American Atheist Magazine First Quarter 2012

American Atheist
A JOURNAL OF ATHEIST NEWS AND THOUGHT
TheWar
on
C hristmas
A Virginia Courthouse Lawn

is the Battleground for
First Amendment Rights
ATHEISTS.ORG
FIRST QUARTER 2012
AMERICAN ATHEIST
A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

1st Quarter 2012 Vol. 50, No.1
ISSN 0516-9623 (Print)

ISSN 1935-8369 (Online)
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Pamela Whissel
mageditor@atheists.org
AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS
MANAGING EDITOR
Frank R. Zindler
editor@atheists.org
LAYOUT AND GRAPHICS EDITOR
Rick Wingrove
rwingrove@atheists.org
Published by American Atheists, Inc.
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 158
Cranford NJ 07016
Phone: 908.276.7300
FAX: 908.276.7402
www.atheists.org
2011 American Atheists Inc.
All rights reserved. Reproduction in

whole or in part without written permission
is prohibited. American Atheist is indexed
in the Alternative Press Index.
American Atheist magazine is given free
of cost to members of American Atheists as
an incident of their membership.
Annual Individual Membership with
subscription for one year of American
Atheist print magazine: $35. Online version
only: $20. Couple/Family Membership
with optional print magazine: $35. Sign
up at www.atheists.org/aam. Discounts
available for multiple year subscriptions:
10% for two years, 20% for three or more
years. Additional postage fees for foreign
addresses: Canada and Mexico: add $10/
year. All other countries: add $30/year.
Discounts for libraries and institutions:
50% on all magazine subscriptions and
book purchases.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Cover: Atheist display on the Loudoun County, Virginia, Courthouse lawn

Above: Another display banner
Photos by Rick Wingrove
In This Issue
5
6
8
10
12
14
18
20
24
28
Gideon Bible Distribution Limited| Edwin Hensley

The War on Christmas | Rick Wingrove
Dying Without Gods | Hank Fox
The Crumbling Wall of Separation | Clifton Perry, PhD
Crucifixion Porn | Edwin Lyngar
Morality and the iMind | C.E. Atkins
Faith Should Get No Respect | Michael Spry
Three Lives of a Warrior: Part 3 | Phillip Butler, PhD
Bible Bunk and Holy Horrors | Michael B. Paulkovich
Futile Confrontations | Ludwik Kowalski, PhD
atheists.org | AMERICAN ATHEIST | 3
American Atheist
A JOURNAL OF ATHEIST NEWS AND THOUGHT
TheWar
on
C hristmas
A Virginia Courthouse Lawn

is the Battleground for
First Amendment Rights
ATHEISTS.ORG
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Letter from the
Editor
ts nothing new to say theres nothing new about the New Atheism. The term took root in 2006, the year
Daniel Dennett published Breaking the Spell and Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion. Both titles became best sellers,
which garnered quite a bit of media attention because it was newsworthy that something regarding Atheism could be so
popular. But the real story was that this was the second and third time in two years for such a phenomenon. Sam Harris
The End of Faith was a best seller in 2004. This was no longer a phenomenon. This was a movement. The term is still around
even though the New Atheism is now old newsjust like it always was. But now its old news everywhere.
I have some real news, and youre looking at it right now. This issue marks the first time in American Atheists history
that the magazine is available for retail sale at bookstores and newsstands around the country. Its quite a milestone for the
organization and truly a pivotal point in American culture. A magazine with the word Atheist in the title has never been on
a store shelf in this country until now. Other types of publications, yes, but not a magazine. This is exciting stuff.
Its also not exciting, and thats exciting too. The magazine makes its retail debut with no fanfare at all. It will be just
another day at the bookstore when just another shipment is unloaded and American Atheist goes on display with the rest of
the merchandise, right along with all of the other magazines about cooking, decorating, fishing, parenting, baseball, football,
basketball, hockey, travel, fashion, celebrities, religion, and everything else.
I may be wrong, but I dont expect to hear about campaigns or demands to remove the magazine from the shelves, or
sequester it behind the register, or cover it with a plain brown wrapper. It wouldnt have always been that way. This magazine
was started by Madalyn Murray OHair, who garnered her own misnomer in the media: the most hated woman in America.
Its unlikely that her publication would have been flying off the shelves, unless that flying was in the form of removal.
This moment in history comes to us from her and the other giants of the movement, past and present, whose efforts to
secure civil rights for non-believers and to uphold the wall separating church and state were, and are, constant and tireless.
The strength of that wall and the security of those rights now depend entirely on a new group of giants. The New Giants,
if you will. No action can be more significant right now than that of individual closeted non-believers, no matter who or
where they are, to come out of the closet and then carry on with their lives as usual. The most recent public opinion polls in
this country show non-believers outnumbering Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists combined. But the data is collected
anonymously, which means that every individual act of coming out makes a giant difference in the social environment right
now. Not long ago, this was not the case at all. This time there really is something new.
Pamela Whissel
mageditor@atheists.org
4 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Gideon Bible Distribution Limited

by Louisville Atheists and Freethinkers
By Edwin Hensley, Kentucky State Director of American Atheists
Dont confuse camouflage

with commissioned.
he Louisville Atheists
and Freethinkers (LAF),
an American Atheists
affiliate, have successfully
ended seven decades of
unconstitutional religious activity at
Military Entrance Processing Stations
(MEPS). The LAF, in partnership with
the ACLU and the Military Association
of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF),
has ended proselytizing by the Gideons
and changed the procedures for placing
religious and secular literature at all 65
MEPS stations worldwide.
Since 1941, three weeks before Pearl
Harbor, MEPS stations have permitted
the Gideons to distribute Bibles. The
Gideons used a 20-30 minute slot in
mandatory briefings to give each new
recruit a Bible covered in camouflage
while saying the words, Here is your
military Bible. They would then talk to
the new recruits about the Gideons, and
about accepting Jesus as their savior.
In this situation the Gideons appeared
to be part of the military. Gideons with
no military affiliation would often
appear at these meetings wearing
military fatigues. They would claim
to be members of the US Operation
and Support Command, which, to
new recruits, can sound like an official
military organization, but it actually has
nothing to do with the military.
In 2007, the LAF hosted a guest
speaker from the ACLU. LAF member
Gretchen Mann, the Chief Medical
Officer of the Louisville MEPS
stations, came to the meeting with a
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Gideons military
Bible and asked
if the ACLU would
be
interested. Dr.
T. Jeremy Dunn, the
ACLU Program Director
on Freedom of Religion and
Belief, then wrote a letter to the
director of the MEPS command
(MEPCOM) and JAG offices. With
military permission, the ACLU
sent observational teams into nine
MEPS stations, including Louisville.
The ACLU study concluded that at
all MEPS stations there were major
violations of constitutional law, and
they filed a formal request to halt the
proselytizing.
In 2008, MEPCOM issued new
worldwide policies prohibiting the
proselytizing at MEPS stations and
mandating that secular Non-Federal
Entities (NFEs) be treated equally
with religious NFEs. A 67-year-old
unconstitutional activity came to an end.
The Gideons continued to place Bibles
on tables, which recruits could take or
ignore. But there was no secular alternative.
So in 2011, Mann reached out to MAAF
president Jason Torpy, who persistently
applied for permission to place MAAF
literature in MEPS stations. This past
January, the MAAF was finally granted
permission to distribute the pamphlet
Living Well With Secular Humanism.
The MAAF still needed local allies to
obtain permission to enter the military
facilities and distribute the pamphlets,
so Torpy initiated a pilot program at the
Louisville MEPS, where

volunteers from the LAF
distribute the pamphlets. Four-year
Army veteran Frank Lovell and five-year
World War II and Korean War Marine
Corps veteran Emmett Fields volunteered
to distribute the literature. Both are
veterans of the Atheist movement. Fields
possesses a vast collection of freethought
literature that is available online for a penny
a page at Bankofwisdom.com, and he has
sold items to Madalyn Murray OHair
that are now in the library at American
Atheists headquarters in Cranford, New
Jersey. Lovell is a founding member of
the Kentucky Association of Science
Educators and Skeptics, along with fellow
founder Joe Nickell.
The efforts of Mann, Torpy, Fields, and
Lovell produced a very successful pilot
program. The MAAF has decided to
distribute the pamphlets at all 65 MEPS
as part of their Deployment Support
Program. Mann felt the actions were
needed because the Gideons gave the
false impression that the United States
military is a Christian organization.
Thanks to the action of these individuals,
the Gideons can no longer give that false
impression at MEPS stations.
War
on
Christmas
The
The historic Loudoun County Courthouse in Leesburg, Virginia, 30 miles outside

Washington, DC, is the site of an ongoing clash over religious displays on its lawn.
by Rick Wingrove, Virginia State Director for American Atheists
or years, a nativity
scene was displayed
on the Loudoun
County Courthouse
lawn on Christmas.
Only the Christian
nativity display was permitted, and
only in December. No other signage
or displays were allowed, religious
or otherwise, at any other time of
year. This amounted to privileged
access and a special right provided
to the local Christian community
by county government. Is it even
possible to argue that this exclusive
accommodation was not manifest
favoritism? How could government
provide a more flagrant endorsement
for Christianity than to carve out a
unique and exclusive right to use
government property to propagate
the Christian mythology?
Two years ago, the Grounds
Committee, tasked with preserving
the historic lawn and the centuryold sycamores, recommended that
no more displays be permitted on
the lawn. There was an immediate
backlash from the religious
community, bemoaning an ongoing
war on Christmas and framing
Photos by Rick Wingrove

FIRST QUARTER 2012
the committees recommendation

as an unconscionable attack on
Christianity.
The Loudoun County Board
of Supervisorsall Christians
and almost entirely Republican
predictably caved, ignored the
recommendations of the grounds
committee, and permitted the
nativity display to return.
But then they did a curious
thing: they consulted the ACLU.
The Board was advised that, under
Capitol Square Review Board v.
Pinette (1995), access for one group
required access for any and all
groups, and that the government
had to be neutral on content. The
board, apparently aware of their
If there were a
war on Christmas,
I would have
gotten a memo.
legal exposure, decided to give free
speech a chance on the courthouse
lawn and began permitting up to ten
displays on the lawn on a first-come,
first-served basis. The board and
the local Christian community got
very enthusiastic about this scheme,
apparently feeling that free speech
was a more solid constitutional
footing for the continued hosting
of the Christian displays. Sure, let
others put up displays. What could
go wrong?
Well, in December 2010,
members of the Atheist community
in Loudoun County acquired
permits for seven of the ten available
spots on the lawn. Thats what.
The local Christian communitys
enthusiasm and support for free
speech evaporated faster than Rick
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Perrys presidential hopes and

was immediately revealed as the
thin ruse that it was.
Wailing and Gnashing
The Christian community, as
we were shocked to discover, only
believes in its own free speech.
There was much wailing and
gnashing of teeth and demands,
to the Board and in the media, to
expel the secular displays from the
lawn. At several contentious and
heavily attended meetings of the
Board of Supervisors, which were
packed with mobilized evangelicals
and about a dozen Atheists, we
were accused of vicious attacks on
Christianity and a plot to force
people to abandon their family
holiday celebrations. I was not
sure we were talking about the
same courthouse lawn.
Some of the displays were
tongue-in-cheek, such as the one
promoting Jedi-ism and the one
praising the Flying Spaghetti
Monster. Others were more direct,
openly questioning some core
tenets of the Christian mythology,
like the one comparing Jesus
to Santa and the Easter Bunny.
Our display took a gentler
approach,
honoring
the
Constitution and separation
of church and state, without
being directly critical of
religion in any way.
Another result of the
ACLUs advice was that
the County could not limit
access to the lawn to religious
holidays. So, over the last year,
members of American Atheists,
NOVA Atheists (the group for
residents of northern Virginia
and suburban DC), and Beltway
Atheists have put a large banner
on the lawn every month. Our
banners carried a positive message,
celebrating people or events
Continued on page 32
The Blue Collar Atheist:
Dying Without Gods

by Hank Fox
omething amazing and

terrible happened to me
late in 2011, an event that
hurt and healed at the same
time, while proving the warmth
and compassion of the Atheist
community.
First, some background: I had
three different men in the role of
male parenta father, a stepfather,
and a Dad. My father was a distant,
preoccupied Jehovahs Witness.
My stepfather was an emotionally
abusive born-again Christian. My
Dad was non-religious in any real
sense, but more importantly
to me, anywayhe was also this
welcoming
fatherly
presence
(finally!) in my life.
I met him when I was about 23,
when I migrated from my home
state of Texas and went to work at a
pack station in Californias Eastern
Sierra mountains.
Pack station: think ranch on the
edge of the wilderness, a horse-and
mule-powered taxi service that takes
campers and their gear into roadless
areas for weeklong expeditions.
Early on, cowboy Dan was my
mule packing instructor, teaching
me about knots and ropes and
handling fractious, long-eared, halfton equines, but he quickly became
my general mentor. Within a year, I
started to think of him as my Dad.
Looking back on it, I was so hungry
for someone to fill that role that I
was probably an enormous pest, but
Hank Fox, John Muir Wilderness, California, 1977
he put up with me and allowed me

into his life.
I worked with him, camped with
him, drank with him, hunted and
fished with him, shared campfire
tales and dirty jokes with him, and
just generally became part of his
family. I called him Dad exactly once,
and he called me Son exactly once,
and we both seemed embarrassed by
it, so we continued on a first-name
basis, Hank and Dan. But the thing
was there between us.
I spent Christmases and
Thanksgivings with him and his
wife and two stepkids, and a hundred
times that in the unnamed days
throughout the year. I could show
up at his door any time of the day or
nightwith two big dogs!and all

hed say was, You know where the
couch is, you know where the sheets
and pillows are. I was welcome to
stay as long as I liked.
Damn, I admired the man. He was
one of the toughest sons-of-bitches
I think I ever knew, but one of the
warmest, too. He had his edges and
angleshe was a notorious bareknuckled bar fighter, for instance
plus some amazing, and often
funny, blind spots. A wilderness
deer-hunting guide, so comfortable
with hunting I think he had trouble
imagining that others might not be,
he once got into a call-the-cops tiff
with his apartment neighbors when
for several days he hung a dead deer
FIRST QUARTER 2012
from the outside porch railing,

closer than ten feet from the
downstairs neighbors door.
He was in my life for 35 years.
This last year, I had trouble
reaching him. Retired and
dealing with money problems,
he had his phone shut off and
I was forced to communicate
through letters or messages
relayed by neighbors.
Then I got the terrible call:
Dan was in the hospital, and
not expected to live. I had to go.
The problem was, I was flat broke
myself, and I had exactly zero friends
moneyed-up enough to consider
borrowing from. Id been blogging
with Freethought Blogs for only
a couple of months, but I thought
Id put up a plea for donations. I
figured there was an outside chance
Dan Farris, near Independence, California, 1977
hours later from my Droid phone.

