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.
…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.
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Example 1 , Example 2 . 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.
I can’t find online links to any contemporary artlicles describing flak from atheists over this particular remark. Madalyn O’Hair published this article 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.
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 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.
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.
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”.
[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]
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.
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.)
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.
… 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.
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:
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:
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.