I’m so confused, I don’t know which side to root for…
Ok, I screwed up something because two links went to the same place, and the first link seems not to work at all.
Here’s the Virginia Pilot link.
Here’s the Google search results link.
Who the hell denied Bush said it? I certainly didn’t.
Oh, the lipstick on the windowshield happened in Fast Times at Richmont High. At least it did in the book – I don’t know if it was in the movie.
I must say, i’m pretty underhwelmed by the evidence here.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette piece is from 2002, and is only 109 words long. I found it on Lexis/Nexis, and it is a Letter to the Editor. All he does is repeat the assertion about Bush Senior’s comment. It provides no compelling first-hand evidence that the comment was ever made.
While the Virginian-Pilot is indexed on Lexis/Nexis, the coverage is only from 1994 onward, so i can’t get the full version of that 1991 article. Still, look at how the article starts, from the snippet in the link you provided:
So, some reader wrote about a conference that allegedly took place 4 years earlier, at which some other guy had an exchange with Bush about atheism. It’s not even clear from this whether reader D. Michael Walter was claiming to have been at this conference, or whether he was simply reporting it from second-hand information.
The link provided by Gyrate, above, claims that Bush’s comment occurred at a “formal outdoor news conference” in Chicago, during Bush’s campaign for the Presidency. Bush was Vice President at the time.
I don’t think of myself as someone who is particularly naive about the media. I have read a number of books about media monopolies, about bias in the media, and about the political economy of interests that sometimes determines things like story selection and the way that information is presented. I recognize that the media is, in many ways, a political entity that reflects certain political biases and predispositions.
Still, i find it hard to believe that a Vice President, speaking at a “formal outdoor news conference” during a campaign for the Presidential nomination, in one of America’s largest cities, could explicitly state a belief that atheists should not be considered as citizens without this making news at the time.
And yet, in a comprehensive search of Lexis/Nexis and ProQuest, i have no evidence of any such statement that can be sourced to the time period in which it allegedly occurred. The first first mention occurs in 1991, and appears to be nothing but an unsubstantiated recollection, or a recounting of a second-hand story.
If someone can provide me with compelling evidence that this actually happened, i’ll be the first to say i was wrong. As an atheist, i would take a certain amount of satisfaction from such an explicit admission that atheists are considered less important by many Americans; i believe this to be the case, demonstrated by the surveys referenced above about American attitudes to atheists. Until i see better evidence than i have seen so far, however, i’m placing Bush’s alleged statement firmly in my Urban Legend file.
That’s two delusions you’re operating under.
QED
mhendo, if you’re really that interested in the veracity of the Bush quote, perhaps you’ll find the account on Rob Sherman’s own site informative:
If you scroll down you’ll find a link to a PDF file from the Bush Presidential Library covering all the correspondence he and others had with the WH over this issue. In them, you’ll find that Bush’s counselor never denies him making the statement – which in in turn, Sherman (and others) consider a tacit concession that indeed, that’s what he said.
Obviously YMMV.
Sez you.
Was it Mitchell, perchance?
THAT’S the one! Only according to wiki, it’s “bastard”.
In FTARH, Linda spray paints it onto Damone’s car, (Afterwards, they call it the “Prickmobile”). She also scribbles it in marker on his locker.
Thanks!
Nah, what you should do is have sex with him in some hotel room and during the act, make him admit that issues indeed have subtleties and then leave before he wakes up, after writing in lipstick on the bathroom mirror “WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF SHADES of gray.”
I went a long way for that joke. Airport security checked my shoes twice.
Better that than other things. Well, unless you’re into that.
I don’t know how YOU treat delusional evil people who hate you, but… 
You make it sound like i’m being unreasonable or something.
Why wouldn’t i be “that interested” in the veracity of the quote? I mean, it’s a pretty big deal for a guy who was Vice President for 8 years, and President for 4, to say that he thinks a substantial minority of the American population doesn’t even deserve the rights of citizenship.
And because it’s such an inflammatory statement, i think that claims about it need to be scrutinized before simply being accepted at face value.
Well, i’ve looked at the site, and plowed through that PDF.
The site itself tells us basically nothing. The author makes assertions about the conversation, and offers his own credibility as a journalist as support for this. I’ve never heard of the guy before. He might be the most honest guy in the world; he might be a complete charlatan, but i’m not simply going to take his word about this without independent evidence or corroboration.
