Evidence that Bush Sr hates atheists.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060525.htm

It's there. Rob Sherman: "For nineteen years, many concerned Americans, from conservative Christians to liberal atheists, have questioned the credibility of my claim that Vice President Bush told me at an O'Hare Airport news conference on August 27, 1987, that atheists should not be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic, because this is "One Nation under God.""


Well, I've read throught the PDF's and it does make a compelling case. The evidence is pretty sound to me. The White House of that time did not deny Bush made the statement, and instead, tries to justify that what he said won't affect policy.

[jj]

http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060525.htm

It's there. Rob Sherman: "For nineteen years, many concerned Americans, from conservative Christians to liberal atheists, have questioned the credibility of my claim that Vice President Bush told me at an O'Hare Airport news conference on August 27, 1987, that atheists should not be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic, because this is "One Nation under God.""


Well, I've read throught the PDF's and it does make a compelling case. The evidence is pretty sound to me. The White House of that time did not deny Bush made the statement, and instead, tries to justify that what he said won't affect policy.

Doesn't matter. The guys here can't believe the father of their hero would admit to the agenda in such a baldfaced fashion.

[thaiboxerken]

I agree, JJ. Unless Bush Sr comes out on TV and says "I said it" then they won't believe it. Even then, they probably won't believe it.

[TragicMonkey]

I have to admit I liked Bush Sr, probably for all the wrong reasons. Maybe it was his face, or the way he talked, but he always reminded me of a scrawny chicken, cluck cluck cluck. And Barbara was a plump hen suitable for roasting. They were cute. How such an amiably chickeny couple produced a pair of snakes I can't figure out. Isn't the legendary basilisk a serpent born of a chicken egg? How's W's eyesight lately?

[thaiboxerken]

Rob Sherman invites people to call him to talk about it if they want as well.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, or if you want clarification on what certain of the documents represent, you are welcome to contact me at rob@robsherman.com or call me at (847) 870-0700, rather than relying on speculative comments in chat rooms by people who don't know what they're talking about because they have never bothered to check the facts, either by contacting me, contacting the Bush Presidential Library or doing other research.

[roger]

I don't see any ironclad evidence in those faxes. Perhaps I missed it?

In the second fax Lund writes that he deliberately avoided addressing the "allegations", and he further recommends not responding to follow ups, to let "sleeping dogs lie".

While I do pretty much think Bush did make those comments, I can't say these faxes added anything to my belief. I bet you can find thousands of letters accusing Bush of implanting listening devices in the letter writer's brain, with no followup from Bush or his counsel stating "Bush did not implant listening device in your brain, either by himself or by direction from him." Seems pretty standard (and weasely) to avoid addressing specific compaints if at all possible. Ever written a complaint letter to a representative and gotten a stock, vague reply back? It's just how it goes, unfortunately.

Again, I believe Rob Sherman's account, I'm just not seeing additional evidence in these faxes.


Edited to add: I guess I regard this sentence, written by Lund, to be the key: He points out, correctly, that your reply did not respond to his demand for an apology from the President. Because I do not believe that we can defend the remarks allegedly made during the campaign, and because I assume that you would not recommend that the President issue an apology, I think the best course of action is to ignore this follow-up corrrespondence; continuing to exhange letters would only make it increasingly obvious that we are refusing to address the issue he is raising.

And there we have it. Evidence that they are refusing to address whether it happened or not, evidence that they feel they can't defend the remarks if it was said, but no admittal that it was said. I can see this exact same letter written whether or not Lund knew Bush made those remarks or not. I certainly see no evidence that anyone even tried to verify whether they were said or not, and I see no evidence that any of this was ever seen by Bush. Standard PR, brush it under the rug and hope it goes away.

[bjb]

I've read the documents and I'm surprised by the original conversation. Why not say something that appeals to atheists instead of condemning them? Plenty of athiests like increased military spending and tax cuts at the expense of the poor. Bush could have scored points but instead, he decided that promoting his sick religious views was more important than winning more votes.

