The Status of Atheists in America

Catholic Scientist recently made an off-topic statement in another thread pertaining to a comment made by George Bush Sr. back in 1988. While CS seems to not care to pursue the topic, I felt the subject deserves its own thread.In the other thread, I made reference to the following quote from Bush Sr.:

quote:

---

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.

---

Mr. Bush clearly stated that Atheists should not be considered patriots or even citizens.It's abundantly clear that Mr. Bush does not consider Atheists to be citizens, in effect meaning that a former President of the United States believed there should be a religious test for citizenship - a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees the freedom of religion to all citizens.Catholic Scientists chose to try to "moderate" Bush's comments: Bush Sr. was asked his opinions on Atheists. No distinction was made between "strong" or "weak" Atheists, the question was specifically posed as pertaining to those who do not believe in god(s).CS, since you seem to think that it would be "okay" for Mr. Bush to not consider Strong Atheists citizens, could you please explain why?I agree that Atrong Atheism, the claim of positive knowledge that no deities exist, is an illogical position. But then, so is faith of all kinds - and the Constitution doesn't confer citizenship based upon the inherant logic of a person's religious beliefs.I'd like not only to hear from CS regarding a justification for his statements, but also from Creationists and whether they believe Atheists should be considered citizens or patriots.Social Issues please.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

If atheists are not to be considered citizens, what is to stop these religious polititions from removing citizenship to Buddhists, Hindus,
Confucianists, Taoists, Shintoists etc. since they don't believe in the Abrahamic God that these Fundie Pols mean when they say

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

First of all, can you substantiate the quote?Here's what wiki has to say:

quote:

---

Rob Sherman controversy

​

At a Chicago press conference during the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign George H. W. Bush, at the time a Republican candidate for the presidency, is alleged to have said, “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic,” according to Rob Sherman of the American Atheist Magazine. When asked specifically about his opinion on the separation of church and state, Bush was reported to have replied: “I support separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.” This story has been taken up by several atheist groups.[17][18] However, these statements have been unverifiable. The only source for it is Rob Sherman himself.[19]

​

Kevin Drum from the Washington Monthly comes to the conclusion that "apparently it's correct that no other reporters have ever corroborated the exchange" of George H. W. Bush with Bob Sherman.[20] Sherman has pointed to an exchange between Jon Garth Murray, then President of American Atheists, and White House Counsel C Boyden Gray in 1989 over the said comments which Sherman believes corroborates his version of events. In the exchange, Gray noted that "the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."[21] Sherman's explanation of this is that "If [Mr Gray's] client, Mr Bush, had not made those statements to me, Mr Gray would have denied that they were said rather than trying to justify the statements. If Mr Bush wanted to distance himself from the statements, Mr. Gray could have tried to create doubt about whether Mr. Bush had made the statements".[22]

---

So your quote and this quote differ. It also says the quotes are unverifiable. But, for the purpose of discussion, I can assume he did say something along the lines of what you have quoted. Actually, he said was that he did he didn't know if they should be considered partiots or citizens. I think you're taking it way too far. I don't read the quote as meaning that he believes there should be a religious test for citizenship.It seems you are pushing some agenda. It looks a lot like the self-martyrdom that the YEC's do. "Woe is us, we are treated so badly. Nobody likes us. Waaah." I disagree. I don't think that the word "atheists" in Bush's quote means "those who do not believe in god(s)". Sure, it might me that today in common usage, but I don't think that that is who Bush was referring too.I think he was referring to Strong Atheists, and the term atheist was also used to describe immoral people in general. Well, if he was referring to immoral people who actively seek to oppose God and cause anarchy etc*, then I could see how he could consider them unpatriotic. And then, you could not regard them as citizens even though they technically are.*the word "atheist" was used a lot more generally back then. It didn't just mean people without belief in gods. Well of course I believe that atheists could be considered citizens and patriots.The reason I made my statements was because of this line from you: I maintain that this statement is inaccurate.Bush didn't explicitly say that atheists were neither citizens nor patriots. And when he used the word "atheist", he wasn't talking about the same group of people that are described as atheists today.I think you are trying to make him say more than he did to support your claim that the nonreligious are considered aberrations.