He offers a rationale for why all the other media outlets and representatives at the conference might have ignored the comment, arguing that they had other big stories already about Bush’s visit, and that TV and radio crews wouldn’t have any audio or video record other than what they used in their broadcasts. While i can’t disprove any of his assertions here, i am frankly a little dubious that a whole bunch of journalists could hear a statement like the one Bush allegedly made without at least a couple of them making a note of it and bringing it up in their stories.
As for the PDF, it does show us something.
It shows an earlier provenance for allegations about the Bush comments than we had previously, and the White House response to the issue suggests some duplicity or weaseling, at least.
There is evidence that Jon Murray, President of American Atheists, wrote to the White House on December 19, 1988 asking about the alleged incident in Chicago. Note that this is over one year after the incident is said to have occurred, and we still have nothing earlier than this talking about the incident.
I certainly agree that the response to Murray’s letter by the President’s Counsel was weaselly in the extreme. If Bush never made such a remark, the guy probably should have said so; instead, he never denied that Bush made the remark, and simply went on to assert that Bush “neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily supported by the government.”
Murray sees this as “a clear admission” that Bush “had indeed made the remarks.” Well, not really, IMO.
Look, i can believe that this is something that George H.W. Bush might say. Despite his reputation for being orders of magnitude smarter and less prone to stupid comments than George Jr., the fact is that Bush the Elder made some pretty fucking dopey remarks during his career as a businessman, head of the CIA, Vice President, and President. I still remember Spy Magazine’s awesome 1992 issue “1,000 Reasons Not to Vote for George Bush.” It had a lot of classic dopey comments. His alleged comment about atheists seems to fit right in with some of his other dunderheaded remarks.
But i still think that we have nowhere near enough evidence to really know whether or not this exchange ever took place.
It goes both ways. Name calling never solved anything,but does bring about hostility. I thought Christians were supposed to love their enimies,doesn’t sound too Christian to call people a–h—'s etc. because people disagree with their beliefs. Aren’t they supposed to be loving and kind. Didn’t Jesus say what defiles a man comes from his mouth, not what is put into it?
In the interests of full disclosure, I’m an agnostic. I’m perfectly happy admitting there’s no scientific evidence for a higher power, but that’s not really relevant because religion isn’t goddamned science, no matter what Fundies and Creationistas vomit out through their maliciousness and ignorance.
The existence of God or whatever is, in the end, more or less unverifiable. I’m perfectly happy knowing that I’ll never know for sure one way or the other. As I said, I’m an agnostic, but I’m fairly certain there’s no higher purpose to the Universe, although I have to say I’d like to believe there is, because that’s a comforting idea on a certain level. The fact that I understand why people find faith in a higher power comforting is why I find the “lol sky fairy” line of argument so damn aggravating. It’s a moth-eaten caricature of an extremely broad concept that has, for better or for worse, always been part of human society.
I have to say that I’m not entirely trusting of atheists, despite defending them here.
True, the average atheist is vastly more likely to be a rational and tolerant individual than the average devout person. Still, there’s that slight air of fanaticism that surrounds atheism. I’m more comfortable around fellow agnostics and nominally religious folk who’ve backslid and are no longer observant. It’s nice knowing there are others who lazily, happily don’t give a crap.
Goddamn wishy-washy agnostics.
Really. And are you mistrustful about people who insist there’s no such things as fairies? How about people who flatly deny the reality of Zeus? Or people who call Scientology a fraud? Do they have a “tinge of fanaticism”?
Why is taking the reasonable, rational position “tinged with fanaticism”? But only when it comes to politically powerful, popular religions.
This is another mindset I find troubling. This kind of anti intellectualism that was really strong during the 2000 presidential election.
People were constantly saying they wanted a president they can “have a beer with”.
Not me, I want someone who uses their intellect, examines issues and is willing to have his/her mind changed if the evidence is compelling. We need less ideological Bubba’s and more "egghead intellectuals’.
Not if there’s a Taser handy.
Now you’re talking shit about the Big Guy. Expect thunderbolts, or maybe to live forever as an increasingly decrepit and petulant old man.
One thing about the ancient Greeks, they had great examples of gods who screw up.
Your broad brush is really out of whack today.
Besides, you quoted my out of context.
Thunderbolts for you too.
So, what is the fanatical atheist’s preferred method of dealing with those that don’t ‘believe’ as they do?
Burning at the stake? No, that’s a Christian thing.
Stoning? Nope, that’s Islam and Judaism.
Cutting off arms, legs, heads? Well, pretty much all of them.
Making believers (and the wishy washy) uncomfortable on bulletin boards? Yep, there it is.
Being a pain in the ass.