|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
George Bush (Sr.) on atheists. | from AndyH - Thursday, September 21, 2006
accessed 1490 times The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary: RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."
UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.
The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.
On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:
RS:
"American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"
EM:
"It's bullshit."
RS:
"What is bullshit?"
EM:
"Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit."
RS:
"Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue."
EM:
"You're welcome."
After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:
"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government." |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Samuel
Friday, September 22, 2006 - 15:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, if Bush Sr. was suggesting what it sounded like for a moment, that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, then I whole heartedly disagree with that. But I don't think that's what he was suggesting. Poor word choice is probably more like it, or maybe he was trying to bring his word choice in line with the question that was asked and ended up bungling it.
Maybe that's where the current Bush gets his knack for fumbling up his speeches : o )
There is no reason to consider an atheist, agnostic, Muslim, whatever, any less of a citizen. To do that would be un-american and very wrong IMHO. Come on, we're all people, so what's the big deal?
Samuel Mercuri
(reply to this comment)
|  From ?
Friday, September 29, 2006, 14:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, that as sure as hell is what it sounded like, but think about it if that is truly Bush's way of thinking, what he is really trying to say then is that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, then reversedly theists, regardless of their race, background, our most important, country of birth, can they be considered american citizens?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Friday, September 22, 2006, 15:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
By the way, there's nothing wrong with "not being very high" on people that are different from you. It doesn't mean you don't like them, it means you don't understand them. Cultural, religious, racial, and gender borders stand in the way of fully understanding people. I like Praise, Country, and certain Pop music, but I'm "not very high" on rap. I can't understand the words, the beat is usually far too loud for my tastes, and when I do understand a word or two I usually end up wishing I hadn't. Ryhtm and Blues is okay, though. I'll listen to just about any genre once.
It can safely be assumed that the group American Atheists is "not very high" on Christians. That in itself doesn't make them bad people.
Samuel Mercuri(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from SeanSwede
Friday, September 22, 2006 - 12:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wonder how many athiests their are on this site? I know I am one of them. Any more of you out there?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From AndyH
Friday, September 22, 2006, 15:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
*GASP You are? I had always assumed you were orthodox christian.
Yeah, for all intents and purposes I'm an atheist. I could probably be better classified as an agnostic, but I don't really like the vague neutrality of that term. Since atheism is more associated in this country with skeptism and non-christianity, I'll claim atheist, just to be on the right side of the debate.
It seems like you've developed a new approach of calm rational discussion, that's great. WHat happened? All our digs get through to you? Or did you take a cartoonishly oversized chill pill? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from Removed
Friday, September 22, 2006 - 01:11
 (Agree/Disagree?)
[Removed at author's request]
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From neez
Saturday, September 23, 2006, 20:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry Vixen but I can hardly qualify this random comment as proof of your rightness. Even if the person that said it is hot.
But seeing as there isn't much else here worth discussing at the moment, I have no problems repeating myself. It seems to work for SeanSwede.
If I bought a set of tree lights(in some freaky parallel universe) and one of the bulbs was shining much brighter then the others, then that would mean that bulb is actually faulty. It would actually be a severe fire risk, as it will most likely explode showering the tree/gift paper with sparks. And possibly shorting out the electrics.
Now, the only other reason one could be brighter then the others would be if all the other bulbs are actually burning out. In which case the lights are past their use by date and should be replaced by new(evenly lit) ones. So this doesn't mean that one light is necessarily 'bright', just that the other bulbs are extremely dull. Which reminds me of the premise to the movie 'Idiocracy' which I have yet to watch.
On the other hand, you have an average light store. Filled with hundreds of(correctly functioning) light bulbs, and a wide range of luminescence.
You decide.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vixen
Sunday, September 24, 2006, 03:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Eh? My rightness? Regarding that phrase??? I've only just got up (yes, it IS almost noon, yes I AM a lazy girl) so I'm not sure I am getting this right but I think you interpreted my comments to mean that I somehow took Sara's use of the phrase as proof of its, god, what's the word, 'sense', does that make sense? Eh, who cares, hopefully you will know what I mean.
Not so! The only point I was making was that it would be funny if you decided to post on the same day, given the history on this site with you and that phrase!
So, to make it PERFECTLY clear: I noticed the use of that phrase, thought about you in relation to it, and said, cue an appearance by neez just about now.
You later posted on that day, and THAT is what I was right about.
I need a cuppa.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From neez
Sunday, September 24, 2006, 05:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ahh ok, my mistake.
And yes the timing was perfect. I just assumed it must've been some comment made ages ago that I missed. And I can now see why you would suspect me of identity theft ;)
So Vixen, seeing as you seem to be one of the last of the verbal mohicans on this site, can you explain why there always seems to be around 400-500 people online at any given time?
I remember when there was an average of maybe 30, and yet there were twice the posts back then. Lots of bored cult members?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From vixen
Friday, September 22, 2006, 04:30
 (Agree/Disagree?)
First I must apologise because I am feeling exceptionally muddled today and I know that I will most likely not be able to present my point with any degree of clarity. This does rather beg the question, why try at all, but well, I'm agitated enough as it is and I have to give it a go or I will be worse off for it. Those of you who feel so inclined, please DO pick holes in my comments, if need be.
In response to your comments regarding Bush's unrelenting adherence to his beliefs and the fact that it 'takes balls', I wonder if you might agree with me in this*, or whether you have a different outlook entirely. Come to think of it, judging from some of the things you have said I am fairly certain that you are a Christian (or at least religious in some sense of the word) so I imagine you probably won't agree with me. If you aren't, forgive my assumption.
