Athius

I was surfing the net when I found this site, I never knew about this, and it really angered me. Is this really true? And if it is, why isn't justice being done in the land of justice?

http://homepage.mac.com/drbillmartin...otes/bush.html

"The George Bush Quote

I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots.
This is one nation under God.
Bush--August 27, 1987



The History

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, cochairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a law-suit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois, suburb) from forcing his first-grade Atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place.

Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?

Murnane: It's bullshit.

Sherman: What is bullshit?

Murnane: Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit.

Sherman: Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue.

Murnane: You're welcome

This suit, now in federal district court for over three years, is not considered to be bullshit by the federal judge before whom it is pending. During the time it has been in the federal court, Robert Sherman's son, now age nine, has been physically and psychologically brutalized in his school for refusing to pledge to a "nation under God."

After Bush's election but before his taking office, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking that he consider being sworn into office on the Constitution instead of the Bible and also asking him to retract his August 1987 statement. Bush had his White House buddy, C. Boyden Gray, counsel to the president, reply 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."

American Atheists had not asked Bush to either "unnecessarily" or even "necessarily" encourage or support them. All they wanted was an apology for the insult. Many Atheists wrote to Bush over the issue and Nelson Lund, the associate counsel to the president, found it necessary to reply on April 7, 1989, directly to the American Atheist General Headquarters, Inc. This letter from the White House said that Mr. Gray was adhering to his statements in the February 21, 1989, letter. On May 4, 1989, Jon Murray, the president of

American Atheists, again wrote to President Bush demanding a clarification of and an apology for his statement that Atheists "should not be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." Bush ignored the letter, as did Gray and Lund. Mr. Murray also asked for an appointment so that a group of representatives of American Atheists could meet with Bush.

Mr. Joseph W. Hagin 11 responded on May 25, 1989, again on White House stationery. He stated that the president "appreciated your taking the time to write and your willingness to share your thoughts" but that "due to heavy commitments on his official calendar" the president could not meet with representatives of American Atheists. On January 9, 1990, George Bush, in signing a proclamation for the Martin Luther King holiday, had the gall to remark that "bigots" must be brought to justice. Again, American Atheists threw his words back in his face, asking what his designation of Atheists as being unworthy of citizenship was. 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."

Indeed it has, and that position is that George Bush is a bigot.

On February 21, 1~90, American Atheists wrote to every member of the United States Congress asking that body to pass a resolution condemning discrimination against Atheists by any elected or appointed official of government. The offered resolution read:

"No person in public life may be free to impugn the patriotism of any minority group because of that group's opinion in respect to religion. President George Bush is herewith censured for his public expression of August 27, 1987, at which time he stated: 'I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.'"

You don't need to guess how many senators and representatives answered that letter: there were none. At this point, American Atheists sent a list of the members of Congress to all of its membership and asked each one to write or telephone their congressmen. Hundreds of angry letters and telephone calls were received at the American Atheist GHQ during the next several months as it became obvious that the elected Congress was composed entirely of politicians too damn yellow to challenge Bush. In just one campaign incident, American Atheists was able to teach thousands of the nation's top-notch citizens that their government did not give a damn about them. This exercise added appreciably to the malcontentedness in the nation and rightly so.

American Atheists then sent every single columnist in the United States a packet of information-- from Pat Buchanan to Jim Fain. Only one was courageous enough to write a lengthy article on the matter: Tom Tiede. And the newspapers in which Tiede was syndicated did print his column taking the president to task. A little later, the CNN feature program "Larry King Live" broadcast a quarter-hour interview with Mr. Robert Sherman, as he detailed the perfidy of President Bush.

When George Bush appeared on the campus of the University of Texas on May 19, 1990, American Atheists placed a full-page advertisement in the Austin American-Statesman detailing the above and demanding an apology and an explanation. The founders of American Atheists, a thirty-year-old organization, are both honorably discharged veterans: Richard E O'Hair, U.S. Marines (totally and permanently disabled); and Madalyn O'Hair, Women's Army Corps. Both served in World War II.

On December 23, 1990, in Chicago, Illinois Mr. Robert Sherman met with Ed Derwinski, the secretary of the Department of Veteran's Affairs, to discuss exclusion of American Atheists from veteran's groups which have been chartered by the United States Congress. Mr. Derwinski said he would do "absolutely nothing" about the discrimination. On January 3, Mr. Sherman crossed paths with Ed Derwinski again at the Illinois inaugurations. He asked Mr. Derwinski, at that time, what American Atheists could do to have the Bush administration take an interest in the problem of discrimination against American Atheist veterans. Mr. Derwinski's response was:

"What you should do for me is what you should do for everybody: Believe in God. Get off our backs."

