# 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:** 18\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/121 "2005-10-06T11:33:46Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Actually uncontradicted first person testimony in the absence of any denial from (potentially) opposing parties despite opportunity has substantial worth; quite sufficient worth (in the absence of any evidence at all that the person is lying) to carry the day. That’s true… in the context of a trial, or another situation in which the parties are of roughly equal negotiating position and are actively communicating with each other. But if I claim that Dan Rather told me, “I don’t care if I have to make something up – I’m GOING to get Bush impeached!” and Rather fails to deny it, we can’t conclude much. Rather may simply be ignoring me, or brushing me off with a form letter. In this case, I’m unpersuaded that GHW Bush gave sufficient attention to the accusation. It never ran in major media. It was never the focus of any large inquiry. He may well have dismissed it as fringe nonsense, and failed to make any effort to set the record straight for that reason. Of note: a viewer once sent an e-mail to ABC TV, complaining about the favorable depiction of homosexuals on the then-hit “The Practice.” In reply, he recieved a message from an ABC employee that said: “How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the Declaration of Independence (what our nation is built on) where it says ‘All Men are Created Equal’ - and try treating them that way for a change!? Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your crutch for your existence.” May we conclude that this is ABC’s official view? If the story had ended there, we’d have no evidence to the contrary. But of course the response ended up getting national attention, and it was revealed that the message came from an ABC employee who had not considered the matter deeply or ensured he was correctly representing the network’s viewpoint. ABC fired the employee and issued a revised statement more in line with their actual corporate policy. But if that story had stopped before the national attention stage – much as this one has – we’d never know that ABC didn’t approve, because ABC had not yet given appropriate attention to the issue. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/122 "2005-10-06T15:13:26Z")
…Not unlike other attempts to equate this message board to an Academic Journal. This MB is made up of anonymous posters, not academically credentialed researchers. Papers submitted for a journal get reviewed, and citations are checked, not simply accepted w/o questions. The reviewers of the papers typically have access to any journals or articles that would be used as citations and can easily verify them. The idea that this forum should be viewed as a type of Academic Journal is laughable on the face of it. ---
**Author:** ![Crandolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7cd45c/32.png) [@Crandolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crandolph)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/123 "2005-10-06T15:53:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Papers submitted for a journal get reviewed, and citations are checked, not simply accepted w/o questions. I wouldn’t be so sure of that. [Example 1](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/15/hoax_paper_accepted/) , [Example 2](http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html) . I have a feeling that sloppy work (as opoosed to these outright hoaxes) gets accepted frequently and I doubt references are checked anywhere as nearly frequently as they should be. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/124 "2005-10-06T16:17:46Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > [This nonauthoritative site](http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-hw-bush/) claims that Bush made the Lincoln/knees comment on 15 Jan 1992. So they may be referring to different quotes. [Here’s a much more authoritative source.](http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1992/92011503.html) > [@](#): > > …Everything I do in legislation I ask our people, ``Is this going to strengthen or is this going to diminish family?’’ Our child care bill, I fought back the mandated benefits from the liberals, and I fought it back because it would weaken the family’s chance to take care of the child care situation in the way they think back. I want our school program to emphasize community and family. I worry about these families that are broken up, ache for them, worry about them and want to do what we can, Barbara and I, as leaders in this country, to help strengthen family. > > **And so I do understand New Hampshire because I have this wonderfully warm feeling that New Hampshire feels exactly the way we do on these questions of family values and faith. Somebody said to me, `We prayed for you over there.'' That was not just because I threw up on the Prime Minister of Japan, either. [Laughter] Where was he when I needed him? [Laughter] I said, let me tell you something. And I say this -- I don't know whether any ministers from the Episcopal Church are here; I hope so. But I said to him this: `You’re on to something here. You cannot be President of the United States if you don’t have faith.’’ Remember Lincoln, going to his knees in times of trial in the Civil War and all that stuff. You can’t be.** > > And we are blessed. So don’t feel sorry for – don’t cry for me, Argentina. We’ve got problems out there, and I am blessed by good health, strong health. Geez, you get the flu, and they make it into a Federal case. [Laughter] Anyway, that goes with the territory. I’m not asking for sympathy, I just wanted you to know that I never felt more up for the charge… I can’t find online links to any contemporary artlicles describing flak from atheists over this particular remark. Madalyn O’Hair published [this article](http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm) describing why American Atheists were asking people to vote against Bush in 1992. It had to have been published some time after March 1991, due to dates mentioned in the article, but the protest stems from Sherman’s claims about the 1987 event. It’s possible that Bush conflated the two. So we have some more doubt about Sherman’s specific claims, but less doubt about Bush’s willingness, over at least the last twelve years, to spout, more or less randomly, his thoughts on whether the faithless belong anywhere near the Oval Office. It seems to be a minor pet topic of his. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2005, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/125 "2005-10-07T02:07:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In this case, I’m unpersuaded that GHW Bush gave sufficient attention to the accusation. It never ran in major media. It was never the focus of any large inquiry. He may well have dismissed it as fringe nonsense, and failed to make any effort to set the record straight for that reason. Well articulated. I’d go further and say that _his staff_ probably dismissed this as fringe nonsense, and _may_ have never even brought it to the President’s attention. Potentially, the atheism files at the George HW Bush library could shed light on this issue. Visitors might start with the [Religious Matters](http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/find/whorm/religion.html) archive, boxes RM (“A subject category containing materials of concern to all religions including religious freedom, abortion, adoption, **atheists** , and health and welfare. This category also contains cassette recordings of sermons, video recordings, speeches and general prayers.”), and RM030 (“A secondary subject category containing information on **Atheism** , Unitarianism and the General Synod.”) Separately, Sherman’s references also deserve a look. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/126 "2005-10-07T02:21:31Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > So we have some more doubt about Sherman’s specific claims, but less doubt about Bush’s willingness, over at least the last twelve years, to spout, more or less randomly, his thoughts on whether the faithless belong anywhere near the Oval Office. It seems to be a minor pet topic of his. Thanks for contributing that legwork **scotandrsn**. I find it puzzling that an off the cuff improvisational remark that Vice President Bush made could be denounced as wholly implausible, while Bush41’s repeated assertions that an atheist should never ever be President are met with shrugs or silence. Sure, there’s a big difference between denying citizenship and denying the Presidency. But, again, the first remark was made by a VP playing pit bill while the latter seems to be part of GHWB’s stump speech. I find the latter more significant and indicative that Bush41 doesn’t have a problem with gratuitously slamming atheists. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/127 "2005-10-07T02:49:46Z")
Bricker, I agree with what you say. Whether Bush said what Sherman says he did is not a matter beyond doubt. There are pros and cons. We can weigh them up and make our own judgement. What got up my nose, and caused me to post in this thread, was my perception that certain posters (you know who you are) were (are) maintaining a stance that there is no meaningful evidence in favour. There is. If one decides in the exercise of one’s judgment that you don’t accept that evidence, based on inferences and known predilictions etc then fine. I have no problem with that. But saying “there is no evidence” or similar smacks of fingers in the ears and “la la la”. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2005, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/128 "2005-10-07T04:29:58Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > What got up my nose, and caused me to post in this thread, was my perception that certain posters (you know who you are) were (are) maintaining a stance that there is no meaningful evidence in favour. [hijack] More generally, analysts gather and weigh conflicting evidence. Polemicists pretend that all of it points in a single direction. Ideologues and fools can’t tell the difference. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/129 "2005-10-07T04:34:57Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Thanks for contributing that legwork **scotandrsn**. > > I find it puzzling that an off the cuff improvisational remark that Vice President Bush made could be denounced as wholly implausible, while Bush41’s repeated assertions that an atheist should never ever be President are met with shrugs or silence. > > Sure, there’s a big difference between denying citizenship and denying the Presidency. But, again, the first remark was made by a VP playing pit bill while the latter seems to be part of GHWB’s stump speech. I find the latter more significant and indicative that Bush41 doesn’t have a problem with gratuitously slamming atheists. And this has _WHAT_ to do with the OP? I’m allowing this thread to remain in GQ, as I truly believe that’s where it belongs, despite multiple reports that it be moved. C’mon, people, let’s remain focused on the OP. Cut out the extraneous comments. **samclem** GQ moderator…who is not mad, just trying to keep it as focused as possible, considering the subject. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/130 "2005-10-07T04:47:04Z")
> [@](#): > > **samclem** GQ moderator…who is not mad Not how I’ve heard it. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/131 "2005-10-07T05:14:50Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > [hijack] More generally, analysts gather and weigh conflicting evidence. Polemicists pretend that all of it points in a single direction. Ideologues and fools can’t tell the difference. [/hijack] **Measure for Measure**. Let me make this clear. I don’t care who started this, in your opinion. I want it stopped NOW. I’m not saying you’re the bad guy. I just need it stopped NOW. If anyone has information that is in any way additional to this thread, you may post it gladly. If you only want to argue with another poster, _stifle yourself_. **samclem** GQ moderator ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/132 "2005-10-07T05:20:54Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > And this has _WHAT_ to do with the OP? I think you’ve interpreted M for M’s comments as simply being a political comment. I think his/her point is that if there is acceptance that person A has said X then if the OP is “Did person A say Y” where Y is very similar to X, logically there may be less reason to take a highly sceptical attitude to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2005, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/133 "2005-10-07T05:22:27Z")
