You some Godless commie or sumthin’?
Nobody here but us Christians!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It’s easy to poke fun of 50 years later, but that was a very scary time period in US History. We were losing. If it helped people to tell them we were on God’s side because the other side wouldn’t allow us the freedom to choose, I say go for it.
Political expediancy is an interesting phenomenom.
Besides, only a Godless commie would question the Constitutionality. 
Maybe in another 50 years, politicians won’t say atheists can’t be patriots, like good ol’ GWB senior did. Oh, happy day! How long has it been since we had run-ins with those Godless commies again?
Ole GWB got shot down in WWII. He’s been around through Korea, Sputnik, The Cuban missile Crises, and Vietnam. The thing about “Godless Commies” is that they’re Godless not out of choice. Why this term has such meaning is because it shows that Communism would strip away our deepest beliefs and most personal freedoms, if we didn’t fight. In that context maybe we can cut the guy a little slack and assume that atheism is communist as far as he knows it.
Good Americans who aren’t religious are agnostic as any red-blooded patriotic American knows.
They were upset at the thought of having their beliefs officially determined to be less worthy than the beliefs of the majority in control of the government? I can’t possibly see what they were so concerned about…
I don’t think GB thought atheist==communist; he didn’t say a communist couldn’t be a patriot, he said an atheist couldn’t be, and he was called on it by the American Atheists. Hell, now that I look back at the quote, he said atheists couldn’t be considered citizens. While GB may not be on my Christmas card list, he’s not some redneck yokel with his thumb up his ass. He’s a relatively smart person and decent politician, and he had no hesitation about making a statement that would get him eaten alive if it was about, say, Jews. Can you imagine if he had said, “No, I don’t know that Jews should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under Jesus.” I’m not so much pissed that he said what he did is as I am pissed that in the environment we live in, it’s perfectly OK for a public figure–a major politican–to say that about atheists without fear of backlash. :mad: He’s never retracted his statement, to my knowledge, and in fact said that he stood behind his statement in '89.
Maybe in another 50 years…
Remember the movie Gentlemen’s Agreement? The one that came out in the 1940s and dealt with anti-semitism?
The one thing I remember most about this movie was that when the main character revealed that he’d only been pretending to be Jewish, the first response he got was, “I had no idea you were a Christian!” You see, Jews should be tolerated, but everyone knows an atheist has no morals. :rolleyes:
I understand your point, and your correct. I’m willing to cut him slack cuz I believe that atheism/communism was one bad boogeyman for a tough part of our history. Atheists were mean rotten dirty bastards that were against God and religion and all the things decent people stood for. He’s a prisoner of the context of his terminology. Fifty years from now you and I will be the same. We’ll probably get yelled at for saying “Evil” people are bad, or something equally stupid.
I’d hate to see ole George remembered as the guy that hated atheists. He doesn’t. In reality he’s lead an exceptional and exemplary life. He’s just outmoded. I say cut 'em a break.
A lot of people in my family did exceptional things that I’m proud of. To a person they are not exactly correct in their terminology or atitudes. They are this way not because they are bad people, but because that’s the way the environment they are a product of made them.
I think some of the finer people in this world tend to be a little rough around the edges.
…as an aside, I don’t think GB’s statements are any more worthy of praise if he was talking about communists. Assuming oldscratch is an American, I’d be pissed off if someone told him he shouldn’t be considered a citizen because he’s a communist. Christ, how long has it been since the red scare again?
Um, yes, scorning “atheists” fifty years ago is analogous to scorning “evil” people today. Wanna try that analogy again, Bub? Come up with one group that I would say are not patriots or citizens today simply because of their beliefs, that I could possibly change my mind about if I become more enlightened. I don’t think this is an issue of overblown political correctness, or that we are riding a rail to a time when we cannot rightfully think less of people–say, “Evil” people, people who hurt others–if we have good reason to do so. If we are moving towards a state when it is considered wrong to say a person cannot be a citizen due to beliefs that harm no one, well, I’m all for it.
Scylla wrote:
What has George Bush Sr. ever said that makes you think he doesn’t dislike atheists?
Tracer
http://www.cyberdespot.com/jesustricks/bush.html
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, three days, 1 hour, 15 minutes and 54 seconds.
7442 cigarettes not smoked, saving $930.26.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 20 hours, 10 minutes.
