George H W Bush and atheists

Factual Questions
81

Interesting anti-logic. And such fanaticism! All it takes is ONE example of a valid story that didn’t make the mainsteam press to prove beyond all dispute that not all valid stories make the mainstream press. Or indeed any press. There are millions if not billions of valid stories that never made any newspaper or other outlets considered “the press” and are only known through magazines, journals, and books. Please don’t be so obtuse.

Nonsense. The Washington Times is a rag.

You’re still being quite unfair and irrational. Since when is truth determined by the presense or absense of an Internet link? You’ve been given the citations – look them up yourself!

You’ve been given four citations. I certainly agree that they are not proof of the claim, but they are more than enough to shift the burden of proof to you. It is up to you to prove Sherman lied, not on us to provide still more citations.

82

I have to agree with ambushed. This request is unreasonable.
It’s not common for pre-1992 material to be freely available online.

Free Inquiry current page: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=index&section=fi

UPI- May 8, 1989 http://www.lexisnexis.com/

83

Thus Sherman is both a liar and not very bright? Are we asserting that Sherman picked document numbers at the presidential library until he hit a classified one & decided to use that?

I find it interesting that we’ll speculate wildly about Sherman in order to avoid the Occam’s razor path that George H.W. Bush said something negative about atheists. I’d expect this level of proof for the assertion that the VP of the Reagan Administration said something in support of atheists as citizens or such during a 1987 Republican meeting trip, but certainly not the reverse.

Now here’s a question: if this letter is so innocuous and inoffensive to all, why do we need a FOI request to see it?

84

So? If someone wants to prove that Bush Sr said what Sherman claims, they need to dig up something more than Sherman’s own testimony. If that can’t be done, then we’re left with one guy making a claim about what Bush said. Sorry, but that won’t stand up in court.

Huh? Are you suggesting that I must pay for and find cites to prove what someone else is asserting? Uh-uh. I know how to find the web pages you linked to.

85

You asked and that’s the best answer I could come up with. I don’t think he’s lying about the document.

It’s probably SOP for all those documents; I’d be surprised if it had anything to do with the contents.

86

That assumes that Bush’s candidacy is the key factor. He was still the freakin’ VP, not some no-name local pol.

What references? If you claim they exist, then it should be easy for you to show us what they are and how they help prove this case.

VP gaffs have been reported long before the internet was popular. I think someone already mentioned Quail’s “potatoe” deal, which was practically front page news.

Then we have no way of verifying Sherman’s assertion.

I’ve never said he was dishonest. In fact, I specifically said he might be mistaken. Might be. Who knows? Maybe Bush actually did say it. I’m not claiming he didn’t. I’m just claiming that we don’t know, and the supporting evidence is flimsy at best. Others in this thread are claiming that we should believe Sherman. Why should we?

What facts? That Bush was in the area at the time? What does that prove?

87

What’s the gaffe here? Bush was apparently expressing an opinion shared by a large number of Americans. No one is claiming that he either misspoke in terms of making a statement he didn’t intend nor that he said anything funny, entertaining or unexpected.

I don’t know that anyone has or can produce any cite that anyone who was there has ever claimed that Sherman’s reportage of events is inaccurate. The only people doing that appear to be in this thread. For the second time, this is one person’s report vs. none that contradict it, not one report vs. even one other from even one other person.

88

The gaffe is that Bush thinks a certain segment of Americans, who are without doubt citizens, should not be considered citizens simply because of their opinion(s). If that ain’t a gaffe, I don’t know what is.

A large number of Americans think Blacks are lazy, but if the VP said that he’d be crucified (and rightly so).

89

I should have said “…Bush *allegedly *thinks…” in that last post.

90

John Mace
---- So? If someone wants to prove that Bush Sr said what Sherman claims, they need to dig up something more than Sherman’s own testimony. If that can’t be done, then we’re left with one guy making a claim about what Bush said. Sorry, but that won’t stand up in court.

IANAL. Sherman, a credentialed reporter witnessed and event and related it. An (alleged) letter writing campaign occurred where Bush was offered the possibility of a retraction. He refused to do so.

I don’t see why this wouldn’t hold up in court. If somebody sues and the plaintiff doesn’t show up, the plaintiff loses. (SDMB Legal Eagles: any insight here?)

----- Huh? Are you suggesting that I must pay for and find cites to prove what someone else is asserting? Uh-uh. I know how to find the web pages you linked to.

By your own admission, you asked 3 times to see a direct link to press documents written before 1992. This request was unreasonable. We’ve given the citations: you are free to get them.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not digging them up because 1) I don’t care and 2) I’m guessing they would not be decisive. (Though the UPI article might shed insight on post 1988 events.)

-------- That assumes that Bush’s candidacy is the key factor. He was still the freakin’ VP, not some no-name local pol.

