posted
In another thread, Rabbit claimed that some atheist organizations have concluded that this event is a myth, and Rabbit herself concludes that it didn't happen.
I asked Rabbit to provide a citation that supports her statement that an atheist organization disputes the authenticity of the quote. She has not responded.
In the past, I had contacted the Bush library, and asked them to either verify that the statement had occurred, or to refute it. They did not oblige me, saying instead that the library would not comment on it.
After Rabbit's statement, I once again looked up the source of the original quote Rob Sherman who provides instructions on how to get copies of documents held by the Bush library in reference to this event. I wrote to the Bush Library, and got copies of several letters, mostly written to the White house asking Bush to confirm or deny the statement. There is only one document FROM the White House, written to Jon G. Murray, president of American Atheists, from C.Boyden Gray, counsel to the president. This letter is widely available on the internet, so the only difference now is that I have proof that the Bush library has records of the claim.
The letter reads (in its entirety):
quote:Dear Mr. Murray: Your letter of December 19, 1988, to President Bush has been referred to me for reply. 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. Needless to say, the President supports the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you may rest assured that this Administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as will as others with whom the President disagrees.
Sincerely, C. Boyden Grey
Note that the letter does not make any attempt to deny that the president made the statement, and indeed confirms that he does not support atheists and disagrees with them. That would tend to support Sherman's allegation that the statement was made.
Rabbit: Like it or not, there is no evidence whatsoever that Bush did not make the statement. The argument that the only source for this quote is Rob Sherman only proves that the allegation is uncorroborated, it does not prove that it didn't happen. To make such an argument is essentially an ad hominem attack against Sherman, impugning his honesty and integrity. There are plenty of events that have only been reported by one person, which are nonetheless accepted as truth by society. The Bible is full of them.
I'm still awaiting a citation from you, if you have one.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that thread the quote is attributed to George W Bush, not George H W Bush. Here you say the quote is George H W Bush. Which is it?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I attributed it to George W Bush. It was a mistake on my part. Apologies. (I was conflating it with a similar statement made by a random person who was not related to the Bushes in the wake of 9/11. The Bush quote was referenced at about the same time so I got them confused).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit: Like it or not, there is no evidence whatsoever that Bush did not make the statement. The argument that the only source for this quote is Rob Sherman only proves that the allegation is uncorroborated, it does not prove that it didn't happen. To make such an argument is essentially an ad hominem attack against Sherman, impugning his honesty and integrity. There are plenty of events that have only been reported by one person, which are nonetheless accepted as truth by society. The Bible is full of them.
Glenn, if this was an intentionally ironic reference to C.S. Lewis's "God or a bad man" argument, that was well done, but IMO, too subtle. If it was unintentional... well the irony is still funny and I hope you don't mind me having a chuckle at your expense.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine, it is in the 4th post down on the 2nd page of the "Church and State" page. The post is by Raymond Arnold.
[edited 1st to read 2nd because when I originally posted I thought the earlier link was to the 1st page but it was actually to the 2nd. Thanks, Teshi, for pointing that out! ]
posted
Um, the "fourth post down" is either made by either Stephen or DSH, depending on when you start counting. Unless you are referring to the second/third post down on the first page.
I think you mean the second page, 4th post:
quote:The relevant interview with George W Bush:
quote:Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists? Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
More to the point, the fact that the president is sworn in on a Bible, the fact that several state constitutions still require a "religious test" for office (even if it's rarely enforced), the fact that our currency (I'd certainly consider a form of mainstream media), and the pledge of allegiance to our country all remind us that being religious is still the official sanctioned norm.
quote:Glenn, if this was an intentionally ironic reference to C.S. Lewis's "God or a bad man" argument, that was well done, but IMO, too subtle. If it was unintentional... well the irony is still funny and I hope you don't mind me having a chuckle at your expense.
Entirely unintentional. In fact, I still don't see the irony. Perhaps you could point it out to me.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I get the specific reference, but I think saying "there's no evidence it DIDN'T happen and these people say it did!" is the sort of bad argument for Christianity that drivers atheists nuts.