The total was over $500 and headed
north. Not only were my own
readers responding, other bloggers
had posted links to the story, and
there was this rising viral Help
Hank Go See His Dying Dad
thing happening.
I panicked. It was too much. This
with him pretty much around

the clock for the next three
and a half days. Talking to him,
touching him, telling him all
the things I felt about him, and
us. And, oh boy, crying like I
hadnt cried in decades.
From his first day in the
hospital, hed refused food
and water and any needles but
periodic shots of morphine, so
he was pretty far gone by the
time I got there. But he opened
his eyes and looked at me. He saw
my smiles, and my tears. No longer
able to speak, he squeezed my hand
and smiled back.
I told him, Damn, I wish we
were anywhere but here. Riding over
Duck Pass, maybe, or just coming
into camp at Purple Lake.
And, You did everything right,
In what some would imagine to be the acid test of

Atheism, the death of a parent, I got an easy A.
Id wind up with maybe 50 bucks,
and in the meantime hoped I might
figure something else out. I used to
hitchhike when I was younger; I
once even hopped a ride on a freight
train. I considered both. But first I
posted An Appeal on my blog.
Within five minutes, I got notes
from two readers that my PayPal
link didnt work. I fixed it, and small
donations started appearing a few
minutes later. Within an hour, the
total was over $150.
I was stunned. PeopleAtheists!
cared enough to help. I went in
to tell my housemate about it with
tears on my face, and felt like Sally
Field at the Oscars sobbing, You
like me! You really like me!
I had to go off to work, but I
checked my PayPal account a few
FIRST QUARTER 2012
was over-the-top kindness, the type

that, to me, raised not to accept
charity, carried with it an enormous
responsibility. I tapped out a followup post on my phone, Everybody
Stop Sending Money! But before
I could get home and remove the
PayPal link, the total was closing in
on $1,200.
Thanks only to those donations,
I got a flight from New York to Los
Angeles, then rented a car and made
the six-hour drive to my Dads little
mountain town. I got there a few
minutes before midnight, exhausted
after 22 hours in transit, and the
hospital staff let me in to see him.
I sat with him for an hour, just
looking at him, then found a motel
and got a few hours sleep.
I was back at 5:00 a.m., and sat
Old Man. Your life mattered, you

made a difference in the world, and
it was a good difference. If there are
people out there who went into the
wilderness with you 50 years ago,
they still recall it, and its one of
their best memories.
And even, I love you, Mister.
You were just about the best thing
that ever happened to me. I was so
lucky to have met you. Everything
I became was because of you saving
me. Thank you sooo much for being
in my life, and letting me into yours.
You will always be a part of me.
You will always be my one and only
Dad.
Dying can be rough. Both awake
and asleep in his last couple of days,
he breathed like a marathon runner.
The Crumbling Wall of Separation

By Clifton Perry, PhD, JD, LLM
Through many recent rulings, the Supreme Court of the United States has whittled down the wall of church/
state separation. That wall is provided to us within the First Amendment of the Constitution, in the section known
as the Establishment clause, which says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The cases in this article involved actions, on the part of the government, which would initially appear to violate
the Establishment clause. The Court, however, did not rule that way in any of them. In some cases, it was ruled that
the parties did not have the standing to litigate the matter. In the other cases the Court found, through innovative
readings of the clause, that the facts presented did not violate the Establishment clause.
Auburn University political science professor Clifton Perry explains how these rulings chip away at the wall of
church/state separation.
he constitutional requirement of standing is

wrought from the Case and Controversy provision
of Article III.1 The party initiating litigation
in a federal court must demonstrate that he or
she suffered, or is in immediate danger of suffering, a
legally recognized particular and concrete harm.2 The
plaintiff must also show that the defendants conduct
caused the harm and that the federal court is capable of
remedying the plaintiff s problem.
In the area of taxpayer standing, the plaintifftaxpayer would normally have to demonstrate a
particular and concrete harm through his or her tax
liability caused by the government and correctable by
the federal court. However, the taxpayer would not
generally enjoy standing in a federal court to prevent
the government from spending lawfully obtained tax
money. The Court has more than a few times denied
standing to those individuals who simply complained
that the federal government was spending tax money
for an activity argued to be unconstitutional.3 General
taxpayer standing may be addressed in the political
forum of the legislature, not the courts.
There appears to be one narrow exception to the
prudential proscription of federal adjudication for
general taxpayer complaints, namely church/state
complaints. In Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968),
the Court held that James Madisons Memorial and
Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments informed
the germane sections of the US Constitution. Therein,
Madison notes that no free society may force a citizen
to contribute three pence only of his property for the
support of any one establishment of religion.
The Flast Court translated Madisons remark into a
judicial test for general taxpayer standing. The Courts
test requires the plaintiff-taxpayer to show that money
derived from the governments authority to tax and

spend, I8(1) of the US Constitution, is being utilized
to establish religion or otherwise violate the First
Amendments Establishment clause. Thus, I8(1), the
congressional Taxing and Spending clause, is, by virtue of
Madisons remark, restricted by the First Amendments
Establishment clause. A taxpayer who can argue that the
government has utilized the Taxing and Spending clause
of the federal or state constitution in the violation of
the constitutional prohibition upon the establishment of
religion will have standing in federal court to challenge
the questioned use of governmental funds.4 A failure of
general taxpayer standing does not mean a violation of
the Establishment clause has not occurred any more than
a taxpayers demonstration of general taxpayer standing
will necessarily result in a final judgment on the merits
for the taxpayer. Nevertheless, without demonstrating
standing, there is no federal consideration of the merits
of the plaintiff s claim.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
The importance and precision of the Flast test are seen

in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for
the Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982).
The issue in contention concerned the receipt of a
building and 77 acres, worth over $500 million, from
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
to Valley Forge Christian College, a sectarian school.
The transfer was pursuant to the Federal Property and
Administrative Service Act (FPASA).
The named respondent brought suit arguing a
violation of the First Amendments prohibition of
governmental establishment of religion. The Court
denied standing, noting initially that while the
Establishment clause may restrict the Taxing and
Spending clause, the Establishment clause does not
similarly limit the Federal Property clause of Article
IV3(2). The FPASA was passed pursuant to IV3(2),
not I8(1). If standing for general taxpayers is justified
on the conflict of the First Amendment and I8(1)
only, then the respondent above, while perhaps upset by
an actual violation of the Establishment clause, is not
in the constitutionally accepted position to judicially
complain about the violation.
Justice John Paul Stevens noted that the Court had
made a mistake. The constitutional problem was that
the Establishment Clause had been arguably violated,
not how the government violated it.
In that same light Justice William Brennan
dissented, noting that Congress might now circumvent
the general standing provision arising from a conflict
between the Establishment clause and the Taxing
and Spending clause simply by purchasing what the
sectarian concern wanted or needed and presenting
it to the concern, rather than allocating funds to the
concern so that the concern might purchase the wants
or needs itself.
After Valley Forge, it was clear that general taxpayer
standing requires a narrow confluence of congressional
action pursuant to I8(1) and action involving the
Establishment clause, and that standing may well be
circumvented by the governments use of the Property
clause (IV3(2)).
On June 25, 2007, the Court decided Hein v. Freedom
From Religion Foundation, Inc. (551 U.S. 587 (2007).
Hein involved a 2001 executive order creating the
White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives. The purpose of the order was to ensure
[that] private and charitable community groups,
including religious oneshave the fullest opportunity
permitted by law to compete on a level playing field.
Through a related executive order, President George
FIRST QUARTER 2012
W. Bush also created Executive Department Centers for

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within several
federal agencies, to ensure that faith-based community
groups would be eligible for federal financial support.
The plaintiff, Freedom From Religion Foundation,
Inc., with three of its members, brought suit alleging
that the executive orders violated the Establishment
clause by giving financial support to and organizing
conferences for faith-based organizations, where the
belief in God is extolled.
Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief
Justice John Roberts noted that the centers were
created entirely within the Executive branch pursuant
to executive discretion. Funding for the initiative arose
from general discretionary funds appropriated by
Congress to cover routine and discretionary executive
spending. Thus, given the absence of a congressional
statute that explicitly authorized and funded the
complained-of executive action, there obtained
no connection between the possible breach of the
Establishment clause and I8(1), and thus the plaintiffs
lacked general taxpayer standing.
Justice David Souter, along with Justices Stephen
Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stevens, noted that
not only is there vertical incorporation, whereby rights
enjoyed by an individual against the federal government
may be enjoyed by that same individual against the state,
but also that no one would think that the proscription
against the governmental establishment of religion
applied only to the Legislature.
Moreover, if a similar act by Congress would be
prevented without fear of violating separation of
powers, then to so prevent the Executive branch from
a like unconstitutional act would not violate separation
of powers. Finally, in the spirit of Justice Brennan in
Valley Forge, the Hein dissent noted that one way to
circumvent Establishment clause adjudication by the
general taxpayer previously established in Flast is for
Congress not to pass violating legislation through
I8(1), but rather to grant funds through I8(1) to
the Executive, and allow the Executive to violate the
Establishment clause.
The most recent case denying standing for general
taxpayers to challenge plausible Establishment
clause violation is Arizona Christian School Tuition
Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S.___(2011). Arizona
amended its tax code to allow taxpayers in that state a
full tax credit for donations to Arizonas School Tuition
Organizations (STOs). STOs provide scholarships
directly to students wishing to attend private schools,
Crucifixion Porn
By Edwin Lyngar
t was nearly the date of my

scheduled baptism, so the lead
evangelist was called in for the
final Bible study to make sure
I was ready. I was 23 years old,
and I was going to become a real
Christian. But there was a final piece
of business in the form of a loose
sheaf of papers.
What is it? I asked, looking over
the five-page, single-spaced missive.
Its not enough to hear about the
crucifixion, said Scott, the evangelist.
You have to understand the real
agony Jesus suffered for your sin.
The pages held a literal blow-byblow description of the crucifixion,
with
doctors
notes,
graphic
explanations, and some illustrations
of the torture tools, like whips. I
didnt have time at that moment to
read it in detail, but I was told to take
it home and pray on the suffering of
Jesus. I was told to focus on the reality
of it: the pain, blood, whips, and
finally the spear that had killed Jesus,
because I had personally nailed Jesus
to the cross with my sin. Thus did I
have my first run-in with crucifixion
pornthat unseemly fixation on the
violent imagery and sadomasochistic
sexuality that is such a big part of
Evangelical Christianity.
I must admit that I didnt give it
much thought, even though I was

instructed to ruminate on it. Even
in my nave youth, the crucifixion
seemed distant and vaguely obscene
to me, but I got baptized anyway.
I knew even as I was dunked that
I had not personally caused the
suffering of Jesus, even as I struggled
to pray away my doubt. I lasted just
under two years as a fundamentalist
Christian, and I drifted away from all
religion a few years after that.
Fifteen years after my baptism,
I am an unabashed Atheist, but I
am grateful for my flirtation with
Christianity. I am most surprised
that so little has changed in the
fundamentalist community since
my time inside it. If anything, there
seems to be more emphasis on
the pornographic violence of the
crucifixion, and that some branches
of Christianity seem more intent than
ever to impose themselves onto every
part of America, through government,
culture, and bullying. The lesson that
non-Christians can take from the
pornographic imagery and mythology
of modern Christianity is that it serves
a real and diabolical purpose: to make
wafflers feel guilty and afraid.
Christianity needs iconographic
violence to shock the flock into
submission and, tragically, to frighten
children. The claims of divine love,

are represented by a half-dead, naked,
skeletal figure hanging on two pieces
of wood. Yet when examined with
critical distance, this pornography
lacks real power, magic, or logicand
love is out of the question. It has only
shock value and does not motivate so
much as horrify.
The complementary nature of
pornography and the crucifixion first
caught my eye when I analyzed the
search terms that were driving traffic
to my blog, Armchairblasphemy.com.
After I casually used the term
crucifixion pornin a post, I discovered
that this exact phrase was generating
organic traffic from different search
engines. Blasphemy porn was also a
common search that led people to my
blog. These two phrases accounted
for 28% of my blog hits in one week,
and a clear majority of organic search
engine traffic. Im not sure exactly
what these anonymous internet
searchers were looking for, but its a
safe bet they didnt find it on my blog.
My personal experience in
Christianity was as a participant in the
American evangelical experience, but
this isnt the only strain of Christianity
that perpetrates crucifixion porn. The
Catholic Church has raised cultish
violence to dogmatic church doctrine,
FIRST QUARTER 2012
best symbolized by the Catholic

crucifix, which is only complete when
a little mangled Jesus is attached. The
crucifix is only the opening salvo in
a religion that appropriates blood,
bones, and body tissue from saintly
corpses that are used as relics in
arcane traditions.The church practices
de facto cannibalism, believing that
through transubstantiation, bread
and wine actually transform into the
body and blood of Christ after being
consecrated by a priest. Catholics
demand that Atheists, non-believers,
and other faiths respect these sacred
practices, yet outside of church
walls, these bizarre behaviors would
get a person dismissed as a lunatic,
perhaps even hospitalized. But faith
thousand years past these dark ages,

why must we continue to wallow in
the murder and blood of Jesus? Is the
death of Jesus more tragic than any
example we could pick from more
recent history? With just the hint of
historical retrospection, perhaps we
should really examine if it is worse to
be crucified for your beliefs, like Jesus,
or to be burned alive for the crime of
being called a witch.
Witch burnings are actual,
documented murders that were often
performed in the name of Jesus. I
dont know which death would be
more painful, but they are clearly
comparable. The burnings have the
added horror of being deliberate,
cruel, and undeniable historical
caused the suffering of millions. If