I’m beginning to wonder about some posters handle on these events. Bush fought a hard campaign with Bob Dole for the nomination; Lee Atwater’s skill saved the day, at the cost of some intra-Republican Party tension. Sucking up to the religious right was by this time de rigueur.

----- What references? If you claim they exist, then it should be easy for you to show us what they are and how they help prove this case.

I expressed myself with insufficient clarity. Contention: atheism wasn’t exactly a hot topic in 1987. Evidence: well, it’s tough to prove a negative. However, the interested reader can skim the archives of any major newspaper and weigh evidence on his own. I’m not saying that there will be absolutely no articles that mention atheism, however.

-------- I’ve never said he was dishonest. In fact, I specifically said he might be mistaken. Might be. Who knows? Maybe Bush actually did say it. I’m not claiming he didn’t. I’m just claiming that we don’t know, and the supporting evidence is flimsy at best.

Hm. You did say he might have been mistaken. But I find that hypothesis to be an odd one.

Sherman was a reporter for O’Hair’s (fringy) operation, American Atheists. He didn’t just bump into Bush in the airport (allegedly). He was there for a story on atheism.

Admittedly, it’s possible that Bush said many of the things reported, but not the key citizenry line.

----- Others in this thread are claiming that we should believe Sherman. Why should we?

Because, a) he was an accredited reporter acting in his capacity as a professional observer, b) reporters are in the business of relaying information with factual accuracy[sup]1[/sup] , c) no pattern of dishonesty has been documented for the man, in possible contrast to (for example) Bob Novack or Christopher Hitchens[sup]2[/sup], never mind Glass or Blair and d) Bush has not denied saying these words, given ample opportunity[sup]3[/sup].

My take is that the preponderance of the evidence so far favors Sherman’s story. But I would like better evidence: IMHO, there is certainly (alas) reasonable doubt.

------ What facts? That Bush was in the area at the time? What does that prove?

We know that Sherman made very specific and falsifiable allegations, to his credit. I think it’s fair to say that he’s not a weasel. Two of the (very minor) facts of his story have checked out. If Sherman was a serial prevaricator, I’d expect otherwise.

[sup]1[/sup](though admittedly Sherman was on the advocacy side of the biz)
[sup]2[/sup]I hasten to add that I couldn’t make the case against these 2 men at the moment: this is a hypothetical.
[sup]3[/sup] Though to my way of thinking, the remark was electorally trivial enough that the Bush admin wouldn’t need to deny it, even if it were somewhat inaccurate.

91

I’ll say one thing. This is one heck of a meme we’re discussing.

Based on google searches, I’d say that the Sherman-Bush exchange has been reproduced literally hundreds of times on the web.

One of the earliest cites is from the usenet group alt.atheism FAQ, dated 3 June 1994; it contains the sig, “For further information, contact American Atheist Veterans at the American Atheist Press’s Cameron Road address.”

Weak cite: According to Words to the Wise: A Medical-Philosophical Dictionary
by Thomas Szasz, The Austin American Statesman cited the Sherman quote on May 19, 1990, p. A21. (Found at google scholar)

JACKPOT: It’s listed in MS Encarta!!! They couldn’t print it if it wasn’t true. BWHAHAHAHAHA. Ok, ok, I really don’t believe that. Still, it’s another piece of supporting evidence. FWIW, YMMV, etc etc.

92

I would then suggest that you might not know what a gaffe is.

By one definition, “A clumsy social error.” Well, this wasn’t even enough of a social error for the mainstream press to make a fuss about it. It only really upset only a small minority of fairly well margnalized Americans who were already critical of Bush’s party. And Bush was named his party’s nominee and was elected president just a year and change later.

By another definition: “A blatant mistake or misjudgment.” Bush had ample opportunity to correct the statement if it were a mistake; this didn’t happen. I would say that it displayed very good judgement on his part as he is a Republican trying to swing Moral Majority types to his side at the time.

Although some of us might find the content of his apparent opinion alarming, there’s no gaffe in suggesting that something currently unconstitutional should be. Witness the debate on abortion, or going back some time abolition, or prohibition. This is a legit political opinion, regardless of the fact it’s currently legally suspect.

93

What exactly does it take to be a “credentialed reporter”?

You wouldn’t even get an indictment.

If you can’t link to them here, then drop them as evidence. You don’t get to say: go find them (and pay for them) yourself.

Crandolf: The term “gaffe” is commonly used to describe a political blunder, and a sitting VP suggesting that a group of people should be stripped of their citizenship for religious beliefs (or lack thereof) cannot be considered anything but a blunder. You can nitpick semantics all you want. but you’re simply wrong in this case.

94

I find this attitude incomprehensible. The evidence for the issue in the original OP has been thoroughly cited. The standards of the citations given are quite excellent. Asking that links be provided for material that predate the WWW is ridiculous!

As an author of dozens of academic papers, the citation evidence given is far more than adequate for the pro side to be happy. If you are on the con side, the ball is in your court and you have to do the leg work.