[hgc]

I've read the documents and I'm surprised by the original conversation. Why not say something that appeals to atheists instead of condemning them? Plenty of athiests like increased military spending and tax cuts at the expense of the poor. Bush could have scored points but instead, he decided that promoting his sick religious views was more important than winning more votes.I think he didn't actually decided to do it that way, but being completely unprepared for such a question, just let his gut speak. Another religious bigot who doesn't even understand the basic founding principles of his own country. Oh, and he's the leader of said country at the time. The mind boggles.

[bjb]

[I bet you can find thousands of letters accusing Bush of implanting listening devices in the letter writer's brain]

I assume you have the fax copies of these thousands of letters.

We know that the question was asked and an answer was given. Roger, tell us how *did* Bush Sr. respond to that question? Apparently you believe he said something completely innocent that got twisted out of context. I agree that could have happened. But if he didn't condemn atheists, what did he actually say?

[jj]

I think he didn't actually decided to do it that way, but being completely unprepared for such a question, just let his gut speak. Another religious bigot who doesn't even understand the basic founding principles of his own country. Oh, and he's the leader of said country at the time. The mind boggles.

Nah, given what I've heard from "christians" (please note, those of you who practice the inclusive, forgiveness version of the religion, I don't mean you, I mean self-described "christians" who run around bludgeoning people with Leviticus), it's not surprising at all. It's the old "with us or against us" mentality, writ with religion.

[Grammatron]

I agree, JJ. Unless Bush Sr comes out on TV and says "I said it" then they won't believe it. Even then, they probably won't believe it.

How dare I ask for evidence? Why if Bush -- either one -- is involved it should be assumed by default that the worst possible scenario is true! And we, as skeptics, should know!

You people are pathetic.

I have not yet read the PDFs, but I will now just wanted to respond to yours and jj's posts which were certainly aimed at me.

[hammegk]

Assume Bush Sr. hates atheists. So what?

[Grammatron]

I don't see any ironclad evidence in those faxes. Perhaps I missed it?

In the second fax Lund writes that he deliberately avoided addressing the "allegations", and he further recommends not responding to follow ups, to let "sleeping dogs lie".

While I do pretty much think Bush did make those comments, I can't say these faxes added anything to my belief. I bet you can find thousands of letters accusing Bush of implanting listening devices in the letter writer's brain, with no followup from Bush or his counsel stating "Bush did not implant listening device in your brain, either by himself or by direction from him." Seems pretty standard (and weasely) to avoid addressing specific compaints if at all possible. Ever written a complaint letter to a representative and gotten a stock, vague reply back? It's just how it goes, unfortunately.

Again, I believe Rob Sherman's account, I'm just not seeing additional evidence in these faxes.


Edited to add: I guess I regard this sentence, written by Lund, to be the key:

And there we have it. Evidence that they are refusing to address whether it happened or not, evidence that they feel they can't defend the remarks if it was said, but no admittal that it was said. I can see this exact same letter written whether or not Lund knew Bush made those remarks or not. I certainly see no evidence that anyone even tried to verify whether they were said or not, and I see no evidence that any of this was ever seen by Bush. Standard PR, brush it under the rug and hope it goes away.

I agree with pretty much all you are saying here except I am not willing to give Mr. Sherman the benefit of the doubt.

[BPSCG]

Assume Bush Sr. hates atheists. So what?
Kick 'em inna nuts!

[Grammatron]

Assume Bush Sr. hates atheists. So what?

He can hate them all he wants, but if his statements that he doesn't consider them to be citizens was true -- and no good evidence has been presented yet -- that would be a major problem.

[Cleon]

How dare I ask for evidence? Why if Bush -- either one -- is involved it should be assumed by default that the worst possible scenario is true! And we, as skeptics, should know!

You people are pathetic.

I have not yet read the PDFs, but I will now just wanted to respond to yours and jj's posts which were certainly aimed at me.

So your mind is made up, then.

[Grammatron]

So your mind is made up, then.

Quite the opposite.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Since atheists weren't properly represented by Bush Sr during his presidency, I feel that any tax-paying atheist during that term should get a huge tax refund ...