In this case, the evidence is significantly more compelling because a) the person making the claim has established credentials, b) the statement being made is not particularly extraordinary, c) the people who might have wanted to refute the claim had the opportunity to do so and chose not to, and instead made statments that lent credence to it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ray's got it. I brought Lewis into it because one of his famous arguments is that Jesus must be who he claimed to be or a liar... which I thought paralleled your statements about Sherman.
I just got a chuckle out of seeing it go the other way-- I didn't have anything tangible to add to the discussion.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether he "did what someone said he did" is an argument that occurs throughout the bible. That irony was my intention, and I'm aware it goes both ways. But it applies just as much to Jesus as it does to Moses, Abraham, or, well... anyone in the bible.
Bringing the "Lord Liar Lunatic" argument into it makes it specific to Jesus, which didn't make any sense to me.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You were giving Sherman a similar benefit of doubt to that which Lewis gives Jesus, I thought, hence my chuckle (which remains whether it was your intent to amuse me or not )
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is, for practical purposes, a rather enormous difference in the amount of "benefit of the doubt" given to Jesus vs Sherman.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we can conclude, probably using Occam's Razor and Modus Tolens, that Sherman is the Second Coming of Christ (or the First, if you're Jewish).
posted
Glenn, I don't have the time or the inclination to relocate my sources. But as I am sure you are aware, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that a presidential candidate and sitting Vice President in the latter half of the 20th century said atheist shouldn't be regarded as citizens is quite extraordinary. The only evidence that this happened is
1. Rob Sherman says it did.
and
2. The letter written by Bush's secretary in response to the accusation.
Lets start with the latter. This letter is a pretty typical politician's response to an unsubstantiated accusation. It neither confirms nor denies the original accusation but side steps the issue. Rather than directly addresses the event, it clearly states that the substance of the accusation (Bush thinks Atheist shouldn't be considered citizens) is without merit while at the same time adding clear language that would prevent anyone from misconstruing the statement as support for atheism. The letter was written by an assistant and knowing how these things work, chances are good Bush never even saw original request or heard about the accusation. This letter does nothing to either refute or support the original claim.
Now lets look at Sherman's claim. There are several reasons to question its credibility. Sherman did not publish this until a year after the event occurred. He was at the time working for American Atheist magazine. I would have expected a much more immediate response to such an inflammatory comment . As Sherman tells the story, the exchange took place at a news conference. Sherman has yet to find anyone at the news conference who will confirm that the exchange took place. Earlier, he gave names of several people who he claimed heard the exchance, they have denied it.
You are right that there is no proof it didn't happen. It might have but there is also startlingly little evidence that it did happen.
As I said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That evidence which Sherman has provided is tissue paper thin at best. Until there is much stronger evidence, it is only reasonable to view this claim with extreme skepticism.
And like I said before, I'm not doing this to defend Bush. I detest the man and would love it if he'd said it. Unfortunately, I'd loose my skeptics credentials if I believed this story.
[ March 05, 2010, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should point out: I don't for a second believe that Bush actually thought that theism was a legal requirement for citizenship. I'm surprised that I've never heard anyone accuse Sherman of "gotcha" journalism, because it's a pretty valid charge. Sherman's question essentially asked Bush to untangle a conflation of meanings between the words "citizen" and "patriot." I'm sure what Bush meant by his response what that atheists could not be considered "Good citizens" as opposed to being legal citizens of the United States.
quote:But as I am sure you are aware, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If this was an extraordinary claim, I would agree with you. But "what a president said when asked a question" is hardly extraordinary. The statement is indicative of a prevailing attitude conflating "God and Country," which allowed congress to add a patently unconstitutional clause into the pledge of allegiance with impunity, and which is a major underlying argument used by people who claim that "America was founded on Christian principles."
Also at work here is the fact that 1987 was before the internet allowed for the social vocality that atheists currently enjoy. You may not have noticed the change, but it's pretty astonishing to me that Obama dispensed with "Americans of all faiths" rhetoric and actually mentions non-believers. That's a huge change. In 1987 I still kept my atheism to myself, for fear of being beaten up.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also at work here is the fact that 1987 was before the internet allowed for the social vocality that atheists currently enjoy. You may not have noticed the change, but it's pretty astonishing to me that Obama dispensed with "Americans of all faiths" rhetoric and actually mentions non-believers. That's a huge change. In 1987 I still kept my atheism to myself, for fear of being beaten up.
