard had "backbone", do you find that objectionable? As far as I am aware, the US government as a whole has no official position on the character of John Howard, or any purpose other than to govern those within its own borders (and thus no interest in Zimbabwe other than as a potential threat or as a trade partner).

Or have I misunderstood completely? Because I think it's silly to demand that the President does not voice any of his personal opinions while on the job, especially when it's completely obvious which of the two, say, a prayer to God is.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Zaiu:

It certainly isn't illegal for him to discuss what he ate for dinner last night, or what color his pajamas are, but for some reason he doesn't feel like mentioning those aspects of his personal life before each State of the Union. Why should his religious beliefs be any different?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Zaiu:

John Howard exists, and Bush would be commenting on another politician. Arguably the whole concept of God may or may not be a mere matter of opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

I thought praying before a speech had nothing to do with the actual policies?

---

quote:

---

Do you think it is consistent for endorsing a particular religion to be specifically prohibited (leaving aside whether it actually is, for now) and endorsing a particular colour of pyjamas not to be?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

If you can't justify your policies except with religion, your policies have no place in government.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

I thought praying before a speech had nothing to do with the actual policies?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

We've covered this ground before.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

In a perfect world, I'd also like to be able to slap a fine on him if he mentioned something horribly irrelevant, like PJs.

However, yes, I do think it's consistent, and I think it's obvious why. Is your religion more important to you than the PJs that you wear?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Zaiu:

Commenting on another person is a bit different than commenting on something that he is speculating on its existence. Unless he can prove there is a God he is telling inane stories before each speech.
(Note this has nothing to do with my beliefs either way.)

---