*I recently realised that one of the ways in which my cultic upbringing persists in manifesting itself in my thought process, is the almost knee-jerk way in which I still profess admiration for the strength of conviction of someone with whom I disagree (as long as their views are not diametrically opposed to my own, that is), as if blind adherence to any given set of values - and unflinching commitment to it - is somehow a virtue. In fact I don't think it is, at all. There is nothing virtuous about being so completely sure of your own superiority or 'rightness' that you are utterly incapable of grasping the subjectivity of your own views and at least being open to dialogue with those who oppose you. IMO, true intellectual progress, and the positive changes brought about in society due to it, comes about from the starting point of an explicit understanding that no, you do not know everything, no you are not right about everything, and no, there are no (or VERY few) absolutes. There is no way in which fundamentalism truly benefits society, IMO, and I would say that Bush's unwavering stance is actually a great flaw rather than a strength. It doesn't always take balls to withstand fierce opposition, a lot of times it just requires superstiton, ignorance or downright STUPIDITY!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, September 22, 2006, 06:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not being a religious person myself, I still find that I disagree with you, Vixie. I also (perhaps less surprisingly) take an opposing view as regards to the cult's role in influencing that point of view. Amongst my friends, I have found a majority of those with no cult background tend to have greater respect for a person who has strong beliefs - regardless of whether they share those beliefs - than for someone who is "all things to all men". Clearly, stubbornly refusing to engage in discussions causes frustrations, but by-&-large people still prefer that to never knowing where someone stands on issues.
Particularly when it comes to politics, I think that having clear principles is all the more important. Our political structures are such that we elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf (yes, pure 'democracy' is far too ineffective and inefficient to be viable at a national level). As such, what I am most interested in is not some short-term 'strategy' or knee-jerk policy statement designed to address todays hot-button topic, but rather on what set of principles or beliefs they will be basing their decisions. That's not to say that I don't respect the ability to be diplomatic or engaging, but when it comes down to it some smarmy diplomat on an journey of intellectual discovery is probably the most dangerous type of leader possible!
I agree with you that there are few - if any - natural absolutes, but a society needs a structure of absolutes in order to function and progress. Naturally, there will be adjustments to these from time to time, but in my view modern society has taken the natural change to an extreme which is both unsustainable and counter-productive. There is a point of view (which I broadly hold) that nothing new has been invented since the late 60's - everything since then has simply been a continuation, or refinement of existing technology. And I don't think that is entirely unrelated to the effects of the cultural and social changes which have been taking place in that same timescale.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vixen
Friday, September 22, 2006, 07:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for commenting! I actually find your opinions very valid indeed. When I am feeling more clear in my head I will clarify what I meant, as it seems I have not been able to convey my point clearly enough. For now I will try to qualify my position somewhat, in the hope that further commentary from you and others might jolt my mind out of this stupor and encourage a clearer and more cogent argument.
I don't disagree with anything you said, Dom, though I don't necessarily agree with every assertion either. I just think we're looking at it from completely different perspectives. It's certainly true that any political structure in order to be effective at the higher level, requires a clear and concrete manifesto and I am not at all opposed to firm policy. The point I was trying to make about the Bush administration, however, is that fundamentalist religious convictions generally cannot (in my view) coexist with true intellectual freedom (if such a thing is possible, which of course is another discussion altogether), and is therefore a liability to positive progression. When government poilcy is controlled to any meaningful extent by religious mores rather than scientific investigation or logical reasoning, it cannot in my view be said to be working for the greater good of society. This is because religious fundamentalism presumes its own superiority rather than remaining willing to see all sides of an argument and then choose the closest thing to an answer given the particular set of questions being deliberated. When the outdated, superstitious and wholly unscientific babble of an ages-old book is seen as unquestionable truth, it becomes impossible to hope for truly progressive policy, IMO. Whether or not progressive, inclusive policy rather than 'strong convictions' is the ideal depends on what side of fence one sits on as far as religion is concerned, I think, and that is why I drew Sara's religious persuasion (or lack of) into the picture.
Your last paragraph, in particular, is interesting, and actually more or less mirrors exactly the thoughts that were swirling around in my head when I mentioned term 'absolutes' above, especially the first sentence.
As far as people respecting those with strong views, I can see what you're saying and to some extent I do agree that many times it can be seen as strength of character. I consider myself to be a strongly opinionated woman and most people who come into contact with me learn very quickly that it's not hard to predict where I will stand on most any issue. But, regardless, I am still VERY aware of the fact that even the things that I consider absolute truths can, if one argues well enough, be broken down to nothing more than subjective views which cannot, in and of themselves, be said to be absolute. Therefore I am always quick to question my own position and I try to continually evaluate my views in order to discard those things that are no longer relevant or 'true'. THAT is what I meant by being open to dialogue. I don't see my flexibility as a flaw, though I admit that it does make life rather a lot more exhausting - Continuous internal conflict does get tedious at times. But I still wouldn't have it any other way. And now I am rambling.
Call me out on inconsistencies, please :-)
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, September 22, 2006, 03:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
You pose an interesting question there, Sara. What do you consider to be the 'vital prerequisites' for a president? There is a lot of discussion about form over substance in British politics these days - not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but I would venture that in most cases they will end up in conflict, you simply cannot be both a principled leader and a weather vane of public opinion. (I think I've let slip which side of the fence I'm on, ha!)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vixen
Friday, September 22, 2006, 08:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's a shame. Yes it's happened to me. Sometimes it works to hit 'back' and you will find the comment still there. Then you can just submit again and everyting is fine and dandy! I always think it would be a good idea to write my longer comments in a word document first and just copy and paste, but I never seem to get around to actually taking that precaution.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]