Charlie (pain and suffering as well) Monoxide

[Upchurch]

He can hate them all he wants, but if his statements that he doesn't consider them to be citizens was true -- and no good evidence has been presented yet -- that would be a major problem.
Yeah. A President who would essentially revoked my citizenship based on my lack of belief in a god is not only irksome, but a fundamental failure to uphold the office of the Presidency. Sort of like a guard who shoots the person he's supposed to protect.

Sort of misses the point.

[roger]

[I bet you can find thousands of letters accusing Bush of implanting listening devices in the letter writer's brain]

I assume you have the fax copies of these thousands of letters.

We know that the question was asked and an answer was given. Roger, tell us how *did* Bush Sr. respond to that question? Apparently you believe he said something completely innocent that got twisted out of context. I agree that could have happened. But if he didn't condemn atheists, what did he actually say?Exsqueeze me?

1. I said "I bet" - pretty much evidence that I don't have copies. It's speculation.

2. I said I *DO* believe Rob's testimony. I just said these documents do not provide additional support.

This is why people don't like coming into the Politics forum. Completely baseless posts, and demands for evidence for admitted speculation. Sheesh.

[Upchurch]

I agree that there is nothing in the link that would constitute conclusive proof that the interview occured or occured as reported.

The most potentially damning thing I saw was on the 19th page of the second fax (http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/bush/secondfax.pdf), which says in part:

Because I do not believe that we can defend the remarks allegedly made during the campaign, and because I assume that you would not recommend that the President issue an apology, I think the best course is to ignore this follow up correspondence; continuing to exchange letters would only make it increasingly obvious that we are refusing to address the issue he is raising.

Lots of denials there, but its that very last bit about "refusing to address the issue" that gives me the impression that there is something to avoid talking about.

Nothing concrete, of course.

[whitefork]

The story's been repeated many times but there doesn't seem to be any other evidence than the original source - I read the PDF files and they didn't really provide much supporting evidence.
I would not be surprised if GHWB did say it, or didn't.
Unlike "kicked a little ass" which was SAVED FOR POSTERITY (tm)

[bjb]

And there we have it. Evidence that they are refusing to address whether it happened or not, evidence that they feel they can't defend the remarks if it was said, but no admittal that it was said. I can see this exact same letter written whether or not Lund knew Bush made those remarks or not. I certainly see no evidence that anyone even tried to verify whether they were said or not, and I see no evidence that any of this was ever seen by Bush. Standard PR, brush it under the rug and hope it goes away.

You are misinterpreting those words.

That quote from Lund does not address whether the remarks were made or not. It also does not deny that they were made.

Because I do not believe that we can defend the remarks allegedly made during the campaign, and because I assume that you would not recommend that the President issue an apology

It only states that:

1. The remarks cannot be defended

2. Apologizing for the remarks is not recommended

An apology is not recommended, but if the remarks were not made, why even consider an apology? A denial should have been an option if Lund felt that Bush never made the statement in the first place.

The document shows that Lund investigated the remarks because he determined they could not be defended. He could not have made this determination without knowing what was said. He also believed the remarks were bad enough that an apology was being considered as a solution to the problem.

Finally, I see no words of denial in Lund's writing. Could someone point out his denial to me?

[roger]

You are misinterpreting those words.

That quote from Lund does not address whether the remarks were made or not. It also does not deny that they were made. <snip>We must be talking in different languages :D I agree with what you wrote, and as far as I can tell so does the language of the post you are 'disagreeing' with. I'm at a loss as to why you are challenging my posts, when we apparently think the same thing.

[Grammatron]

You are misinterpreting those words.

That quote from Lund does not address whether the remarks were made or not. It also does not deny that they were made.

Because I do not believe that we can defend the remarks allegedly made during the campaign, and because I assume that you would not recommend that the President issue an apology

It only states that:

1. The remarks cannot be defended

2. Apologizing for the remarks is not recommended

An apology is not recommended, but if the remarks were not made, why even consider an apology? A denial should have been an option if Lund felt that Bush never made the statement in the first place.