Jesus was a real person, I am sorry that
the Romans killed him. But I think
witches, Atheists, and heretics of all
kinds have paid more than enough
for the death of one guy.
If Jesus had actually lived, at least
he made it into adulthood. Plus, he
had the benefit of dying for his beliefs.
Even in the modern world, women are
stoned for adultery (or the perception
of such). Children in Americathe
so-called First Worlddie all the
time because parents pray over them
instead of taking them to a doctor.
These people die in no less agony
than Jesus, but they die for nothing,
and as a direct result of misguided
religion. The overemphasis on Jesus
I was told to focus on the reality of it: the pain, blood, whips,
and f inally the spear that had killed Jesus, because I had
personally nailed Jesus to the cross with my sin.
remains the tenuous excuse for these
absurdities.
Crucifixion porn also exists in
pop culture, specifically in Christian
books, film, and iconography. The
violent, horrific imagery in The
Passion of the Christ, directed by the
morally challenged Mel Gibson, is
the awful standard by which all other
filth is measured. Although The
Passions violence is not overtly sexual,
it ties into the same base instincts
that drive traditional pornography.
The violence is so raw and visceral
that it seems more of a sexual fetish
than a religious film.
For a moment, lets set aside the
validity of Christianity itself so we
can clearly view the death of Jesus
as if he were a regular human being.
I understand the history of human
sacrifice at the heart of the Jesus
mythology. Jesus might even be
viewed in a positive historical light
for eliminating the need for other
human or animal murder to satiate
gods hungry for blood sacrifices.
However, now that we are two
FIRST QUARTER 2012
fact. Crucifixion is also a fact, used

in the ancient world as common
punishment and tool of war. What
about the masses of nameless and
faceless who were crucified for a
thousand individual reasons? Were
those deaths any less painful? The
alleged, unremarkable death of Jesus
didnt alleviate human suffering, but
rather it created a brand new reason
for religiously inspired torture and
murder. Tens of thousands of women
alone were burned alive over the
years. This mass of suffering inflicted
by Christians is but one of the actual
tragedies of the Jesus myth.
The murder of witches only
scratches the surface of suffering
caused by Jesus and his followers.
Over the centuries Christians have
burnt, disemboweled, strangled, and
otherwise tortured other people to
death regularly in his name. The
Spanish Inquisition was nothing but
institutionalized, divinely inspired
murder. Yet in the 21st century,
Christians focus exclusively on the
pain of the one person who in essence
suffering to the exclusion of real pain

and tragedy is pornographic itself.
I fell away or in my words
escaped the church a couple years
after being baptized. Although the
effects lingered for a while, I hold
deep gratitude for my run-in with
crucifixion porn, because I now
recognize it for what it is. Other than
lessons well learned, I have no further
desire to wallow in the violence of this
particular belief set, nor will I allow
those who do to somehow tie me to
the death of a carpenter two thousand
years ago. It is my sincere hope that
the people still drenched in the blood
of Christ (their words), someday find
a healthier way to orient their lives.
Edwin Lyngar lives in Reno, Nevada
with his wife and five children, and
he blogs regularly about the corrosive
influence of religion on politics at
Armchairblasphemy.com. He holds
advanced degrees in English from
Antioch University and the University
of Nevada, Reno.
Morality and the iMind

An Interview with Robert Kurzban
By C.E. Atkins
an Darwins theory of evolution by natural

selection help us understand the social
behavior of humans? Robert Kurzban believes
so. As an evolutionary psychologist, he is
interested in the specific functions of the mechanisms
of the human mind. He is the Director of the Penn
Laboratory for Experimental Evolutionary Psychology,
which he founded in 2003. His research is devoted to
learning what the evolved mechanisms of the human
mind do to enhance the survival of the species.
His book, Why Everyone Else is a Hypocrite:
Evolution and the Modular Mind, is a fascinating read
about our how our minds are structured, and some of
the inconsistent behaviors that arise
due to this structure. I began
our interview by asking him
to explain what he means
when he says the brain has a
modular structure.
The idea is that the
human brain consists of a lot
of different mechanisms, each
with its own job. Everyone
knows that youve got a visual
system thats responsible for
seeing, a language system
for talking, and so on.
The argument I
make in the book
is that there is
specialization
like this all
through
the human mind. We have specific modular systems

designed for doing things like making friends,
choosing our mates, presenting ourselves in a favorable
way socially, and all the other separate things that we
do as human beings.
Would you explain your iMind analogy?
One of the things I think is interesting about
modern technology is how cell phones have evolved
into smart phones. It used to be that phones were just
used to make calls. Now theyre capable of doing a
large number of different things. We call them smart
phones because they bundle together lots of different
applicationsall these narrowly specialized, computer
programs that perform specific functions. This gives
us a good analogy of whats going on in the human
mind. The argument isnt that the mind is exactly like
a cell phone. The argument is that this gives us a way
to think about how something becomes useful. Well,
it gets that way by bundling together lots of different
specialized applications. Our brains are like that,
too. Evolution by natural selection has led to minds
that bundle together lots of useful mechanisms with
different functions.
Cell phones have a user who determines which
application is going to be active at any given moment.
The human mind is very different. It sort of has to
make its own decisions. So various things going on
in the environment will activate some modules and
deactivate others. For example, say youre walking
down the street and suddenly you see a bear. Your fear
modules, your anti-predator systems, come online in
the brain, and those in turn will inhibit other modular
systems from being in play. In this situation, youre
not as likely to notice potential mates, for instance. So
the environment can have important effects on which
modules are active and which ones are inactive. Thats
not to say that there isnt a lot of stuff the brain itself is
doing to activate and deactivate modules.
You write about the four impatient modules: f ight,
flee, feed, and have sex. Obviously, a lot us have problems
overriding those modules when they come online.
Describe the brains ability or lack of ability to intervene
when those modules kick in.
Over time, brains change in such a way that they
become more or less likely to be able to inhibit the
short-term sorts of things, the impatient modules.
For example, different people become rewarded by
Robert Kurzban
FIRST QUARTER 2012
different kinds of things. You see

different sorts of addictions and so
on. We can learn, to some extent, to
be able to inhibit impulses, to resist
temptation, and so on. These things
are quite complicated, but another
way to put that is the environment
can activate modules, but our own
modules can also have an important
role in activating and deactivating
various modules in your head.
You say, Indeed, I think there is
some sense in which the part of you
that feels like you is, more or less,
designed to serve this public relations
function. You are the Machiavellian
spin doctor, and, as such, only a small
part of the sum total of whats going
on in your head. You say the self
may be a f iction of sorts that functions
like a press secretary for the organism.
One of things found in
psychological literature is that
people often talk about a self. Its
easy to imagine when people are
discussing this, that they have in
mind a little person in their head
thats just as smart and intelligent
as the whole person. That cant be
right. So I think that whatever the
self is, if there is such a thing, its a
subsection of all the different parts
of the mind. Given that there are all
these modules that are causing our
behavior and we dont always know
why we do what we do, I think
its probably the case that, because
were social creatures, there has to
be a system in place to explain our
actions to other human beings.
To help us navigate the social
matrix?
Yes. And in that sense, I talk
about a module that functions as a
press secretary. Other people have
used this idea, too. Daniel Dennett
has used this analogy.
So this press secretary is one of our
iMind apps?
Yes. The idea is that you need
some system that is designed to
explain your behavior and make
it look as positively plausible as
FIRST QUARTER 2012
possible, given all the constraints on

the audience. And this plugs into
some recent work thats been in
the news, called the argumentative
theory of reasoning. Hugo Mercier
and Dan Sperber recently published
a paper where they talk about the
role of reason in human cognition,
ways to persuade people about
things that you want them to believe.
And this is what Im arguing as well,
in part. Our minds have, in part,
design features that cause us to put
out favorable propaganda so that
others think well of us. For example,
when we endorse overly optimistic
views about ourselves, the way we
claim to have controlled past events
that were positive, and disassociate
ourselves from events that were
negative, my claim is that this is part
of a propaganda module.
That makes sense. So if I seek a
certain mate and I know she likes a
particular animal meat, Im going to
use reason during the tribal hunting
meeting to argue that we hunt in
area X because I know that particular
animal is more likely to be there,
thereby potentially augmenting my
standing with a particular female.
But dont you think that reason has
become more than just that over the
course of evolution?
I certainly would endorse that. I
think theres something really nice
about having mechanisms that allow
you to make good inferences that
are logical. If you have two facts, and
you have logic on your side then you
can often generate a third fact, and
true things are useful for figuring
stuff out, building tools, etc. It
seems to me that theres a lot we do
for reasons that are useful, not only
in the context of persuading other
people. Tool use is one. Certainly
making inferences about the natural
world can be really valuable.
I want to switch subjects a bit to
the survival function of morality. You
write about people doing what they
do, and then using morality to justify
their actions.
People
do
use
morality
strategically. I do think that people
pursue their interests and then, for
the most part, make up explanations
afterwards, often using a kind
of moral discourse, the language
of morality, but with no sense
of consistency. And thats why a
television program like The Daily
Show is so good at what it does
because its easy to show peoples
inconsistencies. Unless you point
these things out, people are free
to be just as inconsistent as they
please. People are pursing their selfinterests and doing what they want
to do and then theyre justifying it
post hoc with moral principles that
are inconsistent with other moral
principles.
The example that I think is
the most glaring in our modern
environment is illegal drugs. People
are falling all over themselves to
say that we should have freedom.
Republicans talk about freedom.
Democrats talk about womens
freedom in the case of abortion.
Then you look at drug laws and
all of the sudden people are saying
no, thats something that we dont
want people to be free to do. We
want the state to intervene. And
then they make up reasons like if
people do drugs maybe theyll be
less productive, and yet they dont
make that argument for the other
ways we become less productive, like
with alcohol, or the health effects of
smoking. I think theres tremendous
hypocrisy, and I think that the
question of why exactly that occurs
is really interesting.
So if morality is, or can be, at least
in part, a smokescreen for me getting
eight pieces of candy and you get
three, where might we go with that in
regard to building a real morality?
People use morality as a
smokescreen, but it doesnt have to
be. I think that we have these great
moral principles in various places,
Morality and the iMind

the Constitution, the Declaration
of Independence, talking about
freedom and liberty. These are
statements about how we think
we ought to live as a community. I
think the real challenge is to change
morality from this kind of faade
to something that we actually care
about. If our position is that people
ought to be able to do what they
want as long as they dont hurt
anyone else, whether intentionally
or as an externality, then the federal
government, state government, local
government ought to not be able to
abridge peoples ability to do that.
Morality isnt a smokescreen
then; it becomes a way to ground
our ideas about the laws we want to
have. So I think the direction for the
future is to ask what would happen
if we actually took these moral
principles seriously? What if we
actually did want a world in which
governments cant impinge on
peoples freedoms to do what they
want in the bedroom, and in terms of
what they eat and so on? And again,
as long as theres no externalities
or side effects. The government,
however, does have a role saying I
cant drive 120 miles an hour on the
roads. Thats dangerous.
It does seem that we have made
real moral advances over the course
of cultural evolution, for example
with regard to slavery, the continuing
emancipation of women, race
relations, Steven Pinkers f indings on
the decline of violence over the course
of history, etc. Thats not to say that
we dont have a long way to go, but
it seems there has been genuine moral
evolution. Would you agree?
I do agree with that. I think in
many places people are way better
off than they used to be. But I would
want to distinguish two different
things in terms of moral progress.
One is progress in terms of peoples
welfare, that is to say freedom from
harm. The other is the amount of
goods we have to share amongst
ourselves because of things like

markets and technology. I see moral
progress as this gradual process
whereby people are more and more
allowed to do what they want. You
dont have to take the view that
the expansion of freedom is what
morality is. You can think about
morality as people compiling a list
of all those things that people can
be punished for doing. And I think
that list should include stuff like
harming other people. I think its
great that we have laws that penalize
people who would intentionally
harm others. But we still have laws
that prevent us from doing what we
want to do where were not harming
anyone else. I think thats the kind
of moral progress we still need to
work on.
Let me just say for the record
that I dont think that I need to have
any kind of religious justification
to take a moral stand. I think its
perfectly reasonable for me to say,
Look, it doesnt matter if I think
theres a god or not, I happen not
to. That doesnt change the fact
that I endorse a certain set of moral
principles. People are always going
to disagree about the details of
morality, right? I think that as we get
better at writing down on paper, or I
guess now its electronic documents,
what we think the bedrock moral
principles are, theres an opportunity
for a lot more coordination around
the world on what those principles
might be. I think religion has some
part to play in that, but I dont think
its a necessary role.
Do you think we can base a moral
code on science, incorporating some of
the principles of evolution and natural
selection?
Well, Im an evolutionary
psychologist but I dont look to
evolution for my moral principles. I
do think that those are the sorts of
things that have to emerge, not so
much out of what we think is true,
but what we want in terms of how
we want people to behave.

