Evidence that Bush Sr hates atheists.

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,578
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060525.htm

It's there. Rob Sherman: "For nineteen years, many concerned Americans, from conservative Christians to liberal atheists, have questioned the credibility of my claim that Vice President Bush told me at an O'Hare Airport news conference on August 27, 1987, that atheists should not be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic, because this is "One Nation under God.""


Well, I've read throught the PDF's and it does make a compelling case. The evidence is pretty sound to me. The White House of that time did not deny Bush made the statement, and instead, tries to justify that what he said won't affect policy.
 
thaiboxerken said:
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060525.htm

It's there. Rob Sherman: "For nineteen years, many concerned Americans, from conservative Christians to liberal atheists, have questioned the credibility of my claim that Vice President Bush told me at an O'Hare Airport news conference on August 27, 1987, that atheists should not be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic, because this is "One Nation under God.""


Well, I've read throught the PDF's and it does make a compelling case. The evidence is pretty sound to me. The White House of that time did not deny Bush made the statement, and instead, tries to justify that what he said won't affect policy.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. The guys here can't believe the father of their hero would admit to the agenda in such a baldfaced fashion.
 
I agree, JJ. Unless Bush Sr comes out on TV and says "I said it" then they won't believe it. Even then, they probably won't believe it.
 
I have to admit I liked Bush Sr, probably for all the wrong reasons. Maybe it was his face, or the way he talked, but he always reminded me of a scrawny chicken, cluck cluck cluck. And Barbara was a plump hen suitable for roasting. They were cute. How such an amiably chickeny couple produced a pair of snakes I can't figure out. Isn't the legendary basilisk a serpent born of a chicken egg? How's W's eyesight lately?
 
Rob Sherman invites people to call him to talk about it if they want as well.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, or if you want clarification on what certain of the documents represent, you are welcome to contact me at rob@robsherman.com or call me at (847) 870-0700, rather than relying on speculative comments in chat rooms by people who don't know what they're talking about because they have never bothered to check the facts, either by contacting me, contacting the Bush Presidential Library or doing other research.
 
I don't see any ironclad evidence in those faxes. Perhaps I missed it?

In the second fax Lund writes that he deliberately avoided addressing the "allegations", and he further recommends not responding to follow ups, to let "sleeping dogs lie".

While I do pretty much think Bush did make those comments, I can't say these faxes added anything to my belief. I bet you can find thousands of letters accusing Bush of implanting listening devices in the letter writer's brain, with no followup from Bush or his counsel stating "Bush did not implant listening device in your brain, either by himself or by direction from him." Seems pretty standard (and weasely) to avoid addressing specific compaints if at all possible. Ever written a complaint letter to a representative and gotten a stock, vague reply back? It's just how it goes, unfortunately.

Again, I believe Rob Sherman's account, I'm just not seeing additional evidence in these faxes.


Edited to add: I guess I regard this sentence, written by Lund, to be the key:
He points out, correctly, that your reply did not respond to his demand for an apology from the President. 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 an apology, I think the best course of action is to ignore this follow-up corrrespondence; continuing to exhange letters would only make it increasingly obvious that we are refusing to address the issue he is raising.
Click to expand...

And there we have it. Evidence that they are refusing to address whether it happened or not, evidence that they feel they can't defend the remarks if it was said, but no admittal that it was said. I can see this exact same letter written whether or not Lund knew Bush made those remarks or not. I certainly see no evidence that anyone even tried to verify whether they were said or not, and I see no evidence that any of this was ever seen by Bush. Standard PR, brush it under the rug and hope it goes away.
 
Last edited:
I've read the documents and I'm surprised by the original conversation. Why not say something that appeals to atheists instead of condemning them? Plenty of athiests like increased military spending and tax cuts at the expense of the poor. Bush could have scored points but instead, he decided that promoting his sick religious views was more important than winning more votes.
 
bjb said:
I've read the documents and I'm surprised by the original conversation. Why not say something that appeals to atheists instead of condemning them? Plenty of athiests like increased military spending and tax cuts at the expense of the poor. Bush could have scored points but instead, he decided that promoting his sick religious views was more important than winning more votes.
Click to expand...
I think he didn't actually decided to do it that way, but being completely unprepared for such a question, just let his gut speak. Another religious bigot who doesn't even understand the basic founding principles of his own country. Oh, and he's the leader of said country at the time. The mind boggles.
 
[I bet you can find thousands of letters accusing Bush of implanting listening devices in the letter writer's brain]

I assume you have the fax copies of these thousands of letters.

We know that the question was asked and an answer was given. Roger, tell us how *did* Bush Sr. respond to that question? Apparently you believe he said something completely innocent that got twisted out of context. I agree that could have happened. But if he didn't condemn atheists, what did he actually say?
 
hgc said:
I think he didn't actually decided to do it that way, but being completely unprepared for such a question, just let his gut speak. Another religious bigot who doesn't even understand the basic founding principles of his own country. Oh, and he's the leader of said country at the time. The mind boggles.
Click to expand...

Nah, given what I've heard from "christians" (please note, those of you who practice the inclusive, forgiveness version of the religion, I don't mean you, I mean self-described "christians" who run around bludgeoning people with Leviticus), it's not surprising at all. It's the old "with us or against us" mentality, writ with religion.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I agree, JJ. Unless Bush Sr comes out on TV and says "I said it" then they won't believe it. Even then, they probably won't believe it.
Click to expand...

How dare I ask for evidence? Why if Bush -- either one -- is involved it should be assumed by default that the worst possible scenario is true! And we, as skeptics, should know!

You people are pathetic.

I have not yet read the PDFs, but I will now just wanted to respond to yours and jj's posts which were certainly aimed at me.
 
roger said:
I don't see any ironclad evidence in those faxes. Perhaps I missed it?

In the second fax Lund writes that he deliberately avoided addressing the "allegations", and he further recommends not responding to follow ups, to let "sleeping dogs lie".

While I do pretty much think Bush did make those comments, I can't say these faxes added anything to my belief. I bet you can find thousands of letters accusing Bush of implanting listening devices in the letter writer's brain, with no followup from Bush or his counsel stating "Bush did not implant listening device in your brain, either by himself or by direction from him." Seems pretty standard (and weasely) to avoid addressing specific compaints if at all possible. Ever written a complaint letter to a representative and gotten a stock, vague reply back? It's just how it goes, unfortunately.

Again, I believe Rob Sherman's account, I'm just not seeing additional evidence in these faxes.


Edited to add: I guess I regard this sentence, written by Lund, to be the key:

And there we have it. Evidence that they are refusing to address whether it happened or not, evidence that they feel they can't defend the remarks if it was said, but no admittal that it was said. I can see this exact same letter written whether or not Lund knew Bush made those remarks or not. I certainly see no evidence that anyone even tried to verify whether they were said or not, and I see no evidence that any of this was ever seen by Bush. Standard PR, brush it under the rug and hope it goes away.
Click to expand...

I agree with pretty much all you are saying here except I am not willing to give Mr. Sherman the benefit of the doubt.
 
hammegk said:
Assume Bush Sr. hates atheists. So what?
Click to expand...

He can hate them all he wants, but if his statements that he doesn't consider them to be citizens was true -- and no good evidence has been presented yet -- that would be a major problem.
 
Grammatron said:
How dare I ask for evidence? Why if Bush -- either one -- is involved it should be assumed by default that the worst possible scenario is true! And we, as skeptics, should know!

You people are pathetic.

I have not yet read the PDFs, but I will now just wanted to respond to yours and jj's posts which were certainly aimed at me.
Click to expand...

So your mind is made up, then.
 
Since atheists weren't properly represented by Bush Sr during his presidency, I feel that any tax-paying atheist during that term should get a huge tax refund ...

Charlie (pain and suffering as well) Monoxide
 
Grammatron said:
He can hate them all he wants, but if his statements that he doesn't consider them to be citizens was true -- and no good evidence has been presented yet -- that would be a major problem.
Click to expand...
Yeah. A President who would essentially revoked my citizenship based on my lack of belief in a god is not only irksome, but a fundamental failure to uphold the office of the Presidency. Sort of like a guard who shoots the person he's supposed to protect.

Sort of misses the point.
 
bjb said:
[I bet you can find thousands of letters accusing Bush of implanting listening devices in the letter writer's brain]

I assume you have the fax copies of these thousands of letters.

We know that the question was asked and an answer was given. Roger, tell us how *did* Bush Sr. respond to that question? Apparently you believe he said something completely innocent that got twisted out of context. I agree that could have happened. But if he didn't condemn atheists, what did he actually say?
Click to expand...
Exsqueeze me?

1. I said "I bet" - pretty much evidence that I don't have copies. It's speculation.

2. I said I *DO* believe Rob's testimony. I just said these documents do not provide additional support.

This is why people don't like coming into the Politics forum. Completely baseless posts, and demands for evidence for admitted speculation. Sheesh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom