Bush Snr: Atheists not Patriots or Citizens Debunked?

[Ocelot]

In another thread mention was made of the infamous Bush Senior quote where here is supposed to have said that Atheists were not true Patriots or Citizens.

I'd heard of the quote before but was surprised to hear...

This has been completely debunked for some time.

So I started looking into it and can see that it's certainly been questioned, perhaps with good reason but completely debunked?

So I've started a new thread to discuss...

Let's continue

But if you can, it would help to provide a link to an actual video.

I've actually been in correspondence with some sources for this canard and no-one who was present accepts that the exchange - one which would have been very newsworthy - ever took place at all.

According to your account, this was a "formal" press conference. Therefore there would have been several well-seasoned and experienced observers in the form of journalists in place. They would have been (indeed, were, according to the three journalists I traced down) equipped with recording devices, and, according to Sherman himself when I contacted him, the whole thing was filmed.

Despite all of this no record whatever exists of the purported exchange and Sherman has persistently tried to wriggle away from questions about why there is no record.

Is this the wiggling to which you refer?

I've been a journalist in my time, and this would certainly have been a huge story.

Well evidently not. Because it was actually published by Sherman at the time and no-one else picked up on it. Don't say "because they knew it wasn't true." If you were a journalist then surely you know better than that. There are ways and means of publishing the headline and story even if by paragraph 19 you include the caveat that it's probably not true. Surely you're not claiming that all news organizations are above doing so.

Even if I decided not to run with it, I would have noted the comments and filed them duly annotated in the archive just in case the issue ever arose in the future. TV stations do not simply ditch footage; it may turn out to be of value in the future even if it has limited news value right now.

Please don't be offended but I'm not sure I can just take you word for this crucial point when it's in contradiction to Sherman's explanation.

A related question that comes up is: What about the tapes made by all the television and radio stations? Why can't I get it from them? The answer is that broadcasters save only that portion of their tapes that are broadcast over the air. After that, tapes are erased and re-used.

OK then. According to Sherman, Bush also announced additional disaster relief at that press conference. Now I'm sure this news will have been corroborated by the other reporters there so neither of us is in any doubt that this happened. However to see how fair it is that you ask for recorded evidence for Sherman's comment I'd like to ask how easy it would be for you (as an ex journalist) to provide recorded evidence of this otherwise undisputed fact. Further more can you provide any recordings from that Press Conference that were not broadcast. To further dispute Sherman's claim that such tapes are routinely deleted. If so I shall have to accept that the lack of recorded evidence for Sherman's claim is suspect. If not then what then I can't really draw any conclusions from this apparent lack.

I've approached this from every angle, including contacting the man himself. Every single indication is that it never ever happened.

Well there's the correspondence after the fact which is apparently verifiable in Whitehouse records. At no point do any presidential aides deny the comment. So whilst this is not exactly the undeniable proof that Sherman might like to claim it as, it does strongly indicate that he's telling the truth.

Word went around the US atheist community some time ago that Sherman was not to be trusted on the issue.

Sorry to burst your bubble on this, but it's right that we hold atheist claims to the same scrutiny as those of theists.

Quite so and of course that cuts both ways. Now I'm not saying that you're wrong, it's just that I'd heard of the quote before in passing and this was the first time I'd seen it questioned so I'd like to know more.

I think there's certainly reason to question it but if it's been "completely debunked" then there's more to the debunking than what you're presenting here.

 

[Nova Land]

I would agree, it has not been "competely debunked".

On the other hand, it has never been shown to be true. The only person who has ever claimed Bush said this is Robert Sherman. No other reporter present has ever confirmed that Bush said this.

That leaves a number of possibilities. One is that no other reporter happened to be near enough to hear the exchange. One is that other reporters were near enough to hear it, and it happened as Sherman says, but they failed to register the significance of what Bush said. Another is that other reporters were near enough to hear it, and heard something different than Sherman did.

There are several questions that arise. One is, how reliable a source is Sherman for hearing correctly what people he disagrees with say and transcribing it from memory? Trained journalists can be very good at this; but many people are not. And people who are strong partisans on a particular issue -- as Sherman appears to be in this instance -- are among those who are often the poorest at this. Until Sherman's credibility on this can be established, the amount of weight which should be given to one party presenting from an unconfirmed memory their recollection of what another party said is very low.

Another key question is, who were the other reporters present and what specifically have they said regarding Sherman's claim? Sherman is the person in the best position to identify the other reporters and as far as I know he has never publicly done so.

I would think that one of the first things a person in Sherman's position should have done is contact the other reporters to ask if they heard the exchange. Did he? And if so, what did they say? I was interested in this a few years ago, when it was a topic of discussion in previous JREF threads, and looked at various sites to see if Sherman said anything about this. I wasn't able to find anything. I found his lack of any mention of this puzzling.

I may simply not have looked in the right places. I considered writing to Sherman, to ask him about this, but (as with many things I intend to write) I did not get to it then. If you are serious about pursuing this, that might be something you could do now.

So no, it has not been debunked. No one has proven that the exchange never happened. But in the absence of any evidence to support Sherman's claim that Bush said this, the rational position to take is neither belief nor disbelief but lack of belief: it's possible this is true, but until credible evidence is presented to support Sherman's claim a skeptic should lack belief that this happened.

edited to add: my personal belief, from considering the various possibilities and weighing their likelihoods, is that Sherman asked Bush a question (as Sherman claims) and Bush gave him an answer (as Sherman claims) and Sherman misunderstood what Bush said. That's not surprising; Bush Sr. often spoke in somewhat garbled sentences. I would not be surprised if Bush said he thought atheists were less patriotic than other citizens. I would also not be surprised if to Sherman the sentence construction made it sound as if Bush were saying atheists had fewer rights than other citizens.

If we had the exact wording of Bush's words we could examine them and see if Sherman is correctly remembering and correctly reporting. But we don't.

A mainstream politician saying publicly that atheists have fewer rights than other citizens is an extraordinary occurrence. Neither Bush Sr nor any other prominent politician has ever been caught on tape saying this. Which means a skeptic needs some pretty good evidence before believing this incident happened as Sherman claims -- and so far we don't even have acceptable ordinary evidence for this having happened, let alone extraordinary evidence.

 

[Nova Land]

A previous thread on this topic can be found at Evidence that Bush Sr hates atheists

A related thread, claiming that Bush made an anti-atheist remark on the Don Imus show, can be found at George H.W. Bush Espouses His Anti-Atheist Sentiment on Don Imus This Morning.

 

[Dancing David]

Snopes turns up just some blog posts.

 

[NiallM]

All I can do is to urge anyone in doubt to ring Sherman himself and see how credible he is.

When I talked to him he claimed to have tapes hich backed up the thing. When I asked him to share them he clammed up. Even when I offered money to have the reports carried in a UK newspaper. I was a stringer at the time and could have done ith the money, and my main customer would have been glad to carry the story. You must remember that there is also a press out there which represents left-wing as well as right-wing humanism and secularism.

The markey for such a story was there. I offered it to Sherman, with a good sum of money involved, but he couldn't provide any evidence of the encounter. Not just evidence in the form of hand-written notes, or evidence of a hasty comment made in a media ruck, but *no evidence whatsoever*.

He claimed to have tapes but wasn't prepared - at any price - to release these tapes. Now, for someone who claimed to be in the forefront of atheist activism, this was odd. If he had a smoking gun tape, then I thought that he's be hawking it everywhere for free. Yet when offered serious money for it he seemingly didn't have it to hand.

I spent a bit of time following this up. He's on the record as saying that he invites calls about it. Look him up. Ring him up. Don't take my word for this at all.

I'm so convinced that the thing is a lie that my only suggestion - and in any context it's an honest and challenging one - is to go straight to the source and judge it yourself.

His phone number is freely available on his website, which is at http://www.robsherman.com/

His number is (847) 870-0700

(Moderators, if you wish to redact his number, that's fine with me - it's available on his website, but I'm fine if there's an embargo on publishing contact details).

Anyway, my contacts with him were all about his wriggling and his inability to produce - despite money being on the table - any proof that the exchange occurred. Remember that the transaction would not only have been a strong point for the atheist movement, but that he himself would have made money from it. Justified money.

That he couldn't stand up to accept to that offer says a lot.

 

[NiallM]

In another thread mention was made of the infamous Bush Senior quote where here is supposed to have said that Atheists were not true Patriots or Citizens.

I'd heard of the quote before but was surprised to hear...


...Well evidently not. Because it was actually published by Sherman at the time and no-one else picked up on it.

Published where?

Don't say "because they knew it wasn't true."

I would say that, if , err, it wasn't true. Anybody would say that. If something is not true, then it's not true. I'll feel free to say any time someone makes a false claim. This is a forum for sceptics. I'd hope that everyone here would do the same to me if I utter something which is false. that

If you were a journalist then surely you know better than that. There are ways and means of publishing the headline and story even if by paragraph 19

Look, if you been in the business that I've been in you know that one thing is certain. As a stringer, being paid by the column inch you structure your articles as pyramids. In that way the meat is at the bottom and subbies can't easily chop your article without robbing it of sense. Yes, some of the tabloids operate on the basis that nobody reads past the headline and the first two paragraphs, but you'd expect that Sherman as trying to appeal to a rather more sophisticated audience.

you include the caveat that it's probably not true. Surely you're not claiming that all news organizations are above doing so.

I made no claims whatever about any news organisations other than that they tend to be rather clingy about the press conferences that they film. They have good reason to be: a president might die or be shot the day after they film him, in which ase the film is invaluable. The president might get enmired in a future controversy in which case his past comments might be of value. Most of all, TV stations keep every piece of film because they report news and because if they get it wrong they may be sued for enormous sums Tape is cheap, and current storage technologies ar even cheaper. TV stations simply don't discard footage in the way that they once did.

Please don't be offended but I'm not sure I can just take you word for this crucial point when it's in contradiction to Sherman's explanation.

I'm not offended in the least and I urge you to contact Sherman himself. This is a Randi type challenge. I would encourage you to go straight to the man himself and, unencumbered by any questions from me to try get straight to the heart of the issue. Ok, well I'd suggest that you ask him for tapes.

OK then. According to Sherman, Bush also announced additional disaster relief at that press conference. Now I'm sure this news will have been corroborated by the other reporters there so neither of us is in any doubt that this happened.

Again, I've spoken to people present and I'd suggest you do the same. It took me half an hour to get the names of people who were there.

However to see how fair it is that you ask for recorded evidence for Sherman's comment I'd like to ask how easy it would be for you (as an ex journalist) to provide recorded evidence of this otherwise undisputed fact.

As easy as it is for any serious journalist to acces his - or his outlet's - archives. When you submit any story of reasonable importance and which carries a risk of legal challenge, you will first have to have the thing verified by the outlet's legal people (in my country it was a barrister). He would ask for all of your sources, would examine them (taped or whatever), and would then have them put into secure storage. That was simply the only way that the newspaper could be insured against libel. They had to show that had performed due diligence, that they had what they thought were good sources, that they had recorded all conversations diligently, that they were acting in good faith and that all records were filed according to best standards Miss any of these and the insurers would tell you that you were on your own in a libel case.

Further more can you provide any recordings from that Press Conference that were not broadcast. To further dispute Sherman's claim that such tapes are routinely deleted. If so I shall have to accept that the lack of recorded evidence for Sherman's claim is suspect. If not then what then I can't really draw any conclusions from this apparent lack.

Well there's the correspondence after the fact which is apparently verifiable in Whitehouse records. At no point do any presidential aides deny the comment.

This is the "failure to deny" attack, well illustrated in a letter to Vi magaine several years ago after t'Paus lead singer Carol Decker returned to her dressing room to find that someone had ejaculated in her underwear. The letter read: "Dear Sir, I find it disturbing that while not explicitly accused of coming in Carol Decker's knickers, Cliff Richard hasn't denied ever having done so."

So whilst this is not exactly the undeniable proof that Sherman might like to claim it as, it does strongly indicate that he's telling the truth.

Just ring the guy and see how credible he is. Ask to listen to the tapes.

Quite so and of course that cuts both ways. Now I'm not saying that you're wrong, it's just that I'd heard of the quote before in passing and this was the first time I'd seen it questioned so I'd like to know more.

Errr, ring him and ask for more. Specifically, ask him to play the tapes. Tell him that I will get him a major story in a UK broadsheet with commensurate earnings for him - and a serious cut for you too if he agrees to produce the tapes.

I think there's certainly reason to question it but if it's been "completely debunked" then there's more to the debunking than what you're presenting here.

He made a well-publicised claim and has never ever supported it despite every inducment.

But, I'm a sceptic and so are you. Go to the source. Ask him why he won't produce the tape when to do so would result in him personally gaining money and would also further the cause he supports.

 

[Ocelot]

http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm

I wrote up my story and submitted it to my editor to be considered for publication in the magazine. All of the star reporters from the Chicago political press corps were there, along with members of the White House press corps (those who regularly cover the President and Vice President) and other national news reporters, but no other reporter did anything with the story about Mr. Bush's anti-atheist comments.

The demand for proof​

Beginning a few years after my story was published, some atheists and other concerned citizens began to ask for proof that the conversation between Mr. Bush and myself actually took place, and that Mr. Bush actually said what he said. I had nothing but my spotless reputation to go on, but that's not enough for many who don't know me. Being that I was a print journalist, I had no need for a tape. All I needed to do was to take accurate notes and report the story in writing.​

Urban legend has it that I supposedly made some kind of tape, but that I refuse to release it. The fact of the matter is that I never made a tape. Anybody who really knows me would know that, if I had made a tape, I not only would make it available, I would put it up on this web site so that you could listen to it. However, the reality is that I never made a tape.

As for failling to deny. Your Cliff Richard example is very amusing but the relavant difference is how many times Sir Cliff of Wimbledon was invited to address the accusation.

Take the famous Paxo interview of Michael Howard. Have a quick refresher if you will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI

Now, watching that do you get the impression that Howard "threatened to overrule him [Dereck Lewis]

No it's not proof but avoiding the question 14 times is pretty good confirmation of a previously published claim.

Can't the same be said of the 40 pages of correspondence on this issue?

 

[Nova Land]

... there's the correspondence after the fact which is apparently verifiable in White House records. At no point do any presidential aides deny the comment. So whilst this is not exactly the undeniable proof that Sherman might like to claim it as, it does strongly indicate that he's telling the truth.

No, it doesn't.

In the first post of the 2006 thread, thaiboxerken provides a link to Rob Sherman's site. At that site are links to pdf files of that correspondence. At the time I looked at and made notes on that material, intending to write a post (which I never got around to).

In short, the letters sent to Bush regarding the alleged quote are good examples of how not to write a letter if you wish to get a responsive answer. The handwritten letter from John P. McReady, which you can read on pages 4, 5, and 6 of this pdf, is a good example. Jon Murray's letters, while neatly typed, are not much better.

If you want to get an informative answer from someone, it is better to write a simple, clear, non-hostile letter of inquiry than to write a long, illegible, hostile screed which insists the person is guilty (of something you do not actually know they have done) and demands an apology for it.***

Over the years, public figures have learned that it's generally better to ignore hostile accusations than to respond to them. So the fact that Barack Obama does not publicly respond to letters demanding he prove his citizenship is not strong evidence he was born in Kenya. The fact that Sarah Palin has never produced Trig Palin's birth certificate and never provided any medical records of his birth is not strong evidence that she did not give birth to him. The fact that people on the Warren Commission did not respond to various accusations regarding covering up facts in the Kennedy assassination is not strong evidence that they did cover up those facts. The fact that people accused of helping cover up the truth about 9/11 have not responded to these accusations is not strong evidence that the destruction of the WTC was carried out by the US government.

Just as we need evidence before believing any of those, we need evidence before believing that Bush said atheists do not have the same rights as other citizens.

The simplest way to settle this is to find the other journalists present and ask them what happened. If Sherman wants to establish that things happened as he claimed, it's odd that instead of trying to get these journalists' accounts of the incident on the record he is instead arguing that the incident must have happened as he said because the White House didn't answer a variety of rude letters to his satisfaction. To you, that indicates he's telling the truth; to me, it indicates just the opposite.

No one else who was present has been willing to confirm what Sherman says. Do you have any credible explanation for why none of the other journalists have come forward to confirm Sherman's claim, if his claim is true?

*** It would be interesting to look over old issues of American Atheist to see what Sherman wrote at the time. Unfortunately I am not near a library which has those back issues. What I am curious is whether he wrote something which encouraged readers to write the White House inquiring about this matter (and the people who acted on this were not intelligent enough to know how to write such a letter) or if he wrote something which encouraged readers to badger the White House about this (and the people who acted on this were doing exactly as Sherman had requested).

 

[Nova Land]

I wrote up my story and submitted it to my editor to be considered for publication in the magazine. All of the star reporters from the Chicago political press corps were there, along with members of the White House press corps (those who regularly cover the President and Vice President) and other national news reporters, but no other reporter did anything with the story about Mr. Bush's anti-atheist comments.

And why is it that none of them did anything with it? One possible explanation is it's a conspiracy to suppress a story of anti-atheist prejudice; another possible explanation is it's because they did not hear Bush say what Sherman alleges he said.

Has Sherman asked them? It is the obvious thing to do. So let's assume he believes Bush said what he claims Bush said and he believes others were present at the time, and he has gone to them to ask what they heard. What answers did they give Sherman, and why has he not written this down for the benefit of those who are curious about this incident and trying to find the truth?

Beginning a few years after my story was published, some atheists and other concerned citizens began to ask for proof that the conversation between Mr. Bush and myself actually took place, and that Mr. Bush actually said what he said. I had nothing but my spotless reputation to go on, but that's not enough for many who don't know me.

Modest, isn't he?

He's right; I don't know him. Looking over the writing in the current stories at his site, Rob Sherman News ("Serious Journalism, Professionally Written"), I am not impressed with his journalism skills. Here's a recent example of his writing:

Daveri, the developer for the proposed severely overcrowded ghetto of severely undersized apartments for the severely mentally ill on Boeger Drive in Arlington Heights, keeps failing in its efforts to fake out the community, rather than coming up with a project that meets the needs of both the prospective residents and the surrounding community.

Scam # 1 was when Daveri tried to conceal the project from the neighbors until it was too late for us to stop it. Unfortunately for Daveri, experienced community activists Craig Horwitz and Rob Sherman live nearby, and we know how to get attention when somebody tries to screw our neighborhood.

I think that is poorly written, using emotive terms instead of providing factual information. It uses a lot of words to tell very little about what actually happened.

So far we have Rob Sherman testifying to his skill and his spotless reputation. If his competence and reliability as a journalist are at issue, I'd like to see some neutral sources attesting to it.

Being that I was a print journalist, I had no need for a tape. All I needed to do was to take accurate notes and report the story in writing.

That makes no sense. Many print journalists use tape to get reliable transcripts -- and there have been a number of notable cases where journalists were challenged on the accuracy of quotes in their articles, where these tapes were key in determining whether the journalist was correct or not.

If Sherman chooses not to use tape (and to have no source to verify his accounts, unless other people present are able to do so), that's his choice. A poor one, I'd say. In an instance such as this, where an accurate transcription of the exact words spoken, a tape would be invaluable. Given that, even when this incident occurred small hand-held tape recorders capable of making good quality recordings were readily available, I am surprised by his choice not to carry one.

Unless, of course, he was the kind of journalist more involved with writing opinion pieces and advocacy pieces than with reporting of facts. Do you know which kind of writing he specialized in? (From what little I've seen, it appears to me that straight news reporting is not his forte.)

 

[Beerina]

Who the hell doesn't tape their interview with the President?

 

[Nova Land]

Who the hell doesn't tape their interview with the President?

In Sherman's defense, he didn't exactly have an interview with the president. Or, at least, not a scheduled one.

My understanding of the incident (based on what I remember from reading about this back in 2006) is that Sherman was present along with a lot of other reporters on an occasion when Bush was speaking to the press in general -- not to Sherman in particular. Afterwards, Bush was walking (to his plane?) and Sherman, walking nearby, was able to ask a question and get a reply.

Sherman may have been hoping for such an opportunity (in which case I think he was foolish not to have a recording device handy). But it's also possible he had no idea he'd have this opportunity and so hadn't thought to prepare for it.

So it's not like he showed up knowing he'd be able to ask the president his question. It was a spur of the moment opportunity, and he seized it. (Or such is my understanding. NiallM seems much better informed, so can probably correct me if I'm wrong on this point.)

 

[Cleon]

All I can do is to urge anyone in doubt to ring Sherman himself and see how credible he is.

That may be so, but frankly if your claim is based on this, I think you have overstated the case by saying it's been "completely debunked."

 

[casebro]

This quote from Sherman's site? "I wrote up my story and submitted it to my editor to be considered for publication in the magazine."

But sounds like it was never published? Or wouldn't somebody be quoting the article?

So it sounds like no proof of an unpublished comment?

 

[Puppycow]

Is this the wiggling to which you refer?

Any significance to the date at the top of the page there, April 1, 2006?

 

[Puppycow]

Who the hell doesn't tape their interview with the President?

It was a different era. Recording equipment was bulkier, more expensive, more difficult to set up. Most reporters had grown up just taking notes by hand. They prided themselves in not needing recording equipment.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Rob says it. I believe it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It was a different era. Recording equipment was bulkier, more expensive, more difficult to set up.

I don't know how old you are, but I was around in the late 80s. Tape recorders could easily fit in the palm of your hand back then. You could only get 90 to 120 minutes per cassette (compared to todays 2,000 song iPods) but it wasn't bulky by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Nova Land]

Any significance to the date at the top of the page there, April 1, 2006?

The April 1 date seems pure coincidence.

But I'm glad you posted that; I didn't bother clicking the link in Ocelot's OP, but did click it in yours. This is a clearer account of the incident than I recall reading before. I thought the incident between Bush and Sherman occurred after the press conference (which would a provide a non-conspiracy theory explanation for why Sherman thought he heard Bush say atheists weren't citizens but no other person present reported on this). But according to this account, it was a question asked during the question-and-answer session, in the full presence of the other reporters:

Mr. Bush held a news conference at O'Hare Airport that afternoon. I attended the news conference as a fully credentialed reporter with clearance from the Secret Service to be there. I was the Midwest Bureau Chief of American Atheist Press, reporting for the American Atheist Magazine.

After Mr. Bush took several questions about the disaster declaration, reporters' questions turned to politics, as Mr. Bush had just announced his candidacy, one week earlier, for the nomination of his party for President. The Republican National Convention and the election were one year away.

I asked Mr. Bush, "What are you going to do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

Mr. Bush replied, "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."

I followed up: "Do you support the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

Mr. Bush replied, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

After other reporters asked a few questions about issues that they were concerned about, I was then able to get in one more follow-up question on my subject: "Do you support the constitutionality of state/church separation?"

Vice President Bush responded, "I support separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

Given this version of how it happened, I see no credible non-conspiracy theory explanation for why no other journalist present has ever publicly confirmed Sherman's claim that Bush said atheists aren't citizens if he actually did say it.

 

[Darat]

That may be so, but frankly if your claim is based on this, I think you have overstated the case by saying it's been "completely debunked."

The burden of proof is with the one making the claim and since all we (apparently) have is the word of one person then trying to determine that person's credibility is about all we can do.

I hadn't known the background to this now I do I would have to say those that use this quote what evidence do they have that it is true? As it stands I'd say the circumstantial evidence is against it being true.

 

[Puppycow]

Given this version of how it happened, I see no credible non-conspiracy theory explanation for why no other journalist present has ever publicly confirmed Sherman's claim that Bush said atheists aren't citizens if he actually did say it.

Have any of them even been asked?
The explanation Sherman himself gives seems pretty reasonable. They all had other stories to write and weren't interested.

But, who knows. I'll just consider this an unresolved claim.