So I think that understanding
humans beings from an evolutionary
point of view is really important
for bringing about what it is
that we want to bring about, for
understanding how to organize
cultural institutions, how people are
going to respond to incentives, and
how people are going to produce
and consume public goods. I dont
think that thats where I want
to look for my morality. I think
morality has to come sui generis. I, as
an individual, think that the deepest
moral principle is freedom, is liberty.
I dont think that theres anything
in evolution that can tell me the
right way to structure political
institutions and incentives, and that
we want people to have the freedom
to do as they please. That has to
come from somewhere else. And
people can and do disagree about
that. What Im saying is that I dont
need to understand the process of
natural selection to have the view
that thats something for which I
want to work.
What about the argument that we
are now beginning to look to science
for some of our legal standards, for
example, to neuroscience with regard
to the functionality of teenage brains
as it relates to responsibility? Why
wouldnt we look to science for a moral
code?
My claim isnt that we shouldnt
look to science. My claim is that we
should decide what we want and
then use science to tell us how to get
it. I think thats as true for the space
program as it is for morality. So if it
turns out that we want a world where
people are free, we have to look to
our understanding of human nature
and economics and political science
to understand how to bring about
those goals. Then our understanding
of people, societies, cultures, and so
on becomes really important. Its
just that looking to science comes
after weve introspected about our
FIRST QUARTER 2012
own moral goals.

What is your current research?
One of the things that Im
continuing to work on now is this idea
of strategic morality. How is it that
people are using morality to bring
about their own strategic goals? Last
year I published a paper called Sex,
Drugs, and Moral Goals. Essentially,
it examines the idea that people
are using the morality surrounding
drugs as a way to curb other peoples
sexual natures. It might sound a bit
odd, but we have some data that are
consistent with that premise. If Im
pursuing a long-term monogamous
strategy, and illegal drugs are going
to lead to promiscuity in the world
around me, then I want to ban illegal
drugs, mostly because I seek to reduce
other peoples ability to implement
promiscuous sexual strategies that
may jeopardize my standing with my
mate.
Soand this maybe sounds a
little cynicalthe idea is to link
up these moral commitments to
peoples goals to try to coerce other
people. Were looking at some other
data in collaboration with people in
other countries.
Fascinating stuff.
Yeah, its fun. We think its
interesting to try to think about
morality from a strategic context,
as a way to constrain other peoples
behaviors. So thats been on the top
of my agenda.
Obviously youre not running for
off ice with this idea, telling people
their moral codes are tools of sexual
coercion to benef it their own goals.
What has been the reaction to this line
of thinking?
Weve gotten pretty minimal
reaction to it so far. Ive been a
little surprised. When I present this
material, I find that psychologists
are not particularly fond of it. People
in other fields seem to be a little
more interested. As you say, its not
going to get me elected to say that
your moral views are basically a stick
FIRST QUARTER 2012
youre holding over other peoples

heads to get them to do what you
want. People dont want to hear
that. Part of the reason that were
continuing to do this research is to
try to illustrate this point and make
it more plausible.
The other thing Ive indicated in
my written work is that we often dont
know where morality comes from.
John Haidt is a key name in this area.
Hes shown that people have these
intuitions that they cant explain. Our
own morality is so opaque to us that
peoples initial reaction is, Could that
be why I care about drugs? Morality
is difficult to be introspective about.
My view is that morality has a much
more sinister function than a whole
lot of other people seem to think it
has.
Another issue that weve started
to look at is prostitution. There
are all these strange features and
really funny inconsistencies with
prostitution. You cant pay someone
to have sex, unless somebody films it
and then sells the film. Porn is legal,
but prostitution is illegal. Having sex
for money is okay if other people
watch it on film. Were interested in
why it is that people care about whos
having sex with whom for what kind
of implicit or explicit exchange of
resources. We hope that by looking
at these victimless crime cases we can
get more insight into whats going on
with peoples moral intuition.
I see you battling sometimes
with people who want to write off
evolutionary psychology. Do you want
to comment on that?
I spend a decent amount of time
fielding the arguments that people
make about evolutionary psychology,
which are the same ones that people
have made for 20 years, and theyre
inaccurate in the same way theyve
been for 20 years. Why do people
make these phantom arguments
about the discipline, get red in
the face spending nickels on these
arguments that arent reasonable?
Its a good question. People think

were trying to draw moral lessons
from the science. They seem to live
in some kind of existential fear that
science will undermine their moral
fabric and they get really upset
about that. They bring to bear a lot
of misconceptions and havent taken
the time to really understand the
field. Theres a famous quote thats
variously attributed: The debates
are so violent because the stakes are
so small. I dont think the stakes are
so small here, because were battling
for our vision of human nature.
Sometimes the stakes are big. People
get really angry about this stuff. I
dont think I have a lot of insight into
why thats the case.
Theyre trying to control your
breeding opps.
Maybe (laughs).
Maybe your mimetic breeding in a
sense.
Right, theyre trying to control
the marketplace of ideas. Theres
this sort of Kuhnian aspect to it. In
his book The Structure of Scientif ic
Revolutions Thomas Kuhn says that
as science changes, the people in
power lose their grip on resources.
One can understand why they would
be emotional. I mean if someone was
threatening my bread and butter I
might get angry, too.

Robert Kurzban, PhD, is Associate
Professor of Psychology at the University
of Pennsylvania and the Evolutionary
Psychology Specialty Chief Editor at
Frontiersin.org. He is also an Associate
Editor for the evolutionary psychology
journal Epjournal.net.
Bryan Atkins is the creator and editor of
Postgenetic.com, which proposes the
development of crowd, computer, and
individual-sourced postgenetic codes
integrated with technology to help
us navigate the exponential increases
in cultural complexity and reality in
general.
Faith Should Get No Respect

By Michael Spry
s one of the most

visible comets of the
20th century, HaleBopp would have
been newsworthy anyway. Easily seen
with the naked eye for 18 consecutive
months, it was a constant celebrity in
the media spotlight. Then on March
26, 1997, Hale-Bopp reached a new
pinnacle of notoriety.
It was on this date that 39
decomposing bodies were discovered
near San Diego, California. These
individuals had apparently been part
of a mass suicide and all were dressed
in similar black attire with hoods over
their heads. It turned out that they
were members of a cult that believed
it was actively taking refuge from a
damaged Earth. They were convinced
that a spacecraft was following the
comet and their souls would board
the vessel once their physical deaths
were consummated. This was all part
of a bizarre vision of biblical prophecy
traced back to the 1970s and spun by
two cult leaders. These 39 people had
incredible faith, enough to gamble
their very existence on an unusual
and seemingly improbablecourse of
action. One cannot deny the possibility
that their souls did, in fact, make the
jump and move on to a better place.
There is no evidence of that outcome,
of course, so the rest of us must suspect
that they died on the fateful night
they ingested their deadly cocktail.
Certainly from that time onward, the

Hale-Bopp Comets legacy would be
significantly linked with the Heavens
Gate cult.
On May 21, 2011, the world was
supposed to endat least according to
a radio host named Harold Camping.
Camping embraced Old Testament
entries that had been passed down
for centuries in the oral storytelling
tradition, and employed an incredibly
convoluted series of Biblically-based
calculations to arrive at this date. He
even pinpointed a time of six p.m.,
EDT. I didnt place too much stock in
this claim as I headed down to Costa
Rica for a well-deserved vacation
Jesus was a
no-show, as he
had been on so
many other days.
at that precise moment. There were
people, howevervarious groups
of Christianswho actually had
confidence in Campings prediction
and made ready for the end to come.
For months they reached out to others
through web sites and radio programs,
trying to make sure that people had
made their peace with Jesus.
On May 22, 2011, all over the planet

Earth, people got up and attended to
the normal activities of daily living.
Folks took care of elimination, brushed
their teeth, got dressed, ate breakfast,
and did the things they would
ordinarily do on such a day. Some faced
malnutrition, thirst, disease, terror,
and all manner of other privations.
Many laid in the sun, dying with flies
buzzing around themit was the end
of the world for them. Jesus was a noshow, as he had been on so many other
days. Meanwhile, Camping and his
followers attempted to publicly wipe
the proverbial egg from their own
faces. Not surprisingly, Camping later
predicted a new date for the end of the
world. If at first you dont succeed . . .
Actually, this would be his third failed
prophecy. More may followfilm at
11.
A popular choice on lists of
strange religions, Scientology was the
concoction of science fiction author
L. Ron Hubbard in the early 1950s.
Employing evidence which was
apparently only revealed to Hubbard,
this viewpoint posits that a galactic
tyrant named Xenu came to the Earth
about 75 million years ago with billions
of sentient beings called Thetans. The
Thetans amassed around the bases
of volcanoes, then hydrogen bombs
were placed inside these geological
protrusions and detonated. After
the fireworks, the Thetans somehow
FIRST QUARTER 2012
set about attaching themselves to

generation upon generation of the living
(they must have had lots of fun piloting
various dinosaurs. I wonder if that had
anything to do with the ultimate dinoextinction). Having assumed the lives
of many humans over the millennia,
members of the Church of Scientology
are now able to examine their pasts
through a process called auditing. That
is hardly all there is to it. As one might
suspect, an extraordinary amount of
additional detail is associated with
their doctrine and dogma. Much of
the discovery of pertinent points seems
to separate adherents from their hardearned cashseveral names have been
suggested for this process.
A number of countries, including
Scientologists, and all manner of other

religious notions from the far frontiers
of imagination, a lot of people might
conclude that the proponents were
more than a bit out there. Would
anyone, though, suggest that we
shouldnt respect their constitutional
right to pursue their respective beliefs
no matter how wacky they may be?
I would certainly give them the full
measure of consideration because all
citizens of the US are due freedom of
religion as a birthright. I also expect
a similar level of respect for my own
right to believe what I want about
metaphysical issues.
Lets take it to the next level. How
many people would find fault with
me as an Atheistas a person of
they strive to use the machinery of

government for religious purposes,
when they belligerently bully those
outside their ranks, they are asking to
be challenged on the strength of their
spiritual foundation. People cant expect
to display that degree of stubborn
self-righteousness without having to
establish that their faith rests upon a
substantial bedrock of evidence, logic,
science, and/or other matters of sound
reasoning. If this isnt provided, it begs
the question of how such forceful and
arrogant spiritual advocacy can be
justified with or without consideration
of religious establishments.
The individuals with whom I
conversed pointed out that faith
cannot be challenged on this basis,
Much of the discovery of pertinent points seems to

separate adherents from their hard-earned cash.
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany,
Greece, as well as the United Kingdom,
have refused to recognize Scientology
as a religion, but it is accepted as such
in the good old U. S. of A. The church
gets a serious chip on its shoulder with
anyone who questions the validity
of the liturgy and it loves to wield
the sword of litigation in an effort
to silence critics. This has not spared
them a large measure of derision and
ridicule, however, and they are often
held in disdain by the broader public.
That doesnt make them wrong,
naturally, but a close examination of
the fountainhead of their faith certainly
begs a lot of questions on the wisdom
of the thesis. Just what evidence was
there for all of the thetanic adventures,
and how did 75 million years of history
become evident to L. Ron Hubbard
of all people? A lot of folks are just
cynical about these mysteries, I guess.
Perhaps Hubbards background as a
sci-fi writer feeds the suspicions of
doubting Thomases.
As we look at the Heavens Gate
cult, the followers of Camping, the
FIRST QUARTER 2012
any sort for that matterif I didnt

respect the irrationality exercised by
those individuals? Would anyone
damn me or find me bigoted because
I look askance at these wayward souls
for demonstrating an appallingly
incoherent ability to think critically?
Am I supposed to see them as virtuous
because their nonsensical assessments
reflect religious contemplation? I
guess, in a way, I might hold the
strength of their personal commitment
in some regard, but aside from that,
should I tip my hat to their apparent
illogic like its a valued commodity?
Do people generally revere stupidity or
foolishness? I dont think so. Yet certain
groups of people seem to demand such
reverence for a not altogether dissimilar
investment of faith.
Recently,
I
had
separate
conversations with a couple of
Christians about my book No Santa,
No Tooth Fairy, No GodThe Need to
Challenge Faith in America. In talking
with them, I stressed that when
religious people are attempting to
base public policy on religion, when
that it is founded on something apart

from reasoning. Faith is a matter which
is grounded on more of an emotional
and intuitive plane and is not generally
built upon a platform of rationale.
Little did they seem to realize, but each
was confessing that religious faith is
irrational. No doubt, they didnt think
of it in those terms, but if something
isnt rationally basedthat is, founded
upon things like reason, evidence, and
logicit is by default not rational.
Belief instituted on faith alone is
untenable from a cognitive perspective.
It is a flight of untethered disregard for
facts.
One of the Christians who talked
with me, however, absolutely insisted
that I should respect her exercise of
faith. I looked at her and shook my
head side-to-side, telling her that I
fully respected her right to embrace
that faith as long as she, in turn, has
a similar disposition toward me. In
retrospect, I could have added that I can
respect peoples kindness, dedication,
Three Lives of a Warrior: Part 3

by Phillip Butler, PhD
American Atheists Life Member Phillip Butler is a warrior with three lives. In our past two issues, Butler has given us
accounts of his f irst life, as a young skeptic growing up in the Oklahoma Bible belt, and then his second life, during the Vietnam
War where he spent eight years as a POW. This third and f inal excerpt, adapted from his book, Three Lives of a Warrior,
jumps ahead more than three years to Butlers release and return home to a world he hardly recognizes.
Return With Honor.

T
hat was our POW mantra and guiding motto.

