posted
Of course atheists should be considered citizens. I am a little shocked that a modern sitting vice-president would say anything so outrageous and utterly inconsistent with America's long history of freedom of religion. "Patriots" is a more subjective term but still it's very unsettling in this context. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't think a presidential candidate would go out of his way to unnecessarily alienate voters like that.
Of course, if you can provide additional links from less biased sources, I do think this is important news worthy of discussion, regardless of how old it is.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that in order to gain CITIZEN status, one should be required to serve in the military, like in that flashy movie STARSHIP TROOPERS. Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if that happens, then we might be stuck with Doogie Howser as the leader of our military. Nobody wants that. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I saw a lot of the same things in the movie that I loved in th book...it's just that many people didn't get the obvious (to me, anyway) sarcasm and hipocracy.
For an action flick, I thought it was fairly well done, even if a lot of people only saw the action parts of it.
posted
Actually the issue of military service is central to the quote at hand. "There are no atheists in foxholes" is a phrase many miltary atheists have to contend with throughout their service. If atheists aren't acknowledged in the military, then it's pretty difficult to be considered patriots.
Atheists get dogtags stamped "NP"(no preference) for religion, rather than "atheist," or even "none." The military does a better job of recognizing Satanists and Wiccans than it does recognizing atheists.
[url= http://encarta.msn.com/related_761571000_12.16/United_States_I_don%27t_know_that_atheists.html]MSN reference to quote[/url]
posted
one of the things I found most scary was that it was not jsut Bush sr. that said that, but his entire administration backed him up. I have a lot of respect for the older Bush, even if I dont like his politics. So, this quote is makeing me rethink that... It is really quite insulting quote that goes agenst a lot of the things that the USA is suposed to suport.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Athiests have it tough from the mean "Convert of suffer crowd".
OK.
But is there any proof other than this one web-site, that there A) President Bush Sr. actually said Athiests aren't citizens, and B)There are programs that exclude military atheists?
This is a WEB-SITE people.
Give me more proof than one web-ranters word on teh subject.
This has the smell of Fear Mongering from the left.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
"Chris from Maryland: "I know people who are forced to participate in prayer at work just to keep their jobs. I'm often reminded of a comment made by Bush Sr. during his run for the presidency when a reporter from the American Atheist news journal asked him if he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists. Bush responded, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.' Imagine if he had made that comment about blacks or any other minority.""
Thanks Glenn Arnold (there is more in his link)
Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
(Glen, I ran it through www.tinyurl.com which corrected for the underscores. I think that was the problem.)
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan_raven, just because we are conserend that Bush Sr. said this, and yes there are other sorces that back it up, dosen not mean that 1) we are from "the left" 2) or for that matter an athiest.
Make an attemt to back up from the isue a bit and see it from another angle. It might do you some good.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are no athiests in fox holes" is more of a cynical bit of humor - because imminent death is one helluva way to test your belief in the lack of a Creator and/or Afterlife.
As for Starship Troopers, I actually liked that movie. I have no idea why considering how often I laughed at "90210 meets The Big Red One."
But taking it as a movie interpretation of a comic book, I was willing to accept Rico's hair gel was the same stuff used to armor tanks.
And Dougie wasn't the head of the military - just the head of R&D.
posted
Mr. Head's point is well made - this is old news and permit me to point out this is hardly the most shocking thing any political figure has ever said.
Dan just asked if there were any other sources for this, particularly something more recent.
That's pretty standard around here, to ask for info to back up a claim before everyone goes off half-cocked about a subject.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, my shift ended 2 minutes ago, but I have the entire office to myself and a chance to putz on paperwork since the last idiot gutted the operations system.
And I get to avoid rush hour traffic by waiting, so it's a win-win for me.
Well, you won't be seeing me online in the evenings for a while...Jim's got a new game, and the computer is officially no longer mine once he gets home.
posted
It's called Wizardry 8. I have no idea what the deal is with it, since I'm trying very, very hard to ignore it. Especially since it's taking our ONE working computer away from me in the evening.
Topic? Starship Troopers was a goofy movie, and you know it, Trevor.
Wait, what's that you say? We were talking about atheism? ...oh. Well, never mind, then.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can appreciate the humor in "no atheists in foxholes" if it were were merely a comment off the cuff, but it is used to demean atheists who have served or are serving in the military.
One of the more powerful moments of the "Godless Americans March on Washington" (November 2002) was when atheist veterans were called to come on stage, and they didn't have enough room on the stage to hold them. There were several hundred. One of those onstage had his "atheist" dogtags, which had been made privately, because the military refused to make them.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kyrie, Dan's one of the most liberal hatrackers around here. The first thing I thought when I read the quote was, "I bet it's not true."
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first time I ever came across that quotation was in an Associated Press article two years ago. The article was about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision declaring the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The quotation was not in response to the decision; it was quoted for reference. As far as I have been able to determine, Bush did indeed say that. I have no idea in what context he said it, although I have a hard time coming up with any context that makes it better.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Mr. Head's point is well made - this is old news and permit me to point out this is hardly the most shocking thing any political figure has ever said.
