why dave bergman is neat

THE U.S. THEOCRACY CONTINUES TO BE ESTABLISHED: or not. as reported in the washington times,

President Bush said yesterday that he doesn't "see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord," but that he is always mindful to protect the right of others to worship or not worship.

in response, andrew sullivan overreacted and overinterpreted:

So, out of his beneficence, he won't trample on others' religious freedom. But the White House? That's for Christians only. No Jews? Or atheists? Notice also the evangelical notion of a personal "relationship" with the Lord. That also indicates suspicion of those Christians with different approaches to the divine. I must say this is a new level of religio-political fusion in this administration. To restrict the presidency to a particular religious faith is anathema to this country's traditions and to the task of toleration. The president surely needs to retract the statement.

please. how on earth does his statement 'indicate suspicion' of 'those Christians with different approaches to the divine'? all he said was 'i have a relationship with the Lord'. an element of 'relationship' is implicit in any sort of dealing with the divine, whether you're talking to Him, angry with Him, or ignoring Him. sullivan actually makes his words more 'evangelical' by adding the word 'personal', which i couldn't find in the article anywhere. moreover, the article gives very little indication of what this 'relationship' actually entails. and as far as i can tell, he's not trying to force anyone to go to church, evangelical or otherwise. here is what the article quotes him as saying:

"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," Mr. Bush said. "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," he said.

and as jonah goldberg said over at the corner,

Well, Sullivan says the new policy is that the White House is for "Christians only." Unfortunately -- or rather, fortunately -- George W. Bush isn't in any position to apply a religious test to any president. Bush has absolutely zero authority to "restrict the presidency to a particular religious faith." He doesn't hire his replacement, Andrew, we do.

moreover, this God-talk isn't new, so everybody just relax. to take two
quick examples cited on the corner, here is ronald reagan in 1983:

“Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under. If I could just make a personal statement of my own -- in these 3 1/2 years I have understood and known better than ever before the words of Lincoln, when he said that he would be the greatest fool on this footstool called Earth if he ever thought that for one moment he could perform the duties of that office without help from One who is stronger than all.”

no democracy without God? michael newdow certainly wouldn't be happy about that!

and here's abraham lincoln:

It is most cheering and encouraging for me to know that in the efforts which I have made and am making for the restoration of a righteous peace to our country, I am upheld and sustained by the good wishes and prayers of God's people. No one is more deeply than myself aware that without His favor our highest wisdom is but as foolishness and that our most strenuous efforts would avail nothing in the shadow of His displeasure. I am conscious of no desire for my country's welfare, that is not in consonance with His will, and of no plan upon which we may not ask His blessing. It seems to me that if there be one subject upon which all good men may unitedly agree, it is imploring the gracious favor of the God of Nations upon the struggles our people are making for the preservation of their precious birthright of civil and religious liberty.

'righteous peace'?! what would today's pundits have to say about that?

oh, and why not one more--an excerpt from FDR's prayer on the eve of D-Day:

And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

'Faith in Thee'? that sounds like a relationship to me!

by the way, i think this kid rock business looks bad. whatever the reason for the cancellation, it comes in the wake of pro-family protests to his performance at the inauguration--so it at least makes it appear that, whoever is making these decisions, his/her/their morality is determined by the presence or absence of protests from others.

UPDATE: while i was joking about the theocracy business in the title to this post, some people are not (LvBL).