When Mr. Sherman was in Washington, D.C., on another issue on March 20, 1991, he again met with Mr. Derwinski, who, on this occasion, shouted that the Atheists should "get off his back," that the Bush administration would do nothing for them, and that they would need to "sue" to end discrimination against them.
To add pointed insult to injury, the City of Chicago Commission on Human Rights refused to permit American Atheist Veterans to appear as a group in the Fourth of July "Welcome Home" parade for the veterans of Desert Storm in that city.

In the corridors of American history, Atheists have loomed large: Clarence Darrow, Margaret Sanger, Mark Twain, Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Albert Einstein, California's Governor Culbert L. Olson, Thomas Edison, the great botanist Luther Burbank, and James Smithson, founder of the Smithsonian
Institution. The list is [can become very] long.

American Atheists ask that you write to George Bush, President of the United States, at The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20500 and ask him for an apology to this group which comprises 9 percent of the population."

Rhea

And he finished his presidency without ever having to answer this charge.

Is it worth censuring an _ex_ president? (Much as it pisses me off?)

What I would be concerned with, is what discrimination is happening to Atheists NOW. It may just be that we begin to get our rights quietly instead of loudly. That is, not that we need to be quiet, just that the bigots will only give up quietly.

Shake

OK, while I appreciate that post and even support its ideals, I feel I should remind you: that particular George Bush has been out of office for about a decade now. I realize W is no atheistic friend either. Do you feel that this campaign (writing to GB Sr.) should be carried on to the current President Bush?

Shadowy Man

I don't know. I've read about this quote, but have never found any confirmation of it outside of web pages like the one to which you linked.

But maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

Athius

Well, if GB Sr. is this much anti-Atheist you can be sure that the current GB is probably the same. What angers me most is that we praise these idiots as American heros when they so openly violate the core idea of our constitution and our rights. If this were said about Christians for example by any president, he would have been forced out of office in less than a week, but if it is said about Atheists, nobody gives it a crap.

Rhea your idea of silent opposition sounds good but can you elaborate?

Rhea

I agree wholeheartedly about how angering it is AND how the Shrub probably learned at his Daddy's knee.

What I mean by silent is not silent opposition, but rather silent change.

In other words to not rant about the past because I don't expect any Fundies to publicly apologize or change their ways. Case in point - the Shrub. While I expect he does embrace his Daddy's ideal, he cannot afford to embrace it publicly. However, nor can he afford to renounce it publicly. Stuck between a bigoted mindset and a pragmatic knowledge of today's environment, he just tries to avoid it. By doing so he is -quietly- allowing a change to happen.

He won't announce it, or celebrate it, but he will let it happen. Already he has allowed himself to be forced to not repeat his Daddy's tirade. I suspect he would LOVE to repeat it loud and fervently. But he has allowed himself to be forced to remain silent on the issue.

I'm only say that is a much bigger step than we give the people who so forced him credit for. It really is a GIANT step forward that the Shrub is scared to repeat it.

So we keep trying to force the issue, but not try to crow about any victories. Because that would make the Fundies too uncomfortable. I advocate keeping them comfortable enough to keep reluctantly accepting change. Vocal on the efforts, silent on the expectation of a public apology. Not beating a dead horse?

Until a critical mass is achieved, then a change in strategy might be warranted.

That's not really clear, nor well thought out so I welcome discussion. It's just what came to mind with regard to Bush the Elder's comment.

Mageth

Well, if GB Sr. is this much anti-Atheist you can be sure that the current GB is probably the same.

Well, no, actually I can't be sure of Dubya's anti-atheism based on a questionable quote from his father. Actually, I can't reach any conclusion about Dubya's anti-atheism based on that quote, or on anything else his father said or did. My father is a fundie xian who thinks atheists, gays, and even what he terms "intellectuals" are doomed for hell. I wouldn't want anyone judging me based on what my father says.

I choose to judge Dubya by his own actions and words. What I've heard and seen is not encouraging, admittedly, but at least as of yet I don't think he's illustrated that level of bigotry.

Spaz

I'm not so sure that dubya follows his father in that exactly, although he does seem to like to follow him in most things. On dubya's own accord he seems to be very pro-religion, but I'm not sure of anti-atheist.

Sabine Grant

As a christian, I actualy find GW Bush to be a disgrace to my personal faith.

ashibaka

I believe it is also in The Clothes Have No Emperor, which recounts the 1980s in diary format. I might be wrong, though.

Anyway, it is now irrelevant, because that was poppy Bush and now we're dealing with baby Bush, who has carefully appealed to Christian fundamentalists without insulting atheism.