Scylla: *I’m willing to cut him slack cuz I believe that atheism/communism was one bad boogeyman for a tough part of our history. Atheists were mean rotten dirty bastards that were against God and religion and all the things decent people stood for. *
Man, nothing like an awkward instance of embarrassing bigotry to bring out the moral relativism in the most unexpected people. :rolleyes: There were plenty of people during the McCarthyite witch hunts who understood that atheists were not automatically “mean rotten dirty bastards”, and who took a lot of heat for their unpopular defense of religious freedom. They are the exceptional and fine people in this instance; if GWB wasn’t one of them, more shame to him. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t brave in WWII or didn’t do some other good things, but we sure as hell don’t have to “cut him slack” for his bigotry and/or cowardice in this instance.
Kimstu:
You again make a strong point. I am unwilling to crucify Bush for an ill-considered remark, especially when he has proven his patriotism and bravery.
Having lived through the McCarthy era, I think his regrettable comment is forgivable. “Atheism” contains a lot of cultural baggage as a term (which I was trying to identify, not endorse,) talk to him about agnosticism and I’ll bet he gives a different response.
He, and many of his era consider an atheist as one who attacks the rights of others to believe in God, and wishes to abolish religion.
You will also recall that “evil” and “devil” have an etymology that links them to a specific people. Same with “Vandal.”
Gaudere:
Suppose a political movement founded against the intolerable morality prevalent today which is based in outdated religious doctrine arises. This group lawfully rejects and seeks to alter these laws of the country, so that they apply more equally to all in today’s society.
As a fringe group at first they are regarded with derision, and becuase of their rejection of status quo morality they are termed as “evil.” The phrase catches on, and is ironically embraced, becoming a popular and useful movement.
50 years from now in your dotage, your grandchildren walk up to you and announce that they are “evil.” You recoil in instinctive horror, and they smile slightly at your obvious bigotry.
Hey, it could happen. Why not?
Or consider Satan capitalizing on his popularity on this message board until he is a well-known internet personality. His views are embraced, and he parlays this becoming a political force. His party is of course called the “Evil Party” with the same ironic intent.
It occurs to me that my previous post may have been interpreted offensively. My apologies if it was, that was not my intent.
A patriotism that excludes me from patriotism and citizenship because of my beliefs. I’m glad he’s defending America from the likes of me. :rolleyes: He may be a brave, partiotic person, but he’s clinging to some rather hateful, untrue beliefs, and since he has stood by his statement years later and never apologized or offered a retraction for any of it, I think his remark was very well-considered–in his mind, at least. No one’s crucifying him here, but his remark was wrong and his beliefs are wrong; heck, I’m more upset that other people don’t mind in the slightest than I am that he said it.
And so, I would then claim for several years at least that apparently clean-cut, well-spoken people cannot be citizens without asking for an explanation? I would not be very bright if I did so, particularly if the “evil” group has been in existence for fifty years.
So, it’s OK to be bigoted against Jews if you believe that they are in charge of a secret cabal trying to take over the world? Since when is believing in lies an excuse for predjudice? I can understand how some yahoo might think that Jews have done various evil things and that they might be predjudiced against them because of it, but I will not thereby make allowances for whatever crap they might spout regarding that. Also, I would like to see some evidence that he is unaware of the traditional defintion of atheism, which has meant simply “lack of belief in God” for over four hundred years. Atheists are not some obscure sect; we make up approximately 4 - 7% of the population, and if he has never looked beyond his own predjudices–as many from his era have done–it is to his shame.
It’s not an excuse, it’s a reason.
I am also curious if he has made other coroborative comments to the one in Satan’s link. Maybe he feels he was misquoted and is unwilling to dignify it with a response.
Misquoted? I don’t think so [empahasis mine]:
“Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit.” --Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign
Again Gaudere, that quote seems entirely correct (the first one.) As a religious man you wouldn’t expect Bush to endorse Atheism, and according to SOCAS, the Governments stance should be neutral.
It might just be another brocolli thing.
The second quote seems to be an opinion on American Atheists, the group, and not necessarily atheists who are also American. Was it made in the context of his job, or is it personal opinion?
Geez, and I even put it in italics and everything. He said he substansively stood by his original statement that atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots. His statement that atheism should not be unnecessarily encouraged is not so bad on it face, but given his apparent beliefs I find it a mite chilling.
::grumble:: You could at least read the link I so thoughfully posted. The official Bush campaign position is that a lawsuit against “under God” in the pledge, and indeed everything AA does is “bullshit”.
R. Sherman: “American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?”
Ed Murnane: “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.”
Sorry, I missed the link.
I have to admit that made me laugh. There’s certainly an admirable frankness there. I think I like Ed.
That puts Bush’s comments in a different perspective, doesn’t it? When he says “We are one nation under God,” he’s making reference to the lawsuit, and American Atheist’s pursuit of it. In that light it makes sense.
I don’t think it has anything to do with one’s right not to believe in God.