Finally, after 2,855 days and nights of nightmare
incarceration, on February 12, 1973, I boarded the
first airplane out of Hanoi, with honor. I made
the first flight because I was the seventh-longestheld POW. We were flown out in order of how
long we had been incarcerated, with the sick and
wounded also on the first airplane. It took several
weeks to fly us all out.
The flight from Hanoi to Clark Air Force Base
in the Philippines took maybe an hour, though
time didnt matter that day. When we arrived we
were asked to walk down the stairs, one by one,
in order of time spent as a POW. I was number
eight. They announced our names and rank over a
loudspeaker as we walked down. There was a huge
crowd of people, TV cameras everywhere, and
military brass like Ive never seen before or since.
We rode shuttle buses for the two-mile trip to
Balboa Hospital on the base and were astonished
to see both sides of the road, for the entire distance,
lined with cheering people waving and holding
Welcome Home! signs.
We pulled up to the hospital and got off the
bus, again one by one as they announced our
names. The Chief of Naval Operations and other
Joint Chiefs were there, saluting us before we
could give the honor first.
Before we even walked into the hospital I
was asked what I wanted to do first and I said I
wanted to see a dentist. I had terrible pain from
broken and impacted teeth and had suffered with
Welcome home by family in Tulsa, March

1973, one month after Butlers release
Photos courtesy of Phil Butler
FIRST QUARTER 2012
it for years. One tooth, broken off

as the first time I held her eight
in 1966, had caused me constant
years before. She just stared at me
pain and swelling.
the whole time I carried her down
I was immediately escorted to
the carpet to where Karen stood.
a dental chair with four Air Force
I reached out to embrace my wife
dentists hovering over me. They
and got a hug and a tepid kiss on
were extremely nervous as they
the cheek. We got into the back seat
examined my tooth while debating
of a car, and with Diane between us,
and analyzing at the same time. It
Karen sat as far away from me as
was comical how they treated me
she could. When I asked her what
like sacred material. This was a big
was going on, she said, Phil, I need
deal because they hadnt known
to tell you now that I intend to get
what to expect from us. Were we
a divorce. Then we were driven
crazy? Volatile? Dangerous to
to Balboa Naval Hospital in San
ourselves or others? They had no
Diego.
clue.
Karen told me she didnt want
I finally asked them to calm
me to come to our house because
down and just fix my tooth. I
it would be uncomfortable for her
Captain Butler, 1981
needed a root canal, which they
and her boyfriend, with whom she
performed on the spot. What a relief ! It was the first
had been in a relationship with for over three years.
time in almost seven years that I had been without
It was upsetting, to say the least. Her behavior at the
dental pain. Ive never enjoyed anythingwell, relatively
time seemed merciless. But with the passage of time it
speakingmore than that root canal.
turned out to be merciful, because I was freed to begin
The first thing everybody wanted to do at the hospital
a new life.
This country was desperate for heroes,

and we got that assignment.
was to take a shower, even before we ate. Guys would
get in the shower and stand there for an hour under the
hot water. It felt so good to experience a warm shower
with sweet-smelling soap, and to get the prison slime
and stink off.
We all ate five or six entrees at that first meal. I ate
desserts until I was ready to die. It was so incredibly
good to taste real food. The medical people were scared
to death. They thought we were going to make ourselves
sick, but we surprised them.
WelcomeHome?
After a few days at the Clark Air Force Base hospital,

I was flown to Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego
to be reunited with my family. When I arrived, I walked
onto a red carpet that stretched for 40 yards. There, at
the end of the carpet, stood my wife, Karen, and my
now eight-year-old daughter, Diane, whom I hadnt
seen since she was two days old.
When Diane saw me she immediately ran down the
carpet and jumped into my arms. That was as big a thrill
FIRST QUARTER 2012
The four years we were married were really good.

But after eight years apart, we both had evidently
become different people. It was also a different world. I
couldnt understand that very well at the time, because
I hadnt lived through those changes. The Vietnam
War was as much a war of values for the world outside
as it was a killing war for those inside. During those
eight years I had been deeply involved in the killing,
but totally isolated from the values.
Because I had been in an information vacuum for
eight years, everything was different, even our families.
Many of us faced rejection and even immediate
divorce from those whom we had loved and planned
for during those long, dark years of incarceration. For
me, returning home was a euphoric time, pasted with
deep disappointments and distress.
We ex-POWs had no idea how we would be
received upon our return. World War II and Korean
War POWs were not welcomed home warmly. But
for us, the American public went crazy. The country
was desperate for heroes, and we got that assignment.
Three Lives of a Warrior

When I first came home I was
grinding my teeth so badly at night
I had to be fitted with dental guards
so I could sleep without tearing my
teeth up. I also had a hair-trigger
temper that I fought to keep in
control. I didnt like being in close
confinement with a lot of other
people; I had to slowly acclimate to
that situation.
For a while, I would awaken in the
middle of the night and go check
the door, just to make sure I could
indeed open it and walk out. For
years I absolutely could not stand
the sound of somebody rattling
Going home at last. Leaving Hanoi, February 12, 1973.
keys. I would always ask them to
We literally became instant, though
I can remember seeing women stop and even grab their hands at
temporary, military rock stars. with pierced ears, and asking if times. The sound pushed me close
Everyone wanted to meet, hear, and they were gypsies or in some cult, to the edge, always reminding me of
know you. It was Welcome Home because women in the 1950s wore the fear prompted by guards coming
POWs! everywhere and people clip-on earrings. This was all totally down the cell block to take someone
frequently recognized me when I new; little things like that were just out for interrogation and torture. (I
went out. The reaction to our return amazing. And seeing women with no still to this day find it irritating, but
seemed like an effort to compensate bras was pretty amazing too. There it doesnt drive me up the wall as it
for the sordid and ungrateful way wasnt even a hint of such fashion used to when I first came home.)
For years I could not stand the sound

of somebody rattling keys.
many returning Vietnam veterans
had been treated over the years
before the war finally ended.
I left home in March 1965
and I returned in February 1973
to a fantasy world. For a while,
everything was totally confusing.
When I shopped for civilian
clothes, I would walk into a store
and literally have no idea what to
buy. The wingtip shoes, buttondown Ivy League shirtsall the
familiar clothes were gone. I was in
a panic; I had never seen bellbottom
trousers, great big checkered pants,
or such goofy shoes. Everyone had
long hair, so from the back I couldnt
tell a man from a woman.
before I left.
I had to learn how to write a check,
went back to the DMV for a drivers
test, and needed literally to be shown
how to use a telephone again.
The verbal expressions and the
way people talked were so different.
I needed a translator to understand
what it all meant. The music was
really different and the groups
who sang soft protest songs were
compelling to me. Later, when I
was dating I found out dancing
had changed dramatically. People
danced without touching each other
now. Ballroom dancing and all that
romantic stuff of the past seemed to
be ancient history.
The demon of post traumatic

stress disorder was always lurking
just around the corner because in
my head I was still at war with our
captors. I was filled with anger and
bitternessit couldnt have been
otherwiseand I had all these other
things going on around me. I dont
think I really began to understand
my process and what I had been
through until I was able to put it
together in a social-psychological
way in graduate school.
While at the hospital I was
debriefed on the chronological
history of my time as a POW. During
my imprisonment I had deliberately
memorized every date, event,
FIRST QUARTER 2012
person, and move during those eight

years because I knew if I ever got
out alive I would be asked to repeat
this stuff. Also, there wasnt much to
do most of the time, so keeping the
experiences and observations sorted
and updated was a good mental
distraction to pass the time. My
debriefing, 36 hours total, was all
data-oriented. The facts came out,
but my true emotions were stuffed
away and didnt start to surface until
many years later. I virtually had to
re-learn how to have feelings about
myself and other people, about life
around me because for so long, in
order to survive, I had to give up
those feelings.
When the debriefing session was
over, the socialization process of my
third life began and I felt like Rip
Van Winkle.
Within a few months of
returning I was promoted to the
rank of Commander and
was given my choice of first
duty station. I decided to
get a PhD in sociology at
the University of California
San Diego. I had a lot of
catching up to do. The
real catching up was in
terms of finding out what
had happened while I was
gone. I lived in the library
and soaked up stuff like a
blotter. I was making up
for eight years without any
reading or writing materials
whatsoever. I stormed
through my course work in just
two years because I was starved for
information.
After that it was back to the
real Navy. I served at the Human
Resource Management Center in
San Diego for three years while
conducting my field research,
and then, as a faculty member at
the Naval Postgraduate School
FIRST QUARTER 2012
I would awaken
in the middle of
the night and
check the door,
to make sure I
could open it
and walk out.
in Monterey, I completed my
dissertation,
Engineering
Organization Change: The Case of
Human Resource Management in
the US Navy. It is a study that shows
how the Navy wanted humanistic
changes but approached individual
and organization behavioral change
they way they would an engineering
project. Of course that didnt work
Phil and Barbara, SPCA volunteers, 2007
very well.
I met my wife, Barbara Baldock,
through her brother Chuck, a fellow
POW. At the fifth San Diego-area
POW reunion, on February 12,
1978, I spotted her sitting at a table
with him. I couldnt take my eyes
off her. I introduced myself and it
turned out she was going through
a divorce. After some discussion
and hesitation on Chucks part

after all his dear baby sister didnt
need a womanizer like me to make
things worseBarbara and I finally
connected by telephone. We fell in
love and married two years later.
I knew Chuck at Naval Air
Station Lemoore, even before I
went to Vietnam. He was shot
down in March 1966. I was never
in a cell with him, but we were able
to communicate some. When I
introduce him to people I like to say,
This is my brother-in-law, Chuck,
who was also a POW, but only for
seven years.
After 20 years of service, I left
the Navy in 1981 to begin my new
life as a civilian business owner.
I founded Camelot Enterprises,
became a trainer for National
Training Laboratories, worked
with the American Management
Association, and was a sensitivity
group trainer for business
and organization executives.
For the next 20 years I
specialized in team-building
with top management
groups in corporations and
other organizations. It was
satisfying to see people
come together and learn to
speak honestly with each
other, take responsibility
for their own behaviors, and
begin to work together to
make good things happen.
Talking
about
my
POW experiences was
an opportunity for me to make
even more of a contribution, and I
eventually started being called on to
speak about my experiences, and to
impart the lessons learned that are
applicable everywhere. In a sense,
my POW experiences became a
personal gift, one that I could pass
on to others. The act of doing this
Bible Bunk and Holy Horrors

By Michael B. Paulkovich
hose true believers,

whom many of us
denigrate by labeling
them with the sobriquet
Bible thumpers, can be
a tad frustratingbut only if you lack
a toolbox chocked with formidable
facts. Pious churchgoers tend to ignore
history, and even much scripture; and
they have read works by apologists
who have figured out ways to justify
the Bible as a legitimate, moral text.
(Anyone who has actually read it,
with honesty, knows that it is neither
legitimate nor moral.)
Their excuses are usually feeble;
they ignore the obvious evil and skip
overor are blind tothe many
contradictions. I cannot imagine that
Sunday Bible studies ever bring up
verses wherein Jesus suggests killing
disobedient children, whipping slaves,
or plucking your eyes out. Nor do they
expose his praise of genocide. The Old
Testament, as vile and immoral and
murderous as it is, is often regarded as
noble gods first, failed attempts, his
son coming along several millennia
later to render things right. Finally.
How does one argue with the
Bible believers? One can begin by
showing them that the book is riddled
with immoral acts as well as many
contradictions. This proves them
wrong about Bible inerrancy as well
as its ethics. This is often a difficult
task, as they have been trained to pull
excuses from a quiver full of nonsense,
but you should be at the ready to point
out little-known atrocities and evil
within their holy book.
Next, bring up horrors perpetrated
by Christians in the real world (as
opposed to Biblical fantasies), able to
do so solely because they had God
on their side. The Bible is an enabler
for evil. It is our job, as rational

freethinkers, to remind believers of the
facts they ignore, or are unaware of.
Even Jesus, a supposedly perfect soul,
propagated tenets contrived by Bronze
Age Hebrew men who sought wealth,
power, and conquest of women (virgins
in particular, for some reason) as they
concocted laws and histories in their
Tanakh.
Christian apologists begin with the
assumption that the Bible must be true
(after all, it says it is true), then they
attempt to find evidence supporting it.
This is the opposite of critical thinking
and scientific method.
Consider the opinions in a book
by Keith Ward enticingly named Is
Religion Dangerous? When I came
across the title I thought perhaps
the author was on to something
enlightening: I might learn even more
about the dangers of religion than
previously aware.
It is our job,
as rational
freethinkers, to
remind believers
of the facts
they ignore.
Enlightening, yes, but not as I had
hoped. Ward (a Christian theologian,
it turned out) wastes no time offering
his foregone conclusion: religion could
not possibly be evil or dangerous. His
introduction, on page one, declares such
notions absurd. This is his credo
throughout. One may cringe while
trudging through such mendacious and

shallow efforts; nevertheless such jaunts
can reap rewards by gaining insight
into the whirling workings of brains
that have been put through a thorough
wash cycle without any subsequent
tumble drying.
One must treat harmful mendacities
with umbrage; liars and obscurantists
must be called out, refuted. The
unctuous believers have infected and
ravaged the world for far too long.
Beliefs in some superstitions are
innocuous; consider for example,
astrology. Yet strongly-held beliefs
in irrational notions that claim to be
approved by some sort of all-powerful
supernatural overlord often result in
the oppression and murder of millions.
So: award several points to astrology
merely for innocuousness. I do not
believe in it, but it does not rub or rile
me to raise pen or sword any more than
does my neighbors barking dog. Mere
annoyances, both. Self-righteous cults
proffering supernatural dogmas, on the
other hand, are much more than merely
annoying, to say the least.
The philosophy and exegesis of
a religious apologist rarely surprises
the intelligent reader. Ward, for
example, refers to the three Abrahamic
monotheisms with blinders on: The
God of Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam is a being of justice, mercy, and
loving-kindness, who
commands
[commandsany hint of a mystical
dictatorship here?] humans to be
just, merciful and kind... (49). Surely,
Wardtheologian, historian, author
and scholarmust be acutely aware
of the injustice, racial intolerance, and
pervasive violence proffered by the Old
Testament, the Quran, and even by
the apparent words of Jesus. Does he
truly believe his three-headed numen
FIRST QUARTER 2012
embodies justice, mercy, and Myles

Coverdales ancient portmanteau:
loving-kindness? You might want to
advise your local Christian Thumpers
and Bible Bambis to re-read the
scriptures, and pay attention next time.
After all, these are the words of god and
his son!
For example, in Exodus 22:18,
Yahweh commands us to kill witches
in contradiction to his earlier thou
shalt not kill decree. One may ask what
constitutes witchcraft; turning water
into wine? Zapping the life out of a
fig tree, or conjuring zombies, as the
Bible claims of Jesus? In Numbers, god
commands Moses, in an early faithbased initiative, to exterminate the
Midianites, except virgin girls, whom
they can keep for themselves (31:18).
There are no instructions regarding
of religion across time. If they were not

killed or tortured, their potential free
thoughts were derailed in youth by a
superstitious and morbid upbringing.
Drinking the blood and eating the
flesh of the son of god is one example,
being an ancient liturgy pilfered from
pagan practice long before Jesus.
Wards writing is never acrimonious.
Nevertheless he, like the typical
believer, lacks the acumen of a
logical, freethinking individual. Wards
recollection of the history of religious
atrocitiesthe very point of his book
is spotty at best. To his credit, he admits
to the iniquities of one of the Hebrew
gods many genocidal decrees, in
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (extermination
of those annoying Hittites, Amorites,
Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and
Jebusites), calling it perhaps the worst
Matthew 5:28-30 and the unholy

dicta propounded by Jesus in that
same sermon, such as convicting you of
thought crimes (112). In his wise and
peaceful pronunciations on the mount
(or on a plain, according to Luke 6:1722), Jesus, the son of god, suggests selfmutilation as your only logical recourse:
cut off your hand, pull out your eyes,
Jesus advises in Matthew 18. And I
thought chopping off the foreskin was
a silly ritual and a crime against nature.
While he does not specify, Ward
must be referring to Matthew 5:21-22
for Jesus supposedly annulling violent
Deuteronomic
philosophies.
Yet
Jesus contradicts himself repeatedly,
sometimes approving Hebrew law,
sometimes dismissing it. Jesus often
strikes up an intolerant and infinitely
judgmental stance. This is something
Jesus decrees you may be his disciple only if you

hate your entire family, and hate yourself.
how to distinguish virgins from nonvirgins, but virgin inspector must have
been a pretty groovy profession back
then. From a mans point of view.
In Deuteronomy 20, god declares
that after winning a battle, you can
indeed take their women, but then
must kill all males and livestock: save
alive nothing that breatheth, loving
Yahweh commands. In Genesis 19:58, Lot, a righteous man, sanctions
the rape of his daughters. Later, Lots
daughters get drunk with dear old Dad
in an incestuous mnage troi (Gen
19:31-36). In Luke 14:26, Jesus decrees
you may be his disciple only if you hate
your entire family and hate yourself.
Ask your Christian interlocutor if she
hates herself and her family.
Quran 2:6-7 commands you not to
aid disbelievers, because Allah made
them this way, and lusts for divine
retribution: theirs will be an awful
doom.
There have been billions of victims
FIRST QUARTER 2012
of all primitive moral ideas (109). This

is an admission regarding his own allloving creator! However it is not, by
far, the worst. This mythical god, in
a long line of other legendary deities,
commands many bizarre dictates much
more gruesome and immoral than his
Deuteronomic decrees.
The entire book of Joshua is much
more violent and foul. Just by example:
And they utterly destroyed all that
was in the city, both man and woman,
young and old, and ox, and sheep, and
ass, with the edge of the sword
commanded by god (6:21).
Moreover, in Jude 1:5-8, Old
Testament genocide is praised and
unbelievers are banished to hell. Jesus
himself speaks highly of father Yahwehs
genocidal tantrums in Matthew 11:2024.
Ward claims that Jesus Sermon on
the Mount countermanded Yahwehs
ridiculous and horrible (Wards word,
not mine) decrees. Yet he ignores
Ward, a supposed expert on Christianity,

seems to have missed.
For example, in Mark 7:9-13 and
Matthew 15:2-6, Jesus agrees with the
Old Testament parenting instructions
to kill your rebellious or stubborn son. As
a Hebrew you are a hypocrite if you do
not, so declares Jesus. In Luke 19, Jesus
concludes a parable, strangely with no
message of morality, by commanding:
But those mine enemies, which would
not that I should reign over them, bring
hither, and slay them before me. Jesus
condemns certain people to death and
eternal hell simply because they had not
repented (Mt 11:20-23). Loving Jesus
often employs the vile trick of infinite
blackmail, damning you for eternity
if you merely do not follow him (Mt
25:40-46, Mt 10:33, Mt 12:30-31, Mk
3:29, Mk 8:38, Mk 16:16, Lk 12:10, Jn
3:36, Jn 8:24, Jn 12:48, Jn 15:6, etc.).
Comedian Bill Hicks pointed out that
eternal suffering awaits anyone who
questions gods infinite love.
Bible Bunk
Ward missesor chooses to
ignoreJesus
applauding
Old
Testament ethnic cleansing, and his
violent proclamations such as Think
not that I am come to send peace on
earth: I came not to send peace, but a
sword (Mt 10:34), and I am come to
send fire on the earth (Lk 12:49). The
typical Christian apologist explains
away repugnant or contradictory
scriptures using wordplay, pseudophilosophical legerdemain, or excuses
of context and metaphor. Sending fire
on the earth is no metaphor: Jesus
repeatedly proclaims that the world
will come to its scorching terminus
within a generation (e.g. Mt 24, Mk 13,
and many others. See Mt 13:40-43 for
more eschatology).
So much for Jesus countermanding
gods primitive morals. (Arent Jesus
and god supposed to be the same
entity anyway?) Moreover, the idea
of anybodyeven the son of god
countermanding gods words is
impossible according to the Bible,
as gods laws never change, and are
perfect, as in Isaiah 40:8, Psalms
18:30 and 19:7-8, and 1 Peter 1:25.
Page 124 contains perhaps Wards
most absurd claim: There are no
serious objections to the moral
perfection of Jesus. Is he completely
unaware of the writings since the
Enlightenment? Even believer C. S.
Lewis had questioned Christ as being,
just perhaps, immoral. The very words
of Jesus should cause one to believe he
was the Devil of Hell and a madman
or something worse, contemplated
Lewis. He wavered and waffled,
resigning to proclaim Jesus (against all
of his own logical arguments) Lord
and God.
With the canon as my witness, I
must raise serious objections to any
moral perfection of Jesus. The words
that come to my mind are:
- ignorant (Mt 6:25-6, Mt 6:34, Acts
10:38)
- contradictory (Lk 16:16 vs. Mt 5:17 vs.
Rom 6:14 vs. Mt 19:17)

- violent (Mk 7:10, Jude 1:5-8, Lk
19:27, Mt 11:20-24)
- unjust (Lk 12:46-48)
- unforgiving and devoid of empathy
(Mt 23:14)
- intolerant and racist (Mt 10:5-6, Mt
15:22-24, 2 John 1:10, Acts 13:17-19,
Jude 1:5-8)
- illogical and nonsensical (Mt 5:29-30,
Mt 24:37-39, Mt 12:40, Jn 3:14).
Thus, perfect does not describe
this savior, sent from heaven in all his
misty and golden glory. Such claims
are stretches of Brobdingnagian
proportions. Check your Bibles if you
got em.
Ward states Christians have given
up the Torah and he holds certain
New Testament sections as proof (119).
If so, what might Ward think about
the words of Jesus supporting so much
of it? Christians who dismiss the Old
Testament as Hebrew tales or simple
parables should read Matthew 12:40,
where Jesus believes Jonah lived in a
fish, or Jude 1:5-8, where he believes
the Sodom and Gomorrah myths, or
Romans 1:26-27, where Paul supports
the god hates fags decree of Leviticus
18:22 and 20:13, or John 3:14, where
Jesus believes in a magical pole that
cures snakebites (see also Numbers
21:8-9).
The New Testament propagates
Old Testament racism against nonHebrews ( Jude 1:5-8, Acts 13:17-19).
The New Testament declares Lotthe
cowardly and incestuous Old Testament
characterto be a righteous man in 2
Peter 2:7 (NAS, NLT, ESV, ISV, NIV,
and many other Bible versions; KJV
and DRC use the adjective just to
describe this repugnant patriarch).
Christians have given up the Torah?
This is something that we all should
surely wish for, but is not the case. Very
often I see televangelists on Sunday
mornings citing the Old Testament
scriptures as if they accurately reflect
history. The History Channel ran a
series called Mysteries of the Bible

examining the Old Testament tales
in detail. One particular episode was
about the Cain and Abel tale, believed
to be the first murder ever. This, from
The History Channel, for crying out
loud! I know what the mysteries are.
Why do people still believe this nonsense,
in the 21st century?
Pat Robertson, in his book, Answers
to 200 of Lifes Most Probing Questions,
states he actually believes in Adam
and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and
that it is as good an explanation for
what happened as there could be (55).
Darwin, Sagan, and Hawking come to
mind as three (of so many) who might
just disagree with this conclusion. In
Whats So Great About Christianity?,
dripping with desperate tautology
in attempt to prove the universe was
created by god, Dinesh DSouza quotes
from Psalm 19 (131). And DSouza
claims that the Christian god did so
completely and solely for the sake of we
humans. Arrogant, shameless solipsism,
so says I. DSouza actually declares the
biblical account of how the universe
was created is substantially correct
(124). This is pure OT BS; nothing
more, nothing less.
Clearly most Christians have not
given up the Torah; and the New
Testament supports much of the Old
Testament nonsense, a fact denied by
Mr. Ward.
The prime DSouza factoid that
really gets my goat (not available as a
burnt offering; so sorry for Yahweh, our
bloodthirsty creator) is his ignorant
or mendacious, I dont know which
claim that the total number of deaths
due to the Crusades, Inquisitions,
and witch-hunts amounts to a mere
200,000 (215). The actual number is
closer to four million. I do not know
where Dinesh gets his numbers, but
I have a hunch. In a debate against
Christopher Hitchens (Is Christianity
the Problem? CSPAN-2 Book TV,
November 2007), he brings up the
FIRST QUARTER 2012
witch-hunts, limiting his argument

to Salem. I finally researched it, he
declares, learning that only eighteen
witches were killed there. (I was
somewhat surprised his adversary
did not bring up the over one million
Catharist witches violently put down
by Christian forces; but on that day
Hitch had to shoot many fish wallowing
in Dineshs lame and watery barrel.)
I am tempted to coin a term,
DSouzoid for Dineshs ventures
into malefic depths. Read his books
and watch his debates. Every time you
encounter a grossly false fact, relegate
it to that pile. I am sure one can produce
even larger piles consisting of Foxoids
and Biblioids.
While our esteemed Ward reluctantly
admits to some Christian atrocities,
such as the Crusades and Inquisitions,
he nevertheless excuses them. In his
chapter Religion and War, Ward
claims Christianity had humanizing
effects on the Roman Empire (66). I
believe the tens of millions of victims
tortured and murdered by Christian
oppressors would disagreeif only
they could have.
Ward ignores the vast majority of
perennial Christian transgressions
against mankind. He touches upon
one or two of their many inhuman
horrors now and then, with but brief
mention (and, of course, tepid, even
fetid rationalization).
Over the centuries, the telltale eye
of history has witnessed Christians
murdering apostates, people of rival
religions, and even fellow Christians
who had trivial spiritual discrepancies.
They eradicated millions. For example:
the Cathars, then the Stedingers, then
masses of German peasants (in the
Deutscher Bauernkrieg), all excused
by biblical jurisprudence, or immoral
decrees from religious leaders. Christian
monks burned tens of thousands of
witches while aliveapproved, and
even urged on by every pope across
many centuries.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Yet Ward actually asserts no one

who has studied history could deny that
most wars in human history have not
been religious (73). I had to read that
sentence twice; anyone who has studied
history realizes the opposite is true.
He backpedals: And in the case
of those that have been religious, the
religious component has usually been
associated with some non-religious,
social, ethnic, or political component...
What religion has not been infiltrated by
social, ethnic, or political components?
I can name some, but the three main
monotheisms have always had greedy
and malevolent termites in their midst.
Christian leaders have suppressed
freethought for nearly two thousand
years. The total number of lives taken in
the name of mythical Jesus? It amounts
to tens, even hundreds of millions, and
it took Christianity fewer than twenty
centuries to accomplish this feat of
moral perfection. Ward seems only
slightly aware of such atrocities. His
sub-section The Crusades coversI
kid you nota page and a half (68-69)!
Again, this is the very subject of his
work, entitledneed I remind you?
Is Religion Dangerous?
Clearly the negative effects that
Christianity and the Bible brought
aboutgenocide, torture, forgeries,
censorship, large-scale annexation, and
psychological blackmailfar outweigh
the weak and sparse and apologetic
positives. And Jesus never uttered a
word, it seems, against slavery, ethnic
cleansing, or the violent gladiator
games of the times.
Ward claims that all religious
views are underpinned by highly
sophisticated philosophical arguments
(91). This statement is not only absurd,
but sadly hilarious, while hilariously
ironic. The archetypical believer in
Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed, or Yahweh
did not arrive upon his or her faith
through any kind of philosophical
analysis, sophisticated or otherwise.
The roots of such delusions usually lie
in childhood brainwashing, instilling

unfalsifiable myths in the budding
mind while still soft and tender and
pliable.
The true sources behind most
ongoing religious, superstitious, and
mythical beliefs stem from youthful
indoctrination by parents. It is the
reason Ward is a Christian, Bin
Laden was a Muslim, the Dalai Lama
a Buddhist. It is the reason Hitler
remained Catholic. Being so raised, he
claimed to be on a mission from his
Christian god: Hence today I believe
that I am acting in accordance with
the will of the Almighty Creator: by
defending myself against the Jew, I
am fighting for the work of the Lord
(Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Ch. 2, Wiener
Lehr - und Leidensjahre).
Any freethinking individual who has
studied history can see that religion
is, at face value, not merely dangerous,
but a malignant behemoth guilty of
mass murder and perpetual spiritual
blackmail. This excludes, of course,
the few truly peaceful religions, such
as Mithraism, Jainism, Buddhism,
Bahi Faith, Universal Unitarianism,
and Quakerism, as well as Zamenhof s
noble Homaranismo experiment. If
only such benevolent belief systems
were more universally embraced, what
an even more wonderful world we
would inhabit.
I do truly blame Constantines
cronies first, for choosing scripture
from violent and immoral Hebrew and
Christian cults. Too bad they did not
pick, say, Buddhism or Mithraism. In
Histoire des Origines du Christianisme,
Bk 7, Marc-Aurle, Ernest Renen wrote:
One could say that, had Christianity
been terminated in its infancy due to
some mortal affliction, the world would
have become Mithraist.
Then I blame emperor Theodosius
I for declaring Christianity the only
legal religion of the empire, in 391
CE, under penalty of death. Eusebius
by Ludwik Kowalski, PhD
Futile Confrontations
Between Theists and Atheists
Kowalski (shirt unbuttoned) at the 1951 May First Parade in Warsaw
utile conflicts between theists and