I know you are unhappy with Bush I being “outed” about this issue, but live with it. Being in denial gets you nowhere.

95

William Bennett’s racially-charged comment’s of last week were carried by every mainstream news organization in the U.S. including the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune.

Bill Bennett is not the V.P. and he is not a contender to be President. He was a member of the cabinet, but holds no position government today.

Strangely the press is all over this story, yet a sitting V.P. with obvious presidential ambitions insulting a different minority was ignored by the entire media, including the hometown papers where he “said” this. In a two-newspaper, liberal town no less. There have been several threads on this topic on these boards alone. How could the media think no one would care? How could someone in Bush’s position say this kind of thing without raising an eyebrow anywhere? There are millions of atheists, agnostics and secular humanists in this country. I’m one of them.

So far this thread has produced zero evidence to back Sherman’s claims. It’s put-up or shut-up time.

96

Not ignored, just assumed to be true.

Now, last time I looked, there where more “non-religious” people (In the world? In the U.S.? I can’t remember.) than Jews. (To name a large group.)

However, such was not the case at the time. Then, they could have, and did, rail as much as they would like. But that didn’t equal public reactions.

97

I would have thought this was a pretty solid piece of evidence, is Encarta not considered an accurate source? Anybody know what their reputation is among scholars, and how solid cites to Encarta are considered?

98

A blunder of any sort, really, yes. Seeing as how we’re talking about a politician who A) further endeared himself to the religious members of his own party if they did hear about it, B) received no press outcry over the (non-)incident and C) won both his party’s nomination & the presidency the next year, I’m having a hard time understanding this as a blunder.

It appears that shortly thereafter we have another member of the Bush camp telling an atheist activist that virtually anything his group does is “bullshit.” (Incidentally all of this indicates to me that the athesit groups have some very strong points for their raison d’etre.)

He said what he meant and a lot of people in this country agree with him. Not a blunder. Again, there’s no prohibition on a politician stating that people have too many constitutional freedoms. This sort of thing is said in the context of crime and the courts, just as one example, all of the time. That the politicians who say it might be suggesting changes of a currently unconsititutional nature matters not one whit to most of the public.

There’s a lot of hostility toward atheists in the country, and there was a whole lot more so during the Reagan years. Keep in mind the voting block was from an even earlier era at the time; senior citizens vote at the highest rates and almost 20 years ago we’re talking about people raised in the 1920s/1930s. I rather doubt that most Republicans or any age, let alone ones raised back then, considered these remarks to be eyebrow-raising.

Compare this with Dan Quayle attempting to spell “potato” or Ross Perot’s VP candidate staring blankly forward during a nationally televized debate; those were gaffes.

99

Newspapers like the NYT archive articles going back well before the date in question. Here’s one from 1984 I found after searching for 5 seconds. Find one that has a lead in about Bush and atheists, and I’ll pay the fee for the full article.

As the author of dozens of academic papers I can tell you that this forum is not an academic journal. Here, if you ain’t got the cites, your position bites.

You know nothing of the sort. I never liked Bush Sr and didn’t vote for him. This is GQ where we deal with factual questions and answers. There has been on factual evidence presented that backs up Sherman’s story. If you wish to continue this discussion in GD, feel free to open a thread there. That’s where this topic belongs.

I don’t care either way if the story is true. Present me with some solid evidence and I’ll be happy to say GHWB is a nut. I’ve got no ties to him.

100

Then, if making such a statement had multiple advantages and no down side, one would expect it to be repeated fairly often. An applause line, sort of.

Yet there seems to be no other instance where anyone even claimed that Bush said this. And again, none of the other reporters remember him saying it then.

If Bush were some rabid fundamentalist, it might be expected. But he is not. I know it is fashionable to depict every single Republican as the equivalent of Billy Sunday or William Jennings Bryan, but tain’t necessarily so. It doesn’t sound like him, at least to me.

What it does sound like is sort of a parody of what extreme atheists might think Republicans are “really” thinking, when the gloves are off. Or perhaps what they wish Republicans would say, but which we won’t say. Because we are so EEEEE-vil.

But as a proud member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy[sup]TM[/sup], it is not necessarily true that we spend our private moments gloating over the coming imposition of theocratic rule on the US. I know it sounds good to say that about us, but that is political hyperbole, and not to be mistaken for a real description of our secret cabals. We don’t spend near as much time fretting about atheists as some of them seem to spend fretting about us.

I guess it is not impossible that he said it, but it doesn’t strike me as something he would say because he really thought it, nor because he thought it would garner points with the masses. Especially not out of the blue, and as a one-time, never-to-be-repeated toss-away line.

Without any more evidence than is produced to date, all of which seems to be based pretty much entirely on Sherman’s unsupported (and moderately to severely implausible) word, sorry. Can’t buy it.

I thought atheists were the hard-boiled skeptical ones who refuse to believe anything that isn’t proven nine ways from Sunday.

Regards,
Shodan