Sorry Samclem I posted that before seeing your last post. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2005, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/134 "2005-10-07T05:56:55Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > **Measure for Measure**. Let me make this clear. I don’t care who started this, in your opinion. > > I want it stopped NOW. I’m not saying you’re the bad guy. I just need it stopped NOW. > > If anyone has information that is in any way additional to this thread, you may post it gladly. > > If you only want to argue with another poster, _stifle yourself_. > > **samclem** GQ moderator I would like to make two separate points. 1. I stand by the _general_ point (about analysts et al), but apologize for the trouble I’ve caused. It was inappropriate to bring it up in this context. (I also regret presenting a heartfelt opinion in a context that can only make me look snippy or worse.) 2. I will take care to stop it now. Again, apologies. And I agree: it matters not who started it. **Samclem** , earlier: ----- And this has WHAT to do with the OP? The OP asked whether a quote ascribed to the first President Bush is valid. The evidence for it, in my opinion, is mixed. One question that we could consider is whether the Bush41 was predisposed to make such a comment. That is, “Does President Bush take jabs at atheists?” Looking at the Imus quote, in conjunction with the 1992 statement from the Bush library, I would say yes, there is some evidence for that contention. Given that, I have some difficulty with the position that GHWB’s alleged statements in the summer of 1987 are _prima facia_ absurd. But yes, further investigation is warrented. Anyway, that is what I _should_ have said- or something like it. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2005, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/135 "2005-10-07T06:11:19Z")
… but the Imus exchange came _after_ Bush Sr. had left office. And the 1992 quote is more circumspect. Still, if it can be shown that Bush41 repeatedly matches, “You need faith to dwell in the Oval Office (paraphrasing)”, with “This is One Nation Under God”, that suggests a a certain exclusionary quality to his rhetoric. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2005, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/136 "2005-10-07T06:44:03Z")
… and just to make this clear. IF it can be shown that GHWB has made repeated (albeit indirect) jabs at atheists that would suggest that a) explicit jabs become more plausible, notwithstanding the risks of alienating a section of the electorate, and b) the media silence regarding the (alleged) 1987 remarks is par for the course, rather than indicative of confusion or worse on Sherman’s part. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/137 "2011-11-04T04:05:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In this case, I’m unpersuaded that GHW Bush gave sufficient attention to the accusation. It never ran in major media. It was never the focus of any large inquiry. He may well have dismissed it as fringe nonsense, and failed to make any effort to set the record straight for that reason. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Well articulated. I’d go further and say that _his staff_ probably dismissed this as fringe nonsense, and _may_ have never even brought it to the President’s attention. UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE Rob Sherman received materials from the GWBush library in 2 tranches. The second was reported on Jan 17, 2007. [http://robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm](http://robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm) The 40 page .pdf documents a number of letters sent to the President by the American Atheist Association and various irate citizens in 1989. There are also some internal memorandum. Boyden Gray and Nelson Lund handled the matter: there’s no evidence that they consulted with the President on this. Their public stance follows: > [@C Boyden Gray](#): > > Your letter of December 19, 1988, to President Bush has bee 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 well as others with whom the President disagrees. That was from a letter to Jon G. Murray, President, American Atheists Inc. Nelson Lund composed it: here’s his memo to his boss, C. Boyden Gray: > [@Nelson Lund](#): > > Feb 21, 1989 > MEMORANDUM FOR C. BOYDEN GRAY > FROM: NELSON LUND > SUBJECT: Correspondence Asking that the President Apologize to America’s Atheists for his Campaign Remarks > > Attached for your signature is a draft response to a complaining letter from the President of American Atheists, Inc. I had to strain to achieve a polite tone, but I think I succeeded without giving the correspondent unnecessary comfort. > > The letter alleges some campaign remarks by the President and his Illinois campaign chairman that might not be too easy to defend, if in fact they were made. I thought it best to ignore these specific allegations. From that I take it that the staff didn’t know what GHWBush said, didn’t care, but didn’t think the alleged remarks were outrageously implausible or required denial. They were however awkward. There’s also a June 1, 1989 internal memo, dealing with repeated correspondence from American Atheists that request an apology from President Bush. It says, “Because I do not believe that we can defend the remarks allegedly made during the campaign, and because I assume that you would not recommend that the President issue and apology, I think the best course is to ignore this follow-up correspondence: continuing to exchange letters would only make it increasingly obvious that we are refusing to address the issue he is raising.” This was perhaps one level above fringe nonsense: there were letters of inquiry from Congressmen, who were basically forwarding the concerns of a small number of their constituents. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233/138 "2011-11-04T04:30:51Z")
Phew! I’m sure glad\* that’s \*settled - We’ve all been dying to know how this thread was going to turn out for the last six years! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-h-w-bush-and-atheists/323233.md?page=6)