Where in the US do you live? Somewhere the the bible belt perhaps? I had at least a dozen outspoken atheist friends in the 80s and none of them were beaten up or had any particular difficulties. In the parts of the country where I've lived, I think there was significantly more religious and non-religious tolerance in the 80s than there was under Bush II.
I believe you felt uncomfortable, but I am not aware that hate crimes against atheists have ever been all that common.
Its fairly evident that you don't find this an extraordinary claim. But that's an emotional response not a logical one. Find me any verified statement from a public figure in the 80s saying atheist shouldn't be citizens. Look at the facts. There is absolutely nothing in the documents from the Bush library that supports Sherman's claim.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to thrown in my two cents, I also live in New York State (and have my entire life), and have never even come close to being beaten up for voicing my atheism.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Find me any verified statement from a public figure in the 80s saying atheist shouldn't be citizens. Look at the facts.
Re-read my first paragraph. Then re-read my second paragraph. The idea that atheists can't be "good citizens" is a prevailing attitude that still exists today.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
IOW, in 1987 you were one. Might have something to do with Glenn's experiences of that era being different.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Find me any verified statement from a public figure in the 80s saying atheist shouldn't be citizens. Look at the facts.
Re-read my first paragraph. Then re-read my second paragraph. The idea that atheists can't be "good citizens" is a prevailing attitude that still exists today.
Not the same thing at all. i haven't claimed that there aren't plenty of people who are biased against atheists. Some people distrust and dislike anyone who is different. There are people who are prejudiced against Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaism and pretty much any "ism" you can come up with. I'm sure atheists have more than there share of haters. During the height of the cold war in the 1950s, there was a lot of emphasis on the fact that communists were atheists. That's was the climate in which the "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance. I'm pretty sure there are still a lot of people who think being Christian is essential to being a Patriot. That was never my argument.
But there is a mile of difference between all that and a sitting VP and major Presidential candidate saying Atheists shouldn't be consider citizens. That is what Sherman is claiming and its simply too far fetched to be believed based on his word alone.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is far fetched to assume that a president a) had an opinion that was the same as the prevailing opinion at the time, and b) was willing to say that opinion in an interview? How is that far fetched at all? If it's the prevailing opinion he'd have little reason to censor himself.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But there is a mile of difference between all that and a sitting VP and major Presidential candidate saying Atheists shouldn't be consider citizens.
You're missing my point. The word "citizen" has a legal meaning, and a connotative meaning. Bush was responding to a question he hadn't anticipated, which conflated "citizen" with "patriot." It's perfectly reasonable to think that he might have used the word "citizen" to mean "a person who makes a positive difference in society" rather than a "person who is a legal member of society."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, I'm very sorry to hear you were beaten up for being an atheist. That's simply horrible.
I'm sure my perspective on this is skewed by the fact that I've spent most of the past 30 years on college campuses. But I've also lived in some pretty nedneck states (Utah and Montana) and haven't ever observed the kind of wide spread hostility towards atheists you describe. I believe it exists, I'm just don't think it was any worse in 80s.
I think the culture war, in general (and this is definitely one aspect of that war) has heated up significantly in recent years. If you look a little deeper, you'd see that the same group that believes that atheists can't be true patriots, believes that liberals in general (on even one issue) can't possibly be patriots. I've been called a traitor (straight out to my face) by people in elected office. At least a dozen of my friends have been assulted for riding road bicycles, which based on comments of the attackers is a liberal unpatriotic thing to do and far more visible than being an Atheist. Atheists are not alone on this one.
We are living outside the US right now in part because we've been called unamerican by so very many people, so I sympathize thoroughly with your offense on this issue.
Still, I think the evidence does not support Sherman's claim and find it a bit ironic that people who are so zealous in support of knowledge and reason accept and spread Sherman's claim as factual because it fits their personal biases on the subject.
