B. Bush: B is for Evil... I mean bigot

GB-GIL Trans-global

Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq
Registered Senior Member
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.

source: pamphlet from "american atheist veterans"
 
Here comes sickness

Well, it's not quite a pep-talk, but I'll try to put a positive spin on it:

•_....

Okay, so much for the positive spin.

I've learned to expect this of religious folk; this doesn't excuse them, but it's never been any different in my life.

You cannot take on religion directly.

I have never had success going head to head, for instance, with Jesus Christ. But I can steal his breakfast through the back door like you wouldn't believe. Rule #1 is Never ever engage religion directly.

When you engage a religious idea directly, it has the effect of freezing the issue and polarizing all who are interested. I've seen Christians come to the defense of a child molester before merely because the issue publicly became about religion, and this has nothing to do with the Catholics. But after the "he couldn't do that" talk was shattered by the emergence of an illegally-suppressed police report, some people then took the astonishing line that it was a matter of privacy. I sat there with my jaw open: Dude, he exposed himself to children in the bathroom at Disney World.

And all because they were defensive (and rightfully so) about the issue being unnecessarily reflected upon all Christians. If critics had kept to the indecent exposure story, there wouldn't have been a sideshow about harassment of Christians.

Is it possible to get a handle on reproductive issues when Christianity is involved?

This is why you don't engage religion directly.

I cannot stress enough that instead of trying to "slay God", you merely need to remove its importance. In the homosexual debate, for instance, liberal Christians argue against discrimination and ostracism and disenfranchisement of gays by pointing out that the creation of new outcasts was not what Jesus wanted. There was a time when, if Jesus had come, he would have been found hanging out in The Castro, with the sick and dying. The object is to emasculate the idea of carrying out God's judgment on Earth.

Now, in more abstract matters, this is a harder thing. But is the atheist idea or the atheist identity more important? This is not to suggest the suppression of the identity, but rather it should not be a primary identifier. One might respond to this or that religious assertion with an atheistically-devised technical response, or one might simply employ Aldous Huxley to show the fallacy of the religious assertion.

Think of it as subversion if you have to.

Because the hideous reality of the situation is that while many religious folk carry on in an intolerable manner, there's simply too many of them to demand change of.

I mean, think about it: if polls can be trusted (ha!) 90%+ of Americans are stupid enough to believe that the "under God" phrase in the Pledge is appropriate.

On the other hand, the last time the public was so assured of its discriminatory power, we had a civil rights conflagration.

They're interesting times. Thrice in my life have people gotten up and used a televised platform to condemn groups to which I can be said to statistically belong to death. I can't count the number of times I've heard it said that I deserve no civil rights.

To be honest, it's getting to the point where I'm officially considering whether or not such a condition constitutes a sickness. There's something wrong with people; reason doesn't work and conflict only firms their resolve. And it's getting so shallow that it's not even conflicting principles, but conflicting realities. I mean, the Pledge argument basically comes down to "We believe in Freedom of Religion as long as you do not decide to believe a certain thing."

Looks like sickness. Tastes like sickness.

I may be obliged to prescribe a merciful remedy. I know that's not at the top of the list of things you want to hear, though. But I really am starting to see it as illness.

There is no explanation which will excuse such behavior as you've documented. There is no logic to explain it.

Don't know what else to tell you.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
"He did what he thought was right. Meaning he did what was the most right according to his moral system. Or at least what he did wasn't "wrong" according to his moral system."

"I'm saying, it's right to hate/strip freedoms from atheists if it does not go against your moral code, but it's wrong if it does."


Excuse my slight changes to your quote.
 
Back
Top