Presidents X, Y and Z talk about faith, but only President Z gets dumped on for not talking about "non-faith." And when I ask you, "why President Z?" I get zero response of any substance. I ask you for an explanation, and I get Ricky Ricardo imitations.
I don't mean to be non-responsive. I thought we had worked out this morning that Carter was a red herring and that presidents expressing faith was also a red herring. Apparently I assumed too much. I'll try again.
Re Carter
The reason Bush had some 'splaining to do is because he's the only one who was ever caught excluding the non-religious. Who, in turn, made a stink. And he, in turn, responding by acknowledging them affirmatively, thus the quotes you posted. He has done a good job of rectifying the problem.
The other presidents never said anything that appeared to exclude the non-religious so they were never called upon to rectify anything. Thus a lack of affirmative comment from them on the subject. If you never frame Americans as "Christians, Jews, and other faiths," you never get in trouble for excluding the no-faiths. To the best of my knowledge, Carter and Clinton never made that faux pas so they were never called upon to account for it and redress it.
Re religious expression
I thought we had put that to rest when you dropped it and focused on the exclusion factor. Expressing one's personal religiosity has nothing that I can identify to do with this issue of Bush excluding the non-religious by saying things like "Americans of all religions are wonderful people." That's entirely different from saying "Jesus is there to guide me." Or saying "I get great satisfaction from chopping wood." The latter doesn't exclude people who live in high-rises and have no wood to chop or who prefer to get their exercise by bicycling. |