Atheists, often amounting to we are
better than you confrontations, are
common, as one can verify by browsing
the internet. Those who promote such
poisonous conflicts are usually neither scientists nor
theologians. Is it desirable to end such confrontations?
Is it possible to end them? If yes, then how? I have
posed this question to many online discussion groups,
and here are some of the comments Ive received:
1. I dont mind coexistence with religion, but
religious people seriously need to practice religion in
their bedrooms only. As soon as you theists cross over
the line and try to interfere with my life through politics,
law, and lifestyle, then you can go shove it up you know
where and expect no mercy from me.
2. Organized religions are often guilty of trying to
convert Atheists and non-believers; this is not good.
Atheists, calling themselves intellectuals, are not better.
They also often try to convert believers.
3. The focus on belief or non-belief is counterproductive for both sides of the equation. The corrosive
element to the rhetoric of some modern Atheists is pure

arrogance, matched only by that of some theists.
4. I am opposed to peaceful coexistence [with
theists]. One does not halt a boxing match for fear of
losing.1
My purpose here is to address conceptual conflicts
between theists and Atheists, avoiding the word
religion. To discuss religion, one would have to address
differences between religions, political exploitation of
theism and Atheism, and much more. Such important
topics are certainly worth addressing, but not in a short
essay.
In Bridging Science and Religion: Why It Must
Be Done, Robert John Russell says that the path
toward a world without aggressive confrontations is in
cooperation between theologians and scientists.2 I tend
to disagree. Cooperation may or may not develop in the
distant future; what should be done first is conceptual
separation.
The first step toward mutual respect between theists
and Atheists should be the recognition that most
people on Earth live in two different worlds: material
FIRST QUARTER 2012
and spiritual. Methods of validation of claims made of other victims of Stalinism. The victims are dead but
by theologians specializing in spiritual doctrines are I was definitely with them when I was writing. What
very different from those used by scientists exploring can be a better confirmation that many of us live in two
our physical world. God is not a material entity, and different worlds, material and spiritual?
attempts to refute gods existence by performing
The idea that theism and science are two nonscientific experiments are not appropriate. The same is overlapping magisteria is not original; it was formulated
true for attempts to refute scientific claims, such as the by Stephen Jay Gould. He wrote, The net of science
age of the earth, on the basis of disagreements with holy covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact)
books.
and why does it work this way (theory). The net of
Theology is like mathematics, not science. religion extends over questions of moral meaning
Mathematicians
start
with
and value. These two magisteria
axioms (initially accepted truths)
do not overlap, nor do they
and use logical derivation to
encompass all inquiry (consider,
justify consecutive claims, called
for starters, the magisterium of
theorems. Once proven, a theorem
art and the meaning of beauty).5
cannot be rejected, unless a logical
Informal cooperation between the
error is found in the derivation.
two camps will always exist; many
Science is very different.
scientists are also theologians
Here, claims are justified, in the
and many theologians are also
final analysis, by experimental
scientists. They will certainly
observations, not by pure logic. A
know which methodology of
scientific claim becomes valid after
validation is appropriate in each
it is confirmed in reproducible
of the two worlds, material and
experiments.
Furthermore,
spiritual.
scientific validations are always
As I stated earlier, holy
tentative; scientists know that
books contain pronouncements
future experiments might result
about the physical world. Such
in rejection, or partial rejection, of
pronouncements are rooted in the
what has already been accepted.
incorrect beliefs of our ancestors,
Scientific truth is not claimed to
who lived when faith and science
be eternal.
were not yet separate disciplines.
The methods of validation
The story of creation, the world
and refutation used by scientists
being created in one week, for
and theologians are sufficiently
example, is no longer taken literally,
Ludwik, at age five, with his Atheist
different to justify separation
even by many theologians. A
parents, Moscow 1936.
rather
than
cooperation.
formal unambiguous recognition
Separation will allow theists and Atheists to rethink of this, for example, by the Pontifical Academy of
and reformulate basic ideas and methodologies. Until Sciences in the Vatican, would be a tremendously
this happens, scientists should not participate in important step toward the elimination of futile debates.
debates about the spiritual world, unless they happen Another commenter online opined that God means
to also be theologians. Likewise, theologians should not something more sophisticated than the old man in the
participate in debates about the material world, unless sky, rewarding the good and punishing the bad like a
they happen to also be scientists. Debates about ways cosmic Santa Claus. It is not what proselytizers tell us, or
to eliminate existing conflicts might last decades, if what tells terrorists to bomb buildings and trains. Yes,
not centuries. They are likely to be more productive if political abuse of religion is also one of the important
conducted separately.
issues to be subsequently addressed.
I am a scientist, not a theologian.3 As a university Commenting on relations between science and
student in Poland from 1949 to 1957, I was an mathematics, one person wrote that science would be a
aggressive Atheist and subsequently became a member shadow of itself if not for the math, and math wouldnt
of the communist party. I am now a theist, believing be anywhere as significant if not for the science. Will
in od and attending a synagogue. Missing an earlier theology also become a partner of science, as Russell
introduction to god, I am very different from other expects? It is too early to speculate about this. One
theists, and I describe my ideological evolution in my fact is undeniable: many professional theologians and
autobiography, which Ive posted online.4 Writing it
was a moral obligation, to my parents, and to millions
FIRST QUARTER 2012
PLATINUM LIFE MEMBER
Sam Simon
Simon at the 2008

World Series of Poker
Photo by Matt Waldron/
Wikimedia Commons
ood without god? No problem for Sam Simon.

American Atheists newest platinum life member
had a successful career in television as the cocreator of The Simpsons and The George Carlin
Show. His writing/directing/producing credits include The
Drew Carey Show, Friends, Cheers, Taxi, and The Tracey
Ullman Show. When he accepted his Emmy Awards for
his accomplishments, its safe to bet that he didnt thank
god.
It would not be safe to bet in a card game if hes at the
table, however. He competes in the World Series of Poker.
And wins.
Another interest is boxing. He trained and fought as
an amateur, and for eight years managed Lamon Brewster,
who in 2004, won the World Boxing Organization
heavyweight championship.
Someone this successful doesnt have to worry about
earning a living anymore. So with the choice of doing
pretty much anything in the world, how does he spend
most of his time? With the Sam Simon Foundation, which
rescues dogs from shelters and humane societies and then

trains them to be hearing dogs for people who are deaf or
hard of hearing. Or service dogs to veterans diagnosed with
PTSD. Or dogs who visit assisted living facilities, providing
residents with therapeutic benefits like lowered heart and
stress rates, improved memory recall, social stimulus, or at
the very least a high point of their day.
In case youre reaching for your checkbook, dont bother.
He accepts no donations and all of the foundations services,
which include a mobile clinic that spays or neuters dogs and
cats belonging to low-income families in Los Angeles, are
funded by him. The most recent addition to the foundation
is a mobile food bank that feeds 150 unemployed families
every day.
God has never been in his life, so Simon is a perfect
example of someone who is helping to destroy the
misconception that Atheists have no morals. So if his
phenomenal generosity isnt a strategy to get into heaven,
why do it? It makes him feel good.
Good for you, Sam.
NEW LIFE MEMBERS

GOLD LIFE MEMBER
Richard Gilberg
SILVER LIFE MEMBERS

Diane Buckner
Ed Buckner
Mark Demonbreun
Eric Lichtenstein
LIFE MEMBERS
David Burrows
Albert Collins
Elaine Stone
Eric Stone
Frederick Van der lay
Indra Zuno
FIRST QUARTER 2012
No Respect (From p. 19)

productive endeavors, humor, artistry,
courage to defend the oppressed, and
many other admirable traits regardless
of religious affiliation. Asking me to
respect a persons propping of religion
with faith, however, is asking me to
venerate irrationality, to find virtue
in something that is indicative of
faulty judgment. I cannot do that. It
is like presuming that people should
appreciate the thinking of Heavens
Gate cult members, Harold Camping,
or
your
average
Scientologist.
Mainstream religious practitioners
might take exception to that, but this
may simply be a matter of asking
whose irrationality it is.
Religious faith is religious faith.
If beliefs are not based upon reason,
quibbling over some quantitative degree
of irrationality is pretty meaningless.
Within Christianity, for example, there
is no substantial evidence for god and
validation of the existence of Jesus is
shaky at best. The Gospels have been
demonstrated to have been fiction, and
the word of Paul is based on visions
over someone he imagined to be otherworldly and not a person who walked
the Earth.
Church dogma has been conflicting
and self-serving. The success of
Christianity is largely a matter
of historical inertia, childhood
indoctrination, the promise of reward,
and the threat of godly punishment
if faith is not maintained. When it is
scrutinized with even a modicum of
objective effort, all of the props fall
away and it collapses under its own
weight. There is nothing there. Talk
with any non-believer who was once a
person of faith, and he or she will tell
you how quickly the fallacies melt away.
Reinforced by the dominance of
their relative numbers and religious
institutions, mainstream practitioners
find that their complacency sets like
mortar between small stones to contain
questioning of faith. Worse, it gives
believers false confidence for bullying,
even though they really do not have
strong ground upon which to stand.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Most Christians, for example, dont

seem to mind laughing along with
comedians or commentators as they
make references to Heavens Gate,
Harold Camping, or Scientologists.
They dont realize, however, that their
own foundation is fabricated from the
same kind of papier-mch. All that is
left to support religious belief is faith,
pixy dust, and the theological emphasis
on the importance of both.
Everybody wants respect. As I state
in my book, Atheists want a place of
respect at Americas table just like
everyone else. Im not expecting that
were going to win over the warm
affections of the masses immediately.
Theyre not ready for that. We
should, however, get the same kind of
respect that most people receive on a
default basis without the baggage of
unwarranted biases which flow from
the religious community. At least nonbelievers tend to base their theological
views upon sound reasoning and a
disciplined examination of dogma. This
contrasts greatly with the incoherence
of faith-based religious support.
I am certainly one Atheist among
many who is willing to respect religious
people for all manner of things, first
and foremost their right to believe.
When it comes to respecting the
exercise of faith, however, that is one
bridge too far. Belief through faith is an
act of cognitive weakness, not strength.
I cannot deny its essence to gaze upon
it as admirable any more than I can
look up with reverence to the members
of Heavens Gate, Harold Camping, or
the Scientologists.
Lets look at this one more way. If I
told religious readers that there was a
giant purple giraffe with red spots who
lives on the dark side of the moon, and
that this entity has the power to grant
wishes to all who believe in her, how
many would be eager to invest their
faith in such a belief ? People would
instantly want to know what evidence
supports this creatures existence and
how its powers could possibly be
validated. Most would laugh at the
absurdity of such claims brought out of

nowhere. How could such a being have
any awareness of what occurs on Earth
or any impact on planetary affairs
from its lunar location? People would
demand proof. Oddly enough, from a
perspective of simplicity, it is probably
far more likely that the giraffe could
exist than an all-powerful god that
governs and manipulates the entire
universe. Note that none of us were
around when the Christian/Jewish/
Islamic god was first proposed so that
we could have similar reactions to his/
her/its possible existence. The gods of
today were generally suggested in a far
more primitive and gullible yesterday.
Obviously, just about no one
would say that faith in the giraffe is
commendable, yet why is faith in any
god more noble? It seems that when
you take a 3,800-year-old legend about
Yahweh that has no more proof and
is just as unbelievable, run it through
centuries of primitive cultures that
were primed with fear, build a model
of inculcation that requires faith to
indoctrinate helpless children, then
voil, nonsensical faith becomes a
virtue. Still, if it looks like a duck, it
acts like a duck, and sounds like a duck,
its probably a duck. Religious faith
not based on substantial reasoning
or evidence is irrational. This reality
is a truth that cannot be twisted by
wishful thinking. Believers may form
a mutual admiration society among
themselves which creates an illusion of
respectability for faith, but in the end,
it is what it is. Certainly, no reverence
of it will be forthcoming from me.
Michael Spry is the author of No
Santa, No Tooth Fairy, No GodThe
Need to Challenge Faith in America,
available from Amazon.com and other
booksellers. He is a contributor to the
book Michigan Atheists Speak Out and
coauthor of Adoption Without Fear.
More information on the author and
his book is online at http://webpages.
charter.net/atheistsrus.
War on Christmas (From p. 7)