The document shows that Lund investigated the remarks because he determined they could not be defended. He could not have made this determination without knowing what was said. He also believed the remarks were bad enough that an apology was being considered as a solution to the problem.

Finally, I see no words of denial in Lund's writing. Could someone point out his denial to me?

The key word you missed or ignored is allegedly.

[thaiboxerken]

All Lund had to say was "President Bush never made the statements." Instead, he lpays a wordgame and then defends the "alleged" statement. This assumes, of course, that Bush didn't make the statement or did make the statement but are sure there is no evidence of it. It seems to me some hedging was happening on part of the White House.

[Grammatron]

All Lund had to say was "President Bush never made the statements." Instead, he lpays a wordgame and then defends the "alleged" statement. This assumes, of course, that Bush didn't make the statement or did make the statement but are sure there is no evidence of it. It seems to me some hedging was happening on part of the White House.

Possible.

However, you are assuming one scenario with only evidence being Sherman's words. And lack of any denial from Bush is not evidence enough.

It seems the White House did not know if Bush made the statements or not so they used words like "alleged."

No matter how we try to disect it there is no further evidence Bush made that statement in the papers Sherman posted.

[thaiboxerken]

I think it would be easy for people in the White House just to ask the President if he said such a thing. The fact that they defended the statement says alot.

[Grammatron]

I think it would be easy for people in the White House just to ask the President if he said such a thing. The fact that they defended the statement says alot.

It doesn't say a lot.

I want evidence this was said, what Sherman is presenting to us is "Hey, they don't explicitly deny this, so I am right!" That's not good enough.

[thaiboxerken]

The documents ARE evidence, you just don't like it.

[Grammatron]

The documents ARE evidence, you just don't like it.

No, I said they are not good enough for conclusion on the subject.

[thaiboxerken]

In your opinion, that is the case.

[hgc]

Looks to me like we'll never get closer to the truth on this unless a) audio or audio/video evidence emerges or b) another journalist present produces contemporaneous notes corroborating the statement.

So that leaves us with few factors ...

1) You can believe in or not, to whatever degree, Sherman's veracity and accuracy.

2) You can believe or not, to whatever degree, GWHB's propensity to apply a religious test to citizenship and patriotism.

I don't think that the documents shed much light on the debate. I would bet that all involved on Bush's side didn't even know if he said it or not while strategizing what to do in response to the inquiry, and didn't care. They're just doing a PR job, with the usual regard to truth in such endeavors.

[Upchurch]

In your opinion, that is the case.
Mine, too.

What, in your opinion, do you think makes a definitive case that the conversation actually took place as reported?

[Jocko]

2) You can believe or not, to whatever degree, GWHB's propensity to apply a religious test to citizenship and patriotism.


While I, too, don't have any reason to doubt such a remark being made, I think the fact that Bush 41 was president for four years without establishing so much as a single athiest extermination camp says a lot, as well.

A remark is one thing. A "propensity to apply a religious test to citizenship and patriotism" is quite another... if there was any such propensity, surely a concrete example could be found? A policy mention? A memo? An copy of the exploratory committee's minutes? Anything?

So Bush and athiests don't like each other. It's not like that's anyone's biggest beef with him anyway. ;)

[Jocko]

The documents ARE evidence, you just don't like it.

I agree. They are evidence. They support a hypothesis.

However, they're not conclusive evidence; they're not proof.

The good news is, I don't think much of anyone is going to doubt that such a thing certainly could have been said, proven or not.

[hgc]

While I, too, don't have any reason to doubt such a remark being made, I think the fact that Bush 41 was president for four years without establishing so much as a single athiest extermination camp says a lot, as well.

A remark is one thing. A "propensity to apply a religious test to citizenship and patriotism" is quite another... if there was any such propensity, surely a concrete example could be found? A policy mention? A memo? An copy of the exploratory committee's minutes? Anything?

So Bush and athiests don't like each other. It's not like that's anyone's biggest beef with him anyway. ;)Well, I guess we know where you stand on Bush's propensity, but a belief in it doesn't depend on such extreme measures as extermination camps and concrete policies. It could just be not well thought out notions arising from a lot of religious people's attitudes towards atheists -- no moral grounding and the such. This is why I stated above that if he said it, then it was probably because he was caught off-guard by the question and let his true silliness fly. That's the prepensity toward religious tests I refer to -- his private opinion, not his governing policy.

[roger]

Here's an interesting interview with his son, where he seems to allude to the quote: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050111-101004-3771r.htm

"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person," Mr. Bush said. "I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is.
Who can tell what his "just the way it is" means? That he thinks you are not patriotic, or that he never would never say or act like that?

And yes, I recognize this is the son, not the father, and doesn't directly bear on the issue of Sherman. Just found it interesting.

[roger]

Here's some stuff in the Washington Monthly where they try to verify the quote: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008488.php

Upshot: a couple of reporters have tried to verify it and failed. By Sherman's own account, only he and Bush heard the conversation.

And as we see in the faxes, Bush and his office have never responded to Sherman, and explicitly state that it is not in their interests to do so. Surmise what you will from that, we have no solid evidence besides Sherman's original claim.

[Grammatron]

Upshot: a couple of reporters have tried to verify it and failed. By Sherman's own account, only he and Bush heard the conversation.

First I hear of this, where did you get that info from?

[roger]

Sorry to spam the thread like this, but here's another interview with shrub:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060507-2.html

The President's job is never to promote a religion. The great thing about America -- and Germany, for that matter -- is that you should be able to worship freely. I like to tell people, you're equally American whether you're a Jew, Muslim, Christian, or Atheist -- you're equally all Americans -- and that if we ever lose that, we begin to look like the Taliban

Kind of interesting. I'd guess he's clearly aware of the Bush quote, and trying to make a different message.

[roger]

First I hear of this, where did you get that info from?I provided the link. The Washington Monthly.

edit: Oh, if it's not clear, I meant Kevin Drum and Andrew Sabl were the reporters who looked into it.

[Grammatron]

I provided the link. The Washington Monthly.

I think you misread it:

I've now exchanged several emails with Sherman, who says he didn't tape this exchange, which happened during a media scrum at O'Hare airport in Chicago. However, he also confirms that no one else reported Bush's remarks. It's just him.

Not quite the same as no one else heard it but him and Bush.

[Elind]

The guys here can't believe the father of their hero would admit to the agenda in such a baldfaced fashion.

:confused: Which guys is that?

[ImaginalDisc]

How dare I ask for evidence?

*snip*

I have not yet read the PDFs. . .

If you want evidence, read.

[BPSCG]

If you want evidence, read.Okay, done.

Now, where do we find proof?

[ImaginalDisc]

Okay, done.

Now, where do we find proof?

I wasn't trying to involved in this fiasco, I was pointing out the absurdity of demanding evidence, and then refusing to read something.

[thaiboxerken]

Now, where do we find proof?

In the field of mathematics.

[fishbob]

Okay, done.

Now, where do we find proof?
It is right there on the label, right on the front of the bottle.

[Elind]

:cool:

[Grammatron]

If you want evidence, read.

I am dissapointed you missed the entire context of that post.

[ImaginalDisc]

I am dissapointed you missed the entire context of that post.

You mean the context in which you rushed to reply to other people's posts before reading pertinent information? Their posts ain't goin' anywhere. T'ain't no rush.

[roger]

I think you misread it:



Not quite the same as no one else heard it but him and Bush.My apologies - I totally missed the point of your question. I didn't mean to give you a nonreactive answer.

Anyway, I drew my conclusion from this part:UPDATE: Andrew Sabl emails to say that he tried to fact check this quote a year ago and was unable to verify it. Apparently nobody but Sherman heard Bush say this, and although Sherman says he has a tape of conversation he's never released it. (my emphasis added).


Looking at it again, "apparently", etc., perhaps this is just a conclusion that the reporter drew from available facts, given that no independent corrobaration could be found. Good catch!

[BPSCG]

I wasn't trying to involved in this fiasco,You already are involved. This is a tar baby... :D

[ImaginalDisc]

You already are involved. This is a tar baby... :D

In that case, please don't throw me into that there briar patch.

[hgc]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/54344770ee45827f.jpg

[Crossbow]

Bush, Sr has not made any real effort to conceal his hatred and distrust of atheists.

Bush, Jr on the other hand, has been very careful to show how much he loves god without mentioning any particular sect (atheists or otherwise). This is about typical of what he has done by not doing what his father did except for being a Republican President.

[Grammatron]

You mean the context in which you rushed to reply to other people's posts before reading pertinent information? Their posts ain't goin' anywhere. T'ain't no rush.

This topic originated in a different thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57100&page=3)where I questioned the validity of this. Hence my response to the two posters prior to the reading of Sherman's website.

[ImaginalDisc]

This topic originated in a different thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57100&page=3)where I questioned the validity of this. Hence my response to the two posters prior to the reading of Sherman's website.

And you didn't make that clear here:
How dare I ask for evidence? Why if Bush -- either one -- is involved it should be assumed by default that the worst possible scenario is true! And we, as skeptics, should know!

You people are pathetic.

I have not yet read the PDFs, but I will now just wanted to respond to yours and jj's posts which were certainly aimed at me.

If you meant to make a snarky comment involving a disagreement you're having with other posters in another thread, at least put a link to that other thread.

Does every thread in Politics need to involve baggage and bicking from previous threads?

Forget I asked.

[Grammatron]

And you didn't make that clear here:

I am sure it was clear to them, but I clarified it now.


If you meant to make a snarky comment involving a disagreement you're having with other posters in another thread, at least put a link to that other thread.

Does every thread in Politics need to involve baggage and bicking from previous threads?

Forget I asked.

It might be childish but "they said it first" and I am so tired of reverse idiocy on this forum. If I question something involving Bush and I don't oppose Bush I am somehow automaticly ignorant.

[roger]

It might be childish but "they said it first" and I am so tired of reverse idiocy on this forum. If I question something involving Bush and I don't oppose Bush I am somehow automaticly ignorant.FWIW, I loathe Bush, and the childish part of me would LOVE for this comment to be true, but I also don't see any evidence beyond Shermer's word. I want to be partisan in this instance, but I just can't! :D

[BPSCG]

FWIW, I loathe Bush, and the childish part of me would LOVE for this comment to be true, but I also don't see any evidence beyond Shermer's word. I want to be partisan in this instance, but I just can't! :DIf it maakes you feel any better, my inclination would be about 60-40 to believe he said it, casually, perhaps without thinking too hard about what he was saying. We all say stupid things from time to time.

But when I hear that Sherman claims to have taped the interview but refuses to release the tape, I go to 40-60 the other way.

IOW, I'm not convinced either way, and I don't see how anyone possibly can be.

[Grammatron]

If it maakes you feel any better, my inclination would be about 60-40 to believe he said it, casually, perhaps without thinking too hard about what he was saying. We all say stupid things from time to time.

But when I hear that Sherman claims to have taped the interview but refuses to release the tape, I go to 40-60 the other way.

Actually he claims he does not have a tape. Still, all those other reporters around, you'd think there be a tape somewhere of some kind, yet...

IOW, I'm not convinced either way, and I don't see how anyone possibly can be.
Indeed.

[BPSCG]

Actually he claims he does not have a tape. Conflicts with this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663640#post1663640).

[roger]

Conflicts with this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663640#post1663640).yes, it does conflict, but when you click on "more here" you get:

Quick note. A few days ago (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008488.php) I quoted George Bush Sr.'s 1987 statement to Rob Sherman that "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." I also noted that Sherman had refused to release a tape of the statement and no one else had ever verified it. I've now exchanged several emails with Sherman, who says he didn't tape this exchange, which happened during a media scrum at O'Hare airport in Chicago. However, he also confirms that no one else reported Bush's remarks. It's just him.

The reporter got the tape issue wrong. Which doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the rest of the story, but we all get things wrong now and again. But still...