If that was as far as fanatical religionists went, there wouldn’t be a problem.
Kind of interesting just how low the standards are for “fanaticism” for atheism.
Oops, I’ll see if my coffee is ready.
It does go both ways, and I said earlier to (I think) Bryan Ekers, I’ll work on that.
Sorry it came off that way as that wasn’t my intention. I was simply providing a link to the only official records that exists on the issue. On a personal note, I am simply not vested in the truthfulness of the quote simply because there are myriad of others that can be easily sourced to any number of prominent American public figures. Besides, as you note in your analysis of the exchange, it is not hard to gage that Bush Sr. had a chip on his shoulder vis-a-vis atheism. As per the President’s Council:
How is that remotely relevant to what was asked of him (a retraction)? You say it’s weaseling – which it is – but I also interpret it as a further dig at atheism. I mean what is is this “unnecessary support” he speaks of when it is a simple matter of equality?
Anyway, I agree with your conclusion that the comments themselves are really not verifiable, so they shouldn’t be brought up as fact in debate. But as I said, there are plenty of others that are.
And on and on and on. So I don’t think it is a spurious claim to say that there are quite a number of American public figures that have some very wacky ideas based on a mixture of mythology and ideology. Precisely what your Constitution supposedly protects against.
Do you have a real, first-hand cite for this?
Since we know that the MSM is not to be trusted when they report what other people say about George Bush…
Regards,
Shodan
Pfffft. Man, you are really out to lunch.
Again, you keep defending DT with his viewpoints, which I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH. Many other posters here have the same viewpoints, but are more sincere and convincing when taking a steady and logical path on expressing their views WITHOUT spewing the vinegary rhetoric that DT is well known for. I expressed here earlier that DT’s hate will not serve him well and compared him to some religious leaders who DO THE SAME EXACT THING with their broad-brushing drivel. Guess what? Those clowns also fail in convincing me because of their lack of sincerity and their vinegary rhetoric, hence lack of respect. I find it just as hateful when religious leaders (and there are quite a few of them) who feel that their hatred is justified in their faith which I find even more repulsive. DT is right there among them except he his anger is justified in his absence of faith, hence the comparison.
Again, FTR…taken from the OP itself…
…is EXACTLY what I am talking about and completely concur with. Stop confusing DT’s message with DT’s hate.
A liar? A really, really bad liar? No.
It does make you a person who can’t comprehend…a really, really bad comprehender.
RegardsShodan,
First hand testimony good enough for you?
MEET THE PRESS Transcript for Nov. 28
Now, apologist such as yourself and Dr Land can play with the context all you’d like and come to all sorts of justifications – just like you do with your Holy Book. But turning into a pretzel won’t change the fact that indeed, that’s what he thought; that he had a direct line to your/his personal God and could interpret his wishes. Period.
Of course, that’s not wacky at all in your world.
Whatever,
~Red
What if I can prove the existance of the Antichrist? Charismatic, goodlooking, charming, etc. But don’t let her looks fool you – she is pure evil!!!
ETA: [sub]Yeticus Rex, may I kiss you?[/sub]
I felt that way about Richard Nixon.
(fixed your link)
Now, I’ll give that this one is harder to pin down, but Haaretz does attribute the quote to W as per Mahmoud Abbas’ account of the meeting:
Might not be usable for strict debate as per mhendo’s conclusion of George Sr’s attribution, but really, is it that hard to believe that comes from a guy that from the start called for a Crusade (this one is not just verifiable, but searchable on this very Board, where I and many others pointed out what a colossal fuck-up that had been) against the “evildoers”? It “only” cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives what with dittoheads such as yourself behind him all the way.
Apologize away.
Good shot, but mine is even named Luci = Lucifer!!! Think about it!!!
FTR, the provenance of the 1989 Bush Sr. quote is in dispute, though I have argued that the evidence favors it in GQ. (John Mace demurred.)
Der. I haven’t been in GD for a while, but when I was, I’d say that the great majority of your posts were curt, at best. The more thoughtful ones were striking, for that reason. Others imply that you are more civil in other forums; I’ll take them at their word.
If you don’t see how the great majority of your GD posts are abrasive (and recall that neither atheism nor anti-militarism bends me out of shape) then you might consider a rethink, yes?
This really is misguided. Many theists do viscerally distrust atheists: Bush Sr. gives a good presentation of this position. But it’s not defensive in nature. It’s entirely rational: atheists don’t struggle under the burden of divine punishment so it follows that they would be less moral than theists. This argument is particularly persuasive for those whose moral framework is entirely grounded upon the presumption of an afterlife run by a Magistrate.
Empirical evidence for this contention is lacking, and I don’t share those conclusions. But I contend that this perspective underlies Bush Sr.'s 1989 remarks more than blind hatred, for the latter conflicts with the US’s ecumenical tradition.
Incidentally, Bush Jr. has made bland tolerant remarks regarding atheists, and the web has given them a wider platform besides. The nonbeliever Karl Rove served as #3 in Bush admin for a while without penalty. So this evidence is somewhat dated.
It does however, exemplify Der’s tendency to overstate matters. This isn’t just a dig, since I’m talking about a recurring pattern.
Er no.
He was an advisor, never a cabinet member. And I don’t think we have any sort of ranking about order of “in an admin” in the US - if anything, Speaker of the House is the #3 ranking official by virtue of being 2nd in line of succession.
Just FYI.
Plenty of message boards in China and the Soviet Union …
And if China and the Soviet Union (now Russia, btw) were founded on atheism rather than communism (their religion) you’d have the beginnings of an argument. Otherwise, not so much.
If he had a direct line to the truth then why did he say that if he lost he’d accept it? As statements from believers go, this wasn’t much to get upset over. It isn’t any different than stating, “I believe that god has a plan for me, and this is what I think it is, but if it isn’t then I’ll do my best to carry on”.
De jure, you might have a point. De facto, Karl Rove had far more influence over the Bush administration’s domestic policy than any departmental head or member of congress. (I’ll backpeddle a bit by excluding foreign policy from consideration, where Rove’s interest was tangential.)
For those interested:
2003 thread: Did Bush Sr. once state that Athiests should not be considered patriots nor citizens?
2005 three page thread in GQ… with near train wreck! George H W Bush and atheists.
(my bolding)
So, you’re down to a “no true Scotsman” argument.
Atheistic societies, that were both openly atheistic and brutally anti-religious are not ahteistic because they make modern atheists uncomfortable. “Communism was their religion” is as valid as “Atheism is a religion”
Actually, this is second hand - the media is reporting that someone told them that Bush said it five years after the fact.
I was hoping for a real cite - got one?
Regards,
Shodan