pertaining to science or church/state separation. The
banners have honored Charles Darwin, John Adams,
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, John Lennon, reason, and
the First Amendment. Our displays were never directly
critical of religion.
This did not mean there was no resistance. After
some confusion over our first post-holiday display, we
attended a meeting of the grounds committee to make
sure that our permit request was properly handled. One
of the committee members attempted to throw out
our permit request over what was essentially a typo. I
quickly corrected the error on a spare copy I brought
just in caseand placed it on the table before they
could even finish their refusal. Two committee members
were visibly angry. But we got our permit.
On another occasion, the County wanted to have
final approval on our message before we could put
coverage.
News cameras were attracted to the sound and fury
like flies. I was asked a number of times about the war on
Christmas. I told them that I had been a state director
for American Atheists for almost ten years. If there were
a war on Christmas, I would have gotten a memo.
This all came to a head last December following the
appearance of a display on the lawn which outraged the
local Christian community. The display was a skeleton
Santa on a cross. As one CBS affiliate news camera rolled,
a local Leesburg woman, short on understanding and
high on sanctimonious rage, went on to the courthouse
grounds and vandalized the display. She did this in broad
daylight, in front of a witnesses, and, to make it much
worse, in front of a Loudoun County Sherriff s Deputy.
The deputys response to the vandalism of a legal
display on government property was to ask the reporter
As it turns out, the artist who placed

the skeleton Santa on the lawn
is a Christian.
up our banner. We refused, reminding them about
their newly found respect for freedom of speech, and
directed them to their own rules. After a hectic day, it
was determined that, short of pornography, they had no
right to censor our message in any way or even to see it
in advance. In the end they had to relent again and let
us on the lawn.
The fact that the displays never attacked anyones
religion did little to attenuate the hyperbole. While
it is entirely legal to criticize religion in this country,
and there is much to be critical about, the monthly
signs were never directly critical of Christianity. Our
approach was to completely avoid criticism of religion
so that we could present a clean, simple message about
church/state separation.
The Fallout
The main result of the signs has been to demonstrate
that the Board and the religious community were being
disingenuous by facilitating the religious displays under
the ruse of free speech. Their knee-jerk, falling-sky,
full-martyrdom response more than makes that point.
It is clear that the only reason the secular displays were
ever allowed on the lawn was so that they could keep
the religious displays with some semblance of legal ass32 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org
to get off government property because news cameras are

not permitted on the grounds. The deputy then walked
past the vandal, declining to get involved in that and
went back inside the building, which had a security
camera mounted on the outside wall to provide a clear
view of the display. The vandalism was shown several
times on the local news of the CBS affiliate. The woman
was identified and interviewed on camera. There was
no arrest. The display was repaired and revandalized
three more times. The camera on the county building,
and one set up directly across the street by the Sheriff s
Department, were both found to be not functioning at
the time of any of the vandalism. The original vandals
actions were applauded by local Christians. The Loudoun
County prosecutor has so far declined to bring charges.
Naturally, the Atheist community was accused of a
hate crime for what was called an unconscionable attack
on Christianity.
This would be terrible...if it were true. As it turns out,
the artist who placed the skeleton Santa on the lawn
is a Christian. And, as it clearly states on his permit
application, this was a commentary on the destruction
of Christmas by commercialismsomething that both
Atheists and Christians generally dislike. The skeleton
Santa is still being blamed on the Atheists.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
War on Christmas
Local Support
As you would expect, we got lots of criticism and evoked
a lot of anger at board meetings, in the press, and on local
message boards. More than a few hand gestures and shouts
were thrown at us whenever we were putting up a banner.
But we had at least as many thumbs up and shouts of
encouragement from people driving by. And there were
always supporters from the community who spoke in
support of us at board meetings. Sometimes support came
from surprising sources.
As we were putting up our December display, right next to the
nativity scene, a small group of carolers stopped by to provide us
with a little Christmas music. When they were through singing,
and as they walked away, one caroler hung back, walked up to
us, and half-whispered, with a big grin, Richard Dawkins is my
hero.
The Lessons
Were there any lessons to be gleaned from all of this? Several.
First, the ballistics, the hyperbole, the wailing and gnashing
of teeth from the Christian community is frequently divorced
from relevant facts.
Second, the adamantly religious cannot be counted on to
behave responsibly.
Third, the secular displays are not a war on Christmas.
Most of us celebrate the holiday in a fairly conventional way
and have never suggested that anyone not do so.
Fourth, the best place for the religious displays is on religious
property, where they are fully protected. No ones right to
practice religion is diminished in any way by being able to put
up any kind of religious display they want, any time they want,
on their own property.
Fifth, the religious groups do not have an absolute right to
occupy government property. That right comes by permit only,
and permits can be denied. In fact, most government property is
already off-limits to religious displays.
Sixth, our goal is to honor and protect the Constitution by
making sure that the separation of church and state is rigorously
observed and vigorously defended. The Constitution is our
firewall against theocracy.
More of our vicious attacks on Christianity
Update
As of this writing, the County has temporarily discontinued all displays on the lawn. The grounds committee
has been tasked to come up with a solution. New rules will be delivered in August.
Our recommendation to the board is to permanently ban all displays on the lawn, to prevent collusion
between government and religion at any level and to counter the anti-constitutional notion that Christianity
has a unique and unlimited right to mark government property.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Crumbling Wall (From p. 11)

the vast majority of which are sectarian. The tax credit
limit is $500 per year. The taxpayer claims the credit
simply by indicating on a state tax return that the
amount due is reduced by up to $500. The taxpayer
then writes two checks, the sum of which is equal to the
amount due to the State of Arizona in tax obligation.
Of the total amount of state tax due, up to $500 may
go to the STO, with the remainder being paid as state
tax due.
The named respondent brought suit under the
auspices of Flast, arguing that Arizona was taxing
and spending in violation of the incorporated First
Amendments proscription of neither discouraging nor
promoting religion. Upon the second review following
remand, Justice Kennedy for the Court noted that only
under general taxpayer standing might the Arizona
tax credit be challenged by the plaintiff, because the
plaintiff could not demonstrate personal injury, as the
tax credit failed to raise taxpayer liability.
Justice Kennedy then argued that general taxpayer
standing would likewise fail because no ones tax
money was coerced to aid religion. All donations from
Arizona taxpayers are voluntary. Second, the donations
never come to the government, but rather go directly
to the STOs from the taxpayer. No governmental
action is required to effect donations to STOs with
respect to the state treasury. Thus, there is no possible
conflict between taxing and spending and the First
Amendments Establishment clause.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan noted in passing
that over $350 million had already been diverted from
the state treasury to STOs. Moreover, the majoritys
argument that the states action in providing for the tax
credit is different from the states action in legislatively
removing money from the state treasury to the STOs
is a distinction in search of a difference.
Is there a difference between tax money taken from
the state treasury with, as opposed to without, taxpayer
approval for purposes of the Establishment clause? The
Establishment clause is a constitutional prohibition,
not a provision, the purpose of which is to protect
individual liberty. Moreover, the money donated was
already Arizonas, as it was already due as state taxes.
Echoing Justice Brennens tone in Valley Forge,
rather than have the government support religion,
the government might simply permit the taxpayer to
support religion through the obligation the taxpayer
already owes to the government.
Cases Where the Court Did Not Deny Standing
In all of the aforementioned cases, the parties sued
to prevent a constitutional wrong. In each case, the

party sued not because of a particular harm to them,
but because of the harm done in their knowing that the
government was violating the Constitution. In these
sorts of suits, the Court has but once allowed plaintiff
standing. The Court has since read the Flast test as
narrowly as possible and allowed circumvention of the
general taxpayer standing option at every opportunity.
From Valley Forge (1982) through Arizona Christian
School Tuition Organization (2011), the Court has
essentially read I8(1) so narrowly that clear violations
of the Establishment clause will not be addressed
on their merits, for want of a party with standing to
challenge the governments action.5
The circumvention of the Establishment clause is
not exhausted with general taxpayer standing. Even
where the plaintiff demonstrates standing, prevailing
upon the merits is apparently also subject to some
degree of circumvention. For example, in Salazar v.
Buono, 559 U.S.___(2010), Frank Buono, a retired
National Park Service employee, was upset by, and
therefore avoided, a certain granite outcropping of
rocks in the Mojave Desert in southeastern California.
The outcropping, named Sunrise Rock, is located
within the 1.6-million-acre Mojave National Preserve
within the 25,000-square-mile Mojave Desert.
Upon Sunrise Rock stood (and continues to stand)
an unadorned white cross. The cross was placed there
in 1934 by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
(VFW). The cross was intended to commemorate the
Americans who lost their lives in military service to
their country due to the United States involvement in
World War I. The VFW War Memorial cannot be seen
from any major highway.
Mr. Buono filed suit in federal district court,
complaining that since the cross rests upon federal
land, there is a violation of the First Amendments
Establishment clause. Mr. Buono prayed for injunctive
relief in having the cross removed. In 2002, the district
court found that because of his use of the federal
preserve and the inconvenience caused him by the
religious symbol, he enjoyed standing.
The district court then found that pursuant to
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), because
a reasonable observer would infer that the federal
government either allowed a private party to place a
uniquely Christian symbol upon federal land, or at
least did not require its removal once the government
became aware of its presence, the cross on federal land
violated the Establishment clause.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Crumbling Wall
district court, yet allowed the cross to be encapsulated
within a plywood box rather than removed.
The government failed to appeal the Ninth Circuits
affirmation of the district courts holding, and that
holding became final. Thus, in 2004, it became settled
legal fact that the cross upon Sunrise Rock violated the
Establishment clause of the United States Constitution.
The United States Congress had, during the period
of federal litigation, passed legislation that disallowed
federal funds to be employed to remove the cross. The
legislation also provided $10,000 to secure a replica
of the cross and memorial plaque, and designated
the cross at Sunrise Rock a National Memorial
Commemorating United States participation in World
War I and honoring the American Veterans of War.
Finally, and most importantly, while the appeal
before the Ninth Circuit was pending, Congress passed
a Department of Defense Appropriations Act (PL
108-87, 8121(a), 117 Stat. 1100) in which the federal
government exchanged the one acre of land containing
Sunrise Rock for five acres of private land, with the
condition that should the one acre ever be utilized for
purposes other than as a memorial commemorating
American Veterans of World War I, the property would
revert to the federal government.
Mr. Buono returned to the federal district court,
requesting that the court hold the land transfer a
violation of the Establishment clause and/or that
the land transfer was in violation of the initial 2002
injunction. The district court simply dismissed the
former claim, reasoning that inasmuch as the land
transfer did not comply with the awarded injunction
to remove the cross from the federal land, the plaintiff
enjoyed standing to enforce the remedy he won in
2002. The court then awarded an injunction to prevent
the land transfer. The Ninth Circuit affirmed and the
Court granted certiorari.
The Courts plurality opinion was authored by
Justice Kennedy. The plurality acknowledged that the
plaintiff s standing to challenge the cross being on
federal land did not entail the plaintiff s standing to
challenge the land transfer. Had the plaintiff s challenge
to the land transfer been based solely upon a claimed
violation of the Establishment clause, Mr. Buono
might have been denied standing under Valley Forge.
Thus, Mr. Buono may well have enjoyed standing to
challenge the initial location of the cross, but did not
have standing to challenge the relocation of the cross to
private property by means of the land exchange.
However, the Court, with the exception of Justices
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, agreed that Mr.

Buono enjoyed standing to challenge what he claimed
to be a frustration or evasion of the district courts 2002
injunction.
Along with the government, Justices Scalia and
Thomas denied that Mr. Buono had standing to
challenge the land exchange, because the injunction the
plaintiff prayed for was to cure a constitutional problem
that, by virtue of the land transfer, no longer exists.
The injunction was sought to prevent a religious
symbol from being displayed on federal property. The
land transfer would satisfy the goal of the original
injunction. The transfer would satisfy the injunctions
purpose not by removing the cross from federal land,
but rather by removing the federal from the land.
The plaintiff was thus seeking an injunction that
was different from, and broader than, the original
injunction. The former injunction concerned what
was to be accomplished, whereas the latter injunction
concerned how it was to be accomplished.
The plurality held that while Mr. Buono enjoyed
standing to complain, he did not have reason to
complain. The land exchange satisfied the injunction,
as it eliminated the constitutional infirmity that was
the cross being on federal property. Inasmuch as the
purpose of the injunction was to effect a separation
of government from religion, it is of little moment
whether the religion is removed from the government
or the government is removed from the religion.
Moreover, Justices Kennedy and Alito appraised the
land transfer as the preferred method of satisfying the
initial injunction. The cross removal would satisfy the
injunction, but at the expense of giving the impression
that the government is depreciating religion. The land
exchange satisfies the goal of the injunction but without
any deprecatory implications.
In dissent, Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Sonia
Sotomayor and Ginsburg, argued that the land transfer
means of addressing the injunction is not preferred, as it
engenders the impression of governmental endorsement
of religion. This is because the land transfer appears but
a continuation of the constitutional affront that gave
rise to the need for the initial injunction.
Problems Brought by Denying Standing
With regard to Buono, one might well be puzzled
by the pluralitys position regarding three issues. The
first enigma created by the plurality concerns the
respondents standing to challenge the land transfer,
as well as the land transfer being a satisfactory means
Crumbling Wall
of addressing the initial injunction. That is to say, the
land transfer is argued to satisfy the initial injunction,
and that works as an abatement of Mr. Buonos
standing for Justices Scalia and Thomas, but does
not effect a similar result for the plurality. Justices
Scalia and Thomas read the plaintiff s request for the
injunction of the land exchange as beyond the scope
of the original injunction to separate the cross from
federal land, because the original injunction is argued
to be satisfied by the transfer.
But then, inasmuch as the plurality argued to the
same conclusion about the original injunction being
satisfied by the transfer, why did the plurality not
likewise find that the plaintiff lacked standing for the
second injunction? After all, if the plurality agrees
that the land exchange satisfied the initial injunction,
then the plaintiff s request for the second injunction
arguably is a request for something beyond what was
initially requested. Since the dissent did not hold that
the land transfer satisfied the initial injunction, it is
reasonable that the dissent would acknowledge the
plaintiff s standing to challenge the land transfer.
It is therefore arguable that on the topic of standing,
the plurality and the Scalia-Thomas concurrence are
inconsistent. It is also clear that on the topic of standing,
the dissent and the Scalia-Thomas concurrence are
consistent.
There also appears a different sort of confