RETARD OF THE MONTH

I am pleased to announce that, for the month of May 2010, George Bush I is being named as the retard of the month

Former President George H.W. Bush for saying "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George H.W. 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 former President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."

• http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#bush

• http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm

I always thought Bush the elder was outside the circle of the Religious Right. I do wonder if this was just a mix of pandering and having advisors that didn't think like him--it just doesn't make sense for a New Englander to have quasi-fundamentalist levels of prejudice towards the nonreligious. The statement is so outrageous that I find it hard to believe that an otherwise intelligent and prudent man would make it unless he was trying to talk the fundamentalist talk without being versed in its subtleties.

Wow, I didn't think I like him any less than I already did!

To be honest, I think that this "Retard of the Month" business is pretty puerile, especially in a forum that used to contain nothing less than an intelligent, well-thought-out discussion in each thread. In fact, that was the main reason I joined the group in the first place; it was a far cry from the other "all u godheads are lame" communities that seem to frequent the internet these days.

On the other hand, atheists have been nice and tolerant for millennia, and look at the results.

#1: Please elaborate on your sources for millennia of overridingly peaceful atheism.

#2: If this is indeed true, then you would seem to be advocating taking a large step backward. "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." How are these type of things any better than that they attack?

#3: The results: Secular countries and governments, atheism and religious tolerance becoming accepted, and the ability for threads such as this to flourish. Technological and scientific advances made because of little-to-no anti-atheist stigma. And the trend continues; things are changing for the better.

#1: You might want to check out any history book:

• Wars in the name of religion: lots;
• Wars in the name of atheism: zero.

#2: When you come back from the tangent you went off on, you might perhaps notice that I didn't advocate exterminating religious people. I do however advocate a more vocal and active atheism.

#3: Glad to see that you are an optimist and that you are thankful that us atheists even have the freedom to express our point of view publicly.

However, my experience and education tell me that most significant human advancements have had - and still have - to be defended tooth and nail from religious "authorities" who want - and often manage to - dictate if and how the world should take advantage of progress.

Technological and scientific advances aren't made because of "little-to-no anti-atheist stigma". They are made because a minority of people out there are able to think with their own brain, despite that big brake on human and individual development that is religion.

#1: I'm sure wars would have been sparked if enough atheists grew tired of their religious neighbours. And you will note that, although atheist nations have only come into existence relatively recently [feel free to prove me wrong here - it would be an interesting read], they seem to have had armed conflicts just as frequently as religious ones; Russia, for example. Or, to Godwin this thread early, Nazi Germany, which is especially apt considering they were A) powerful enough to almost conquer Europe nigh single-handedly, B) responsible for some of the most deplorable acts in human history, and C) founded upon hatred of a particular religion's followers. I thought, however, that you were referring to something on a smaller scale than war.

But I would still genuinely like to hear about the atheist groups present thousands of years ago.

#2: I typed "a large step backwards", not "exterminating religious people". I'm actually a little unsure where that one came from. I would agree that a more active and vocal approach is sometimes warranted, certainly, but definitely not in the manner of "Retard of the Month". I still don't see how that is any better than the things religious people do and say regarding atheists. Atheism is supposed to be more intelligent, more reasonable than that. It seems counter-productive to see it used as a platform for name-calling.

#3: Oh, I am indeed, history considered. But was won far more through nicety and tolerance than by childish attacks - the things I'm protesting against being brought here.

As far as I can tell, you misunderstand my point a little. You asked where being nice had gotten atheists. And the situation now, today, as a result of whatever the atheists of the past and present have been doing - which you say is being nice and tolerant - is that things are much better than they were. This is progress, and more than would have been made if atheists were less than "nice and tolerant".

Nazi Germany was atheistic? That's odd, I seem to remember all their soldiers had "Gott mit uns" on their helmets and Hitler's many many references to his "Creator" in Mein Kampf, and saying that he was going to end the nuisance of the "Christ-killers" once and for all.

Some did, and some did not; it was less religious and more traditional, being the motto of the old German Empire, and having historical roots from far before that. Rather like the UK's national anthem, "God Save the Queen". The regular armed forces - those that were present before Hitler's rise to power - tended to, as they had had it for decades at least, but the military branch of the SS - the piece of the military that he created - had something different. There is a lot of speculation on whether the leaders of the Third Reich were religious or not, and how it influenced their actions, but I'm pretty certain that the party itself was more of a secular movement than anything else. The war waged was certainly not a religious one. In fact, there was quite a bit of conflict with most organised religious institutions present at the time.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. It's pretty late here, though, so I'll read up on the subject a little more tomorrow.

 Think about God, Christianity, Meditating(If you understand the concept), Praying, believing is not easy, it's hard.

Christ is about love not war.

Chritians are open minded people.