So is Bush and Kerry's service record. And does it have to be THE most shocking, or just shocking enough?
I agree that if a sitting vice president can get away with saying this, and it doesn't get any media attention, there is something very frightening about that. Would you like your citizenship revoked?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As much as I hate to give Rush Limbaugh credit for anything, he made a good point the other day:
He was commenting on scare tactics used by...I think it was MTV in an effort to get young people to vote. The ad suggested the draft could be re-instated in two days and wouldn't you like to vote?
In between swallows of oxycontin, Rush pointed out that this is the Federal Government - they can't do anything in two days.
The notion an elected official has strong opinions is nothing new - and he knows to sit on them if he wants to get re-elected. The Bush in question made the mistake of saying the wrong thing in front of witnesses as to his personal opinion. That's a long, long way from managing to revoke citizenship for people who don't profess to follow a God (or The God, depending on your point of view).
posted
This was at a supposedly public press conference. So far, I can't find a single source that doesn't originate with Robert I. Sherman's report in the American Atheist news journal.
The fact that it's been picked up and quoted across the web, and eventually in an article, doesn't add any credibility.
A single contemporaneous, published report based on firsthand observation would do wonders for this story. Absent that, we have the word of a single person who writes for an issue journal.
posted
Give Dag credit for pointing out the detail we've all overlooked.
How do we know Bush was actually stupid enough to say this at a press conference without an unbiased, third party reporting the information?
I wouldn't doubt he believes it in some dark corner of his soul, but there isn't any verification one way or the other that can be reliably described as "impartial."
posted
No, we also have the American Atheists letter writing campaign to get him to retract the statement. The Bush Administration didn't refute the allegation, only said the president was entitled to his religious opinion.
But given the current attempts to prevent the SC from ruling on the pledge, and GWB's "faith based initiatives," this is just one in a long line of discrimination against the atheist community, and church state separation in general.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The millions of letters to the North Pole each year doesn't make Santa Claus real.
As to the White House response, if that can be verified, I would be willing to consider that proof he voiced sentiments along those lines, but a transcript would be nice.
As to discrimination against atheists...well...yeah.
My Goddess, America is still trying to figure out how not to discriminate against non-Caucasian males. The religious tolerance being extended to not having any religion at all is still a little radical to reach the mainstream quite yet.
posted
Well, sense the question was asked by American Athiest News Journal, they are the ones that were most conserened with the awnser. Other sorces: "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: look about 3/4s the way down the page... http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/20638.html
This even was also reported by the secular humanist magazine "Free Inquiry" Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.
posted
That doesn't really address Dag's point, kyrie. All of your examples seem to come from the same root source: Sherman and the Atheist American News.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But given the current attempts to prevent the SC from ruling on the pledge, and GWB's "faith based initiatives," this is just one in a long line of discrimination against the atheist community, and church state separation in general.
Funny, I had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep from being discriminated against based on the Christian content of my speech. And that was against Virginia, home of Falwell and Robertson.
posted
If I'm not a citizen, do I still have to pay taxes? Are my kids automatically citizens, though, if they're born in this country? Or do they have to be Christians?
Can Jews be citizens (we all know that the Lord doesn't listen to the prayers of Jews)?
If my kids aren't citizens, can they avoid the draft?
Or should we all just get out?
Well, at least we know that Moslems aren't citizens; thank God for that!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, back to the "There are no atheists in foxholes" quote. I don't know about you, but I don't think I would be against a prayer or two in a foxhole if there was a slim to none chance of getting out alive.
On another note. My Grandmother's brother served in world war 2 as an aviation mechanic. There were a few jews onboard. He had per chance overheard a few hail mary's in the wee hours of battle.
Goes to show that a people no matter what will pray for help/redemption whatever it may, no matter religious preference.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That doesn't really address Dag's point, kyrie. All of your examples seem to come from the same root source: Sherman and the Atheist American News.
Ditto. I looked through ten pages of google search results and found no credible news sources reporting this alleged quote attributed to Bush Sr.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
If you had lexis access you could look up the District court decision, which includes my name in the title.
My name is only in there once (Prince). Here's a hint: If you're participating in a potentially landmark case, get your name in first or you'll be forever remembered as "et al."
posted
I'm curious, when you went to the university for funding, did you get (I realize this is a subjective question) the impression that the school didn't want to give you funding, or that they were afraid that they would be violating a law?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The student council committee was probably slightly in favor of funding us, but they were told by the general counsel they would likely be sued. Within Student Council as a whole, there was a significant but small faction that hated the idea of us getting money at all, specifically because we were Christian, and not for separation concerns. There was a larger block of students opposed on separation concerns; some of those opinions were informed, and some of them were no more sophisticated than, "They talk about God, and this is a public University."
Within the administration, there were three major factions opposing us: Those afraid of being sued, those who genuinely thought it was a violation of the First Amendment to fund us, and those who were downright hostile to the message. From what I could see, they were about evenly split.
I'm glad we were denied, because we got to control the legal proceedings as plaintiffs rather than as amicus.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