[ March 06, 2010, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Still, I think the evidence does not support Sherman's claim"
Well, it doesn't not support it either.
So? There is no such thing as evidence for the non-existence of something. As I've been told many times by Atheists, in the absence of reliable evidence that something does exist, it is most reasonable to presume it does not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Alone is an intriguing word. In essence, I was beaten up more for being alone than for being an atheist. It was a pretty amazing lesson in mob mentality. What happened was that I said something like "No one believes in God anymore."
My reasons for making the statement are somewhat complex. Some of my motivation came from the fact that I had read several articles during the '70s on "empty pew syndrome" which said that society was becoming less religious. In retrospect, I don't think any of these articles said anything about people "not believing in God." In fact, I had never even heard the word "atheist" when I made the statement. But in addition to the articles, I was also at an age where children had stopped believing in Santa and the Easter bunny, etc. When I had been younger I had watched as certain "big kids" confronted younger kids (say 3rd graders confronting 1st or 2nd graders) asking them if they still believed in Santa, and then ridiculing them if they said yes. To me, this issue had been settled years before; there was nothing further to prove. We were old enough that Santa was an in-joke. Asking "what did you get from Santa Claus?" came with a twinkle in the eye. No one actually believed in him anymore, but knowing the truth was part of growing up. And to me, belief in God was part and parcel of the same thing.
So when I said "No one believes in God anymore," I wasn't being arrogant, I was just being naive. I thought God was a fiction that adults continued in front of their kids. But the kid I said it to DID believe, and he told me so. Then he went around bringing other kids to me, saying "Tell him. Tell him you believe in God." After about three kids I admitted that I was wrong, but it didn't help. I couldn't backpedal fast enough, he was on a mission, and two other kids started helping him, bringing other kids over until they reached a point where they suddenly realized that they had asked EVERY kid on the playground, and they all believed in God. Except me. Up until that moment there hadn't been any sense that this was going to become violent. It was more like there was a moment when these three kids ran out of people to ask, and at the same time, realized that I was utterly alone, and no one would come to my defense. So what else do you do in a case like that? You beat the kid up. One of them pulled my arms backward through the monkey bars, while the other two started throwing punches.
quote:Sorry, I just jumped in and didn't realize the discussion was specifically about the 1980s.
The Bush event happened (or didn't happen) in 1987. I was beat up in the 70's, but as far as I could tell, there had been no significant change in the public acceptance of atheism in the intervening years, so I still kept it to myself unless I had real confidence that the person I was talking to wouldn't react badly. There had been, as has been mentioned, the rise of the Christian Right in the 1980's, but that wasn't in opposition to atheism per se. Atheism simply wasn't an issue that was worth talking about, but when it was, claims of "godless communism" or "no atheists in foxholes" were met with silence or assumed approval. If Bush had been accused of making a similar statement about black people or Jews, even if it turned out it wasn't true, it still would have made the paper. But Sherman's accusation was completely ignored.
I hadn't heard of the Bush quote until ~1997, when I started to notice that atheists were making a case for our acceptance. In fact, I hadn't even heard of Madalyn Murray O'Hair until then, and I wondered how I could have failed to notice "the most famous atheist in America" for so long. The media simply hadn't been interested in covering her, and when it finally did, it wasn't because of what she'd done, but because it assumed that she had absconded with the missing money (which was hers). She was even blamed for her own disappearance, since it was safe to assume that an atheist would "stoop to something like that."
And that, essentially, is the crux of the argument against Sherman. He's an atheist, and therefore, he's just "uppity," not worthy of any sort of respect. So without any evidence, it's easy to just dismiss his account, sew seeds of doubt, and allow them to grow. The last time I had this argument with Dagonee, but it started with Dag's insistence that an atheist who had been murdered because he didn't believe in God couldn't have happened, because all news reports of the event had been traced back to a single newspaper, in the town where the murder happened. Once again, it was easy to sweep away, because the mainstream media didn't think it was newsworthy enough to send reporters and write the story themselves. So you wonder why I don't think Bush thought twice about making a statement that dismisses atheists capability to be citizens or patriots? He had nothing to lose. Because nobody cared.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
]
