George H W Bush and atheists

Factual Questions
41

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.”

42

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”. George Bush on atheism and patriotism

Next, I quote from a respected source for skeptics that relates further details:

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.

43

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.

44

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.

45

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.

46

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.

47

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.

48

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, thislinks directly to Dewey Finn’s abstract.

49

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.

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.

50

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.

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.

51

… 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.

52

…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.

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?

53

Again though, I don’t see this as [del]un[/del]surprising. FWIW, recall that…

54

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

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.

55

Yes, but don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply.

56

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.

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!

57

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.

58

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.

59

No, that’s not what we’re being asked to believe – particularly the first point.

60

Captain, this is poor reading. Sherman’s site says it was a press conference, not a sit-down.

I don’t think you would normally record an entire press conference.

[/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.