# George H W Bush and atheists **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 24, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233 "2005-09-24T17:50:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/41 "2005-09-27T08:01:30Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Knock yourself out. If you can prove something, I might steal your idea and publish an expose of GHWB in the NYT. I smell a Pulitzer!! Does anyone else??? Um, no. The alleged remarks by GHWB seem rather pedestrian to me. Let’s go over the facts. An (allegedly) fully accredited reporter has an (alleged) exchange with the Vice President on August 27 1987. In an airport. This is over a year before the 1988 election, when it wasn’t even clear who the Repubs would nominate. Somehow, I am less than shocked that the NYT, WAPO, WSJ etc didn’t assign their crack reporters to the story. The story is (allegedly) reported in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It is also mentioned by the Secular Humanist organ, “Free Inquiry” magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16. Atheists complain. Some write letters. The following is asserted: =\> C. Boyden Gray, counsel to the president, (allegedly) replies on White House stationery on February 21, 1989: stating that substantively Bush stood by his original statement: “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.” =\> White House employee Nelson Lund writes to the American Atheist General Headquarters, Inc. on April 7, 1989, which reportedly states that Mr. Gray was adhering to his statements in the February 21, 1989, letter. =\> On February 5, 1990, Mr. Nelson Lund replied again on White House stationery–stating, “We believe that our position has been adequately explained in previous correspondence.” =\> UPI reports on the irritated atheists on May 8, 1989. **The point** : The charges here and the paper trail are rather specific and therefore falsifiable. I conclude that either we are dealing with a rather elaborate fabrication, or the Bush41 administration was given every opportunity to retract the President’s (alleged) slur against American atheists, but refused to do so. I suspect the latter. Furthermore, I find it unsurprising. It’s not like atheists had or have any significant political organization. **ambushed** ---- There’s more than adequate reason to believe that Bush hated atheists to the point of not considering them valid citizens. “Hate” is a strong characterization. I’d prefer, “Profoundly indifferent, and openly contemptuous.” ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/42 "2005-09-27T09:24:59Z")
Unless you put the word “alleged” in front of every single statement based on accredited reportage, your repeated insertions of the word “alleged” are wholly misleading and unjustified. The documentary evidence is as strong as anything reported in the press ever is. I quote now from one of the most respectable sources on the net, the freethinking site “[infidels.org](http://infidels.org)”. [George Bush on atheism and patriotism](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#bush) > [@](#): > > “Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?” > > 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: > > RS: > “What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?” > > GB: > “I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.” > > RS: > “Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?” > > GB: > “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” > > RS: > “Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?” > > GB: > “Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.” > > UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks. > > The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in “Free Inquiry” magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16. > > On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as “one nation under God” (Bush’s phrase). The following conversation took place: > > RS: > “American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?” > > EM: > “It’s bullshit.” > > RS: > “What is bullshit?” > > EM: > “Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit.” > > RS: > “Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue.” > > EM: > “You’re welcome.” > > After Bush’s election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote: > > “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.” Next, I quote from a respected source for skeptics that relates further details: > [@](#): > > When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O’Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush. > > 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. > > On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, cochairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a law-suit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois, suburb) from forcing his first-grade Atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States “one nation under God” (Bush’s phrase). The following conversation took place. > > Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing? > > Murnane: It’s bullshit. > > Sherman: What is bullshit? > > Murnane: Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit. > > Sherman: Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue. > > Murnane: You’re welcome > > This suit, now in federal district court for over three years, is not considered to be bullshit by the federal judge before whom it is pending. During the time it has been in the federal court, Robert Sherman’s son, now age nine, has been physically and psychologically brutalized in his school for refusing to pledge to a “nation under God.” > > After Bush’s election but before his taking office, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking that he consider being sworn into office on the Constitution instead of the Bible and also asking him to retract his August 1987 statement. Bush had his White House buddy, C. Boyden Gray, counsel to the president, reply on White House stationery on February 21, 1989, stating that substantively Bush stood by his original statement. > “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.” > American Atheists had not asked Bush to either “unnecessarily” or even “necessarily” encourage or support them. All they wanted was an apology for the insult. Many Atheists wrote to Bush over the issue and Nelson Lund, the associate counsel to the president, found it necessary to reply on April 7, 1989, directly to the American Atheist General Headquarters, Inc. > > This letter from the White House said that Mr. Gray was adhering to his statements in the February 21, 1989, letter. On May 4, 1989, Jon Murray, the president of American Atheists, again wrote to President Bush demanding a clarification of and an apology for his statement that Atheists “should not be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.” Bush ignored the letter, as did Gray and Lund. Mr. Murray also asked for an appointment so that a group of representatives of American Atheists could meet with Bush. > > Mr. Joseph W. Hagin 11 responded on May 25, 1989, again on White House stationery. He stated that the president “appreciated your taking the time to write and your willingness to share your thoughts” but that “due to heavy commitments on his official calendar” the president could not meet with representatives of American Atheists. > > On January 9, 1990, George Bush, in signing a proclamation for the Martin Luther King holiday, had the gall to remark that “bigots” must be brought to justice. Again, American Atheists threw his words back in his face, asking what his designation of Atheists as being unworthy of citizenship was. On February 5, 1990, Mr. Nelson Lund replied again on White House stationery–stating > “We believe that our position has been adequately explained in previous correspondence.” This issued is now resolved: George Herbert Walker Bush **DID** make those statements, and they **ARE** significant. This shows that even otherwise intelligent politicians of considerable experience and stature can be irrational, un-American extremists when it comes to atheism and religion. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/43 "2005-09-27T12:52:10Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Unless you put the word “alleged” in front of every single statement based on accredited reportage, your repeated insertions of the word “alleged” are wholly misleading and unjustified. \ **ambushed** , unless I am misunderstanding, I believe that \*\*Measure for Measure \*\* agrees with you on every point. Sure, he is using quotation marks and the word alleged, but as I read it, he is using the word the same way a cop might refer to a bank-robber as “the alleged bank-robber”, despite the police officer’s having scene the robbery with his own eyes. Not a real statement that he believes that the guy is innocent, but an action done so as not to skip past the proper procedure. P.S. **Marley23** : Yes. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/44 "2005-09-27T14:41:37Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > **The point** : The charges here and the paper trail are rather specific and therefore falsifiable. I conclude that either we are dealing with a rather elaborate fabrication, or the Bush41 administration was given every opportunity to retract the President’s (alleged) slur against American atheists, but refused to do so. > > I suspect the latter. Furthermore, I find it unsurprising. It’s not like atheists had or have any significant political organization. Look. Politicians, especially highly placed elected officials, get shit thrown at them all the time, and it’s not uncommon for them simply to not acknowledge the more outrageous shit. If they don’t issue a denial, that cannot be construed as an acceptance. Give us a cite from a mainstream news source and I’ll believe it. That is S.O.P. for anyone who wants to assert something as a fact on this message board. If this was a press confernece, there would have been many other reporters there, and an independent source should be available. Most reputable news sources require at least 2 independent sources for a story. The most likely explanation for this story not making it to the reputable press is that 2 independent sources do not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/45 "2005-09-27T17:28:34Z")