Say what? "Atheist" hasn't changed its definition in the last twenty years! And I was a theist twenty years ago - I know how it was used then, both by thinking people and by demagogues.

Are you claiming that Bush could not have been talking about a group of people different from the ones that are described as atheists today?

quote:

---

Are you claiming that Bush could not have been talking about a group of people different from the ones that are described as atheists today?

---

He could have been talking about anyone from Anabaptists to Zoroastrians. Do you have any evidence that he meant anything other than what every other person on the planet means when they say "atheist?"

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

If he did then he, like many other people in this country, doesn't know what an atheist is.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Hi, Rahvin.I think, on a few points, CS is right:

1. According to one of Wikipedia's sources, Rob Sherman is the only source of the quote, and it remains (at least technically) unverified. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it turned to be true, though.
2. I also agree that you've read a bit too much into this: it seems to have been something Bush said more out of stupidity than bigotry---I don't think either of the Bushes even realizes that things they say might offend people. But, assuming he did say it, he should have tried a little thinking before he opened his mouth (I know that's not something that comes naturally to the Bush family, though).

But, even if Bush didn't actually say that, I'm sure you could find plenty of people in the Republican party who have said that, and I'm equally sure that most Americans wouldn't find it nearly as offensive as saying something rude about a specific religion---probably even less offensive than speaking out agianst Shinto or African tribal mythos. What's sad is that, even if a candidate said that publically, and had it verified, it probably wouldn't hurt their chances of getting elected at all: it may even help them.As CS said, lots of people, especially in America, equate the word "atheist" with immoral people. I don't think atheists will ever be treated as well as religious people in America, sadly.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

No, they don't differ. Let's look at the rest of the conversation, shall we?

quote:

---

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.

---

I pulled it from here, but it's just the first result from Google. Honestly, it's not hard to find info about this conversation with Bush Sr.And of course the quotes are only as verifiable as the reporter who reported them. If you have a reason to cast doubt on Mr. Sherman's version of events, by all means give that reason. Until then your clumsy "he might not have even said it" bullshit is silly. What's the functional difference, CS? In fact, the context specifically seems to imply that Bush is saying they should not be considered citizens or patriots. Let's look again:

quote:

---

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 asked, "you recognize that Atheists are citizens and patriots as much as any other group, right?"Bush responded, "No, this is one nation under God."The "I don't know" portion of the response does not demonstrate uncertainty on Bush's part. Let's use an example:

quote:

---

Joe: You realize the sky is brown, right?
Sam: No, I don't know that the sky is brown.

---

Like Bush, Sam is not demonstrating uncertainty, he's expressing disagreement.Given the "This is one nation under God" statement, I think this is abundantly clear. How do you read it, CS?What if a President said "I don't know that Catholics should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is a Protestant nation."What if he said "I don't know that black people should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is a white nation."You'd be offended at either of those two, I'm sure, as well you should. Why not the same statement regarding Atheists? Except that a former President of the United States, the father of the current President, actually made these statements. Do I have an agenda to push? If you mean "Atheists should be treated the same way theists are," then yes, I have an agenda. Is it an unfounded one?Here's a note, CS: having an agenda isn't a bad thing. Technically speaking, we all have agendas.As for the self-martyrdom idiocy, I'd like to see you tell that to any minority the next time they "whine" about being treated like second-class citizens. I'm sure Martin Luther King was just a whiner, crying "woe is us, we are treated so badly. Nobody likes us. Waaaah." I'm sure that crying out against offensive statements like what Bush Sr. said is just whining, and we should all just leave bigots alone.Right, CS? Are you trolling, CS? I wouldn't expect ift of you, but really...the word Atheist has a specific meaning - "without gods." It's the opposite of "theist." It's in the dictionary, and has been for a long time. Association of the word "Atheist" with immorality is exactly the point! To Bush, we're godless, immoral heathens and shouldn't be considered citizens or patriots. Thats some intricate mental gymnastics there, CS, when you say you could "not regard them as citizens even though they technically are." Especially when we're talking about a President. I suppose you could say that blacks were often "not regarded as citizens even though they technically are" for many years. You could probably say the same about gays.And if your definition of "citizen" includes anything regarding a deity, including anything about "actively seeking to oppose god," you've broken away from teh Constitution and are instituting a religious test for citizenship.It's nice to see how Atheists stand with you, CS. "Back then" was fucking 1988! The usage of the word "Atheist" has not changed significantly in a scant 20 years! The word "Atheist" is still partially defined as "an immoral person" in some dictionaries, but once again morality is not a consideration for citizenship! And the reason it's partially defined that way is because of Christian assholes like Bush who think that people who don't believe in god cannot be moral people. You havent done a very good job of showing that bush meant anything other than what he said. You haven't shown at all that the word "Atheist" as Bush used it meant anything different from what it means today. In fact:

