The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #99283   Message #1977028
Posted By: Bill D
23-Feb-07 - 11:06 AM
Thread Name: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
Rigenslinger---Thank you for at least reading and noting my caution. It is obviously not an easy path to navigate. Sometimes I think I fret too much about whether religion really needs to be watched and regulated...but then I read things like that website above, and I feel overwhelmed at how many truly WANT a religiously based country.

Sure...some of those folks are right-wing nuts who can barely be tolerated by mainstream Christians....but then there are quotes by already elected high public officials!

Are they really true? Is the quote from GHW Bush true? I entered it in Google, and found it many places...including this complete transcript:
(so...when I see "Faith Based Initiatives" advocated, I am torn between the good that many of them do and the concern over what hidden price may be attached to some of them.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Bush on atheism and patriotism

"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:
RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:
RS:
"American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"
EM:
"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."

After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:
"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."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Me again)...seems like a pretty slippery 'retraction'. And we now have Sam Brownback of Kansas as a presidential candidate...much further to the right than Bush ever was... and though I can't imagine him winning, he IS a US senator with serious power & influence.
It's gonna take a LOT of compromise for many of these folks to get along....I'd love to see the more middle-of-the-road churches making clear commitments to "no strings attached" projects and aid.

I certainly can see why this case has gone to the Supreme Court.