I looked through the online archives for the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune for that month, but wasn’t able to find any mention of a press conference, although the VP was in DuPage County on, I think, Aug 26, for a county Republican Committee meeting. And **samclem** also searched the databases he has access to and wasn’t able to find anything. It’s possible, I suppose, if this was a one-on-one interview with the VP, but some of the cites above describe it as a formal press conference, where you’d expect to find the Chicago Tribune (since it was a local paper) and the NYTimes (since it’s the self-styled “newspaper of record”). So I’m still not convinced. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/46 "2005-09-27T23:37:28Z")
> [@Dewey Finn](#): > > The vice-president’s schedule is a matter of historical record, so it should be possible to confirm whether he was even in Chicago on that date. If he was, the New York Times may have published a transcript. The fact that **samclem** didn’t find any mention of this in his search also makes me doubt the story. Hey, wait a minute. I didn’t sit and go through all the papers I have access to and search for whether Bush was at the airport that day! I’ll work some more on this tomorrow, (playing pinochle tonight) and report back. I just can’t confirm by any other source that the exchange took place. Please don’t think that I’m saying that a press conference DID NOT take place. I’m expressing no opinion on that as of now. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/47 "2005-09-27T23:50:17Z")
Here’s the abstract of an article from the Chicago Tribune of August 28, 1987. (The whole article costs $3.95; more than I’m prepared to spend.) George H.W. Bush _was_ in the Chicago area on August 27, 1987. No proof yet that the comment was made. > [@](#): > > George Bush mercifully threw out his prepared speech and kept his remarks brief Thursday for Du Page County Republicans who stood in the intermittent drizzle to hear their county party leader, Senate Republican leader James “Pate” Philip (R., Wood Dale), make his first endorsement for the presidential nomination in 18 years. > > Du Page County is a bastion of Republicanism and has been hit hard during August’s … ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/48 "2005-09-28T01:37:34Z")
I would be willing to send a buck or two to the library for the photocopy of the letter in question itself, but not four bucks for a few paragraphs. However, should someone else want to, [this](http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/abstract/24644755.html?did=24644755&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Aug+28%2C+1987&author=Thomas+Hardy%2C+Political+Writer&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=BUSH+FINDS+A+SILVER+LINING+AMID+CLOUDS)links directly to **Dewey Finn** ’s abstract. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/49 "2005-09-28T06:26:00Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Give us a cite from a mainstream news source and I’ll believe it. That is S.O.P. for anyone who wants to assert something as a fact on this message board. Since when were _you_ elected to make the rules here? There are billions of true facts not attested to in the mainstream press, but are legitimately and accurately reported in journals and books. Besides, I consider UPI to be mainstream, and they reported on the issue. Furthermore, it can ALSO be found in the following two accredited sources: The Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989, and _Free Inquiry_ magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16. And as I pointed out earlier, _Free Inquiry_ is edited by the inestimable philosopher Paul Kurtz and has several Nobel laureates on its board. It has enormous respect. [QUOTE=John Mace] If this was a press confernece, there would have been many other reporters there, and an independent source should be available. [/QUTOE]There is: The Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989, and _Free Inquiry_ magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16. > [@John Mace](#): > > Most reputable news sources require at least 2 independent sources for a story. The most likely explanation for this story not making it to the reputable press is that 2 independent sources do not exist. First, it DID make it to the reputable press. As for why it might not have made it into the Chicago Tribune or the New York Times, the most likely explanation is the the reporters were cowards or their stories were spiked because the reporters or editors didn’t want to look like they were defending athiests. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/50 "2005-09-28T06:40:48Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Since when were _you_ elected to make the rules here? There are billions of true facts not attested to in the mainstream press, but are legitimately and accurately reported in journals and books. Of course there are. But you won’t win any arguments here unless you can give a legit cite. If you want to believe those “true facts”, fine. Just don’t claim that you’ve won an arguement without cites for your facts. > [@](#): > > Besides, I consider UPI to be mainstream, and they reported on the issue. Furthermore, it can ALSO be found in the following two accredited sources: The Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989, and _Free Inquiry_ magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16. And as I pointed out earlier, _Free Inquiry_ is edited by the inestimable philosopher Paul Kurtz and has several Nobel laureates on its board. It has enormous respect. Where’s the link to the UPI article? I have no idea what the “Boulder Daily Camera” is, nor do I know what “Free Inquiry” is. Nor, I suspect, do 99% of the posters here. If you want to sell us something from those sources, tell us why we should buy it. The burden of proof is on you. Thus far, there hasn’t been anything offered up in this thread tha can be considered proof. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/51 "2005-09-28T06:45:52Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > As for why it might not have made it into the Chicago Tribune or the New York Times, the most likely explanation is the the reporters were cowards or their stories were spiked because the reporters or editors didn’t want to look like they were defending athiests. … or they simply thought that it wasn’t news. If an accredited reporter from Church of Satan News asked Dick Cheney what the Republicans plan to do to win the Satanist vote, I’d expect that he’d say, “Not much”. I wouldn’t be surprised if he threw in a slur. Furthermore, I’m not convinced that this would be news. — I would be willing to send a buck or two to the library for the photocopy of the letter in question itself, but not four bucks for a few paragraphs. However, should someone else want to, this links directly to Dewey Finn’s abstract. Ok, I’m game. Following the preceding though, I won’t be surprised if there’s no mention. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/52 "2005-09-28T07:24:11Z")
> [@Chicago Trib (in Dewey Finn's post)](#): > > Du Page County is a bastion of Republicanism and has been hit hard during August’s …annual sacrifice of virginal chickens to our Lord Cthulhu. No mention of atheism. The article covers Bush’s fundraising trip to St Andrews Golf Club in West Chicago; Bush had not yet formerly announced his candidacy. At the meeting, there was evidence of support for Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. But Kemp has less organizational resources than Dole or Bush. There’s a proposal to change party rules to tilt things in Jack’s favor. We’ll see what happens. > [@John Mace](#): > > Look. Politicians, especially highly placed elected officials, get shit thrown at them all the time, and it’s not uncommon for them simply to not acknowledge the more outrageous shit. If they don’t issue a denial, that cannot be construed as an acceptance. I would like some sort of independent confirmation. Allegedly, “White House Counsel Mr. C. Boyden Gray responded in writing to Mr. Murray by saying that Mr. Bush stood by his statements at O’Hare Airport and was entitled to any perspective that he wanted regarding atheists.” Gray could have stated that GWBush didn’t recall the meeting, but of course he recognizes that the Fourteenth amendment has not (yet) been overturned. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Instead, Gray pointed out that Mr. Bush is entitled to believe what he wants _and that he stood by his statements_. It’s a free country, ya know. ## At the very least, the Bush admin was not adverse to having an alleged slur by the sitting President remain unchallenged. Again though, I don’t see this as unsurprising. FWIW, recall that atheists, in common usage, were equated with strong atheists. ---- I have no idea what the “Boulder Daily Camera” is, nor do I know what “Free Inquiry” is. I think I’ve seen “Free Inquiry” in a library. I’m not going to pull it though, since I assume that they will simply relate the incident as recalled by Rob Sherman. Similarly for the internationally renowned, “Boulder Daily Camera”: heck, it wouldn’t surprise me if Rob S. penned an op-ed piece for them. **Scott** : Are you writing to the GWBush library? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/53 "2005-09-28T07:31:48Z")
Again though, I don’t see this as [del]un[/del]surprising. FWIW, recall that… ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/54 "2005-09-28T09:14:14Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Give us a cite from a mainstream news source and I’ll believe it. That is S.O.P. for anyone who wants to assert something as a fact on this message board. … The most likely explanation for this story not making it to the reputable press is that 2 independent sources do not exist. As I said, your hypothesis is unlikely in the extreme. Here’s evidence for an important story that “never made the New York Times, the Washington Post, [or] the Los Angeles Times”, according to th author David McGowan:[Craig Spence Story](http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/02/stirring-white-house-honey-pot.html) > [@](#): > > The Spence story never really registered on the national media’s radar screen. Despite being a largely Republican scandal, it was completely ignored by such pillars of the purportedly liberal press as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. The story soon disappeared entirely and Washington and the media proceeded to pretend as though nothing had ever happened. According to a Washington Times reporter, the paper trail was quickly covered up. Some 20,000 documents pertaining to the case were sealed by court order and the U.S. Attorney’s office issued a gag order on the release of information. The mainstream press often totally ignores stories. Your arguments are unfounded and anti-rational. There are at least four sources: The Atheist Press organization, the UPI wire service, The Boulder Daily Camera newspaper, and the highly regarded _Free Inquiry_, which as I indicated has several Nobel laureates on its board and is run by Paul Kurtz, easily one of the most honest and scruplulous men in the world. I’ll believe he’s a party to manufactured claims the day I believe you are God. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/55 "2005-09-28T14:16:04Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > **Scott** : Are you writing to the GWBush library? Yes, but don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/56 "2005-09-28T15:55:34Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > As I said, your hypothesis is unlikely in the extreme. Here’s evidence for an important story that “never made the New York Times, the Washington Post, [or] the Los Angeles Times”, according to th author David McGowan:[Craig Spence Story](http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/02/stirring-white-house-honey-pot.html) Interesting logic. One valid story did not make it to the mainstream press, therefore all stories that don’t make it to the mainstream press are valid. Something’s excluded there-- like a “middle”. But even your cite shows a picture of a huge headline in the Washinton Times. That’s mainstream press, pal, so even your premise is flawed. > [@](#): > > The mainstream press often totally ignores stories. Your arguments are unfounded and anti-rational. There are at least four sources: The Atheist Press organization, the UPI wire service, The Boulder Daily Camera newspaper, and the highly regarded _Free Inquiry_, which as I indicated has several Nobel laureates on its board and is run by Paul Kurtz, easily one of the most honest and scruplulous men in the world. I’ll believe he’s a party to manufactured claims the day I believe you are God. So, then, where is the UPI link? Where is the “Free Inquiry” link? Did I miss either one earlier? If you got no link, there’s only one thing to think! ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/57 "2005-09-28T20:52:43Z")
What we are being asked to believe is that 1. Bush granted an interview to an unknown (to him) reporter representing an atheist paper. 2. Said reporter did not record the interview. 3. No one else witnessed the interview and no one had a camera on the V.P. at the time. 4. In the interview, Bush (a well-practiced politician, the sitting V.P. and a presidential hopeful) callously and needlessly insults a segment of the electorate with a statement that is easily disprovable. 5. The press (the same press that made an enormous issue of the next V.P.'s spelling of “potato”) ignores the V.P. saying a significant portion of Americans citizens are not, in fact, citizens because they thought it wasn’t news. We are left in the position of accepting - without proof - the word of Sherman. In other words, we are to take his word as a matter of faith. Call it the Gospel of Sherman. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/58 "2005-09-28T23:12:02Z")
**CLM** : Good summary. I always have to qualify “mainstream news” with the non-editorial comment. It’s not uncommon for even the NYT or WP to publish editorials which contain factual errors, or unverifiable quotes. It has to be an actual news story, not Molly Ivens saying (making this quote up): “And then there’s the father, who doesn’t think that atheists are citizens.” It’s got to be in the \*\*news \*\*section, no the opinion pages. ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/59 "2005-09-29T00:54:21Z")
> [@Captain Lance Murdoch](#): > > What we are being asked to believe is that > > 1. Bush granted an interview to an unknown (to him) reporter representing an atheist paper. > > 2. Said reporter did not record the interview. > > 3. No one else witnessed the interview and no one had a camera on the V.P. at the time. No, that’s not what we’re being asked to believe – particularly the first point. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/60 "2005-09-29T01:35:28Z")
> [@Captain Lance Murdoch](#): > > What we are being asked to believe is that > > 1. Bush granted an interview to an unknown (to him) reporter representing an atheist paper. **Captain** , this is poor reading. Sherman’s site says it was a _press conference_, not a sit-down. > [@](#): > > 1. Said reporter did not record the interview. I don’t think you would normally record an entire press conference. > [@](#): > > 1. No one else witnessed the interview and no one had a camera on the V.P. at the time. [/QUOTE] This objection remains, but the fact that no one has _said_ he witnessed the interview, in the absence of knowledge that anybody has ever been asked, doesn’t prove much. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233.md?page=4)