quote:

---

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

---

This bit from the same conversation should be a big, fucking clue that Bush was, in fact, talking about people who don't believe in god(s).I think your position is full of shit, CS.

Honestly, I don't have any evidence that he even said it.I don't agree that when a person uses the word "atheist" the mean what every other person on the planet means when they say it. The word "atheist" is used in a lot of different ways. wiki on atheist:

quote:

---

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.[4][5][6][7]

​

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[8] and naturalism,[9] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere;[10] and some religions, such as Jainism and Theravada Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.

​

The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.[11] With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists.

---

I really don't know what Bush was exactly referring to when he used the word atheist.But I highly doubt that Bush thinks that Rahvin, being identified as an atheist, should not be considered a citizens nor that there should be a religious test for citizenship, like Rahvin says he does.I think that Rahvin was adding meaning to Bush's quote so he could use it as support that atheists are considered aberrations.I think the quote, all on its own, shows that atheists have been considered aberrations. He didn't need to add in all the extra "drama", if you will.Now, atheist are considered a lot less of an aberration today. The loosening of the definition and the more people adhering to it, and the realization by theists that not all atheists are Stong ones, and they're not all bad, have contributed. Even for me personally.I think that the people that are being called atheists today are (maybe alot) different than what they were even 20 years ago, or whenever Bush made the comment.It wasn't so much the claim that atheist were/are considered aberrations, it was the "drama" that was added to that made me comment. I don't care to defend Bush because would have been a really stupid thing to say.

Hey Rahvin,I just got done with my previous reply and I gotta run.I prolly won't be back on this site until tomorrow :-\I haven't read you're message yet, but I will and reply. Sorry man.

CS, it's not Rahvin who is trying to put words into Mr. Bush's mouth but you. The meaning of what he had said is perfectly clear and it's no surprise considering the moronic nature of the tandem father-son. Frankly, i'd give them credit for they seem to always say what's on their minds from point blank(even though more often than not it's dumbshit). Here are some examples(bushisms):"One of the great things about this country is a lot of people pray." (Washington, D.C., Apr. 13, 2003)"Americans do not presume to equate God's purposes with any purpose of our own...."[Prayer] teaches us to trust, to accept that God's plan unfolds in his time, not our own.""I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's one part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty.""God bless the people of this part of the world." (Minneapolis, Minnesota, Aug. 4, 2007)"We say in our country, everybody matters, everybody is precious in the sight of an Almighty." (Northern State University, Aberdeen, South Dakota, Oct. 31, 2002)"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce""You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."Bush had said what he had said, get over it. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Did you bother to read any more of that article which, incidentally, I had pointed you to? The topic is, after all, the status of atheists in America and we have started out with the problem of discrimination against atheists, which just happens to be the topic of that article. Don't you think that it would have been a good idea to familiarize yourself with the subject before condescendingly dismissing it?The section on the situation in the United States starts off with:

quote:

---

In the United States, there is widespread disapproval of atheists. As a result, there has only been one openly Atheist member of Congress in history; Pete Stark. According to motherjones.com, 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president. More recently a 2007 Gallup poll produced nearly identical results. A 2006 study at the University of Minnesota showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans. In the study, Sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups. 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society," putting Atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group," Atheists again led minorities, with 48% disapproval, followed by Muslims (34%) and African-Americans (27%). Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, commented on the results, "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate." Nevertheless, Atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States. They have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state.

---

Small wonder regarding that last sentence! We know all too well from history what happens when a religion lays its hands on the power of the state.Interestingly, while Mitt Romney was still in the running, a news program reported on a poll of whether the respondants would vote for a member of a particular group. The bottom three in descending order were Mormons, atheists, and Muslims. Wow! I thought. We're no longer on the bottom for once. Though the atheist-Muslim margin was small (like a few percent) and the Mormon atheist margin was larger (like about 10 or more percent).Now, the drop in Muslims' popularity is understandable what with 9/11 and Islamic terrorism. But what's the reason for atheists' low status? Blind ignorance and religious bigotry. If you can think of any other reason, feel free to contribute.And it's not a matter of "waaa!" How many times have you personally been threatened with grave physical harm just for being a Catholic? I have been so threatened just for being an atheist. FWIW, I believe that my intended assailant was a Catholic, because he said something about having had personal visions of the Virgin Mary. How many organizations have expelled you with extreme prejudice and in violation of their own rules while making pronouncements to the public and to your own children about your low moral character, just because you're a Catholic? I have been put through that, just for being an atheist. Have you personally experienced that degree of religious discrimination? I have and so have far too many other atheists. And if you ever had, then you would hopefully not be so condenscending and dismissive.One source of that religious bigotry may be a gross misunderstanding of what atheism is and why people are atheists. This was touched on in the Wikipedia article's Typology section:

quote:

---

The first attempts to define or develop a typology of atheism were in religious apologetics. These attempts were expressed in terms and in contexts that reflected the religious assumptions and prejudices of the writers. A diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since Plato, and common distinctions have been established between practical atheism and speculative or contemplative atheism.

​

Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, willful ignorance and infidelity. Practical atheists were said to behave as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism.
. . .

​

According to the French Catholic philosopher tienne Borne, 'Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law.'
. . .

​

On the other hand, the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied. That anyone might reason their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. The existence of God was self-evident, and (apparently) necessary for the proper functioning of society. Thus, speculative atheism was collapsed into a form of practical atheism, and conceptualized as hatred of God or a fight against righteous social mores. This is why Borne finds it necessary to say, 'to put forward the idea, as some apologists rashly do, that there are no atheists except in name but only practical atheists who through pride or idleness disregard the divine law, would be, at least at the beginning of the argument, a rhetorical convenience or an emotional prejudice evading the real question.'

---

So here we find the religious ideas that atheists have abandoned morality and ethics and that they are willfully shunning that which is right and good. And this gross misunderstanding, which I'm sure gets repeated ad nauseum in the majority of churches, is probably the reason why so many creationists, when they drop into proselytizing mode, proclaim with absolutely certainty the idea that we're only opposing "creation science" because we hate God and willfully refuse to "see the light" (berating us for a perceived mote in our eye while they have a boulder in theirs). I've even been hit many times with the utterly ludirous claim that atheists actually do believe in God; it is simply and quite literally incomprehesible to them that anyone could actually be an atheist.Plus we see the religious prejudice of why one would be an atheist. If you were to visit an ex-Christian forum you would indeed see the real reasons, many of which boil down to that person no longer being able to believe in what their religion had taught them. That's how I became an atheist 45 years ago; I started reading the Bible (from page 1) and very quickly came to realize that I simply couldn't believe any of it so I quietly left. Since then, I have seen very little to recommend Christianity and much that condemns it, not the least of which is the amorality and willful lack of ethics practiced in "creation science", qualities with which that they tar atheists, as we saw above. And whenever the question comes up of why I don't convert to Christianity, I keep coming back to the realization that to do so would present me with a very grave moral dilemma, to abandon truthfulness and honesty for a religion whose followers demonstrate constantly that they can only support with lies and deception. They ridicule me for saying that I'm too moral to become a Christian, but it's true.An interesting thing about that idea of "practical atheism" is that fundamentalists practice it themselves, which makes sense because they're mis-taught to think that that is what atheism really is. One local creationist proselytizer, the most unscrupled pathological liar I've ever had the mispleasure to encounter and yet a prime example of the evil fruit borne by the wicked tree of "creation science", claims that evolution had turned him into an atheist which led to years (high school and college) of hedonist excesses. As he tells it:

quote:

---

In sixth grade, I remember seeing a big colorful book produced by Time-Life. It caught my eye, and I opened it up and was pleased to see big colorful drawings. One set of drawings really caught my eye. There was a series of animated drawings that went across two pages. On the far left was a very ape-like character walking on all fours and covered with hair. The character to his right was a little more upright, he had shorter arms, was starting to walk on two legs and had less hair. This progression continued for a few more drawings until at the far right side of the page there was this handsome fellow, a human being! This is called the ascent of man chart that nearly everyone is familiar with.

​

In sixth grade, I looked at that chart for a while, smirked, thought it was ridiculous, and went outside and played softball.

​

Eventually I made it to ninth grade. While in a Biology class, the teacher was teaching us about evolution and placed the same chart up on the wall. I still remember it. I sat there and studied that chart for a long time. It was on that very day that I recognized a major conflict existed between what this teacher was saying and what the Bible taught. Should I believe my science teacher, who is teaching man has ascended from ape-like animals, or do I believe mommy, daddy, and that book (the Bible) that says God made man instantly from the dust of the ground?" I reasoned that this teacher is a scientist after all, so this must be valid information.

​

I had a choice to make that millions of people world wide are faced with. Do I believe the Bible or what is taught as science (please note I did not call it science).

​

In ninth grade I chose to go with the science teacher, and considered myself to be an atheist for about 14 years. I took many more science classes in high school and in college (I am a Mechanical Engineer), and none of these classes changed my beliefs, if anything they reinforced my atheist beliefs.

​

. . .

​

Question! Why in 6th grade did I think the drawings were ridiculous, but in 9th grade I believed them?

​

Was it because I was more intellectual? No. Was it because the Biology teacher explained it so convincingly? Not really. The real reason for my becoming an atheist in 9th grade can be summed up in one word...hormones. In 6th grade I did not have much temptation in my life. Perhaps my biggest sins were a lie here and there, throwing snowballs at the school bus and riding my minibike where I shouldn't.

​

But in 9th grade a whole new world opened up to me. The temptation of drinking, drugs and premarital sex presented themselves to me at exactly the same time I was being taught evolution. I knew the Bible said that being drunk and having sex outside of marriage was wrong, but here is my science teacher, telling me the origin of man is completely contradictory to what the Bible taught as the origin of man. I felt excited.....and decided the Theory of Evolution was for me, after all the Bible was scientifically wrong on the very first page!! I considered myself to be an atheist. As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own. If I wanted to get drunk, no problem, if I wanted to try to have premarital sex no problem, I now belonged to the evolution "religion" (religion meaning a system of beliefs built on faith) that allowed me to sin without guilt.

---

Interesting consequence of that gross misconception of atheism, isn't it? It becomes an excuse to throw all responsibility away and engage in hedonistic excesses. By teaching them that mistaken doctrine of "practical atheism", it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.Ironically, while religionists believe and misteach that atheism is an abandonment of personal responsibility, actual atheists know that morality and responsibility are very real and important.PS
After tomorrow morning, I'll be unavailable until Monday. Will be out to sea on a singles cruise that I was talked into. And don't worry, I will behave myself. I always do. It's the atheist way.Edited by dwise1, : PS

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

I can't say that I am 100% sure that Bush Sr said that exact quote, but it sure as hell sounds to me like something a Bush would say. And it's of course preposterous. And the claim that Bush didn't mean what is now meant by "atheist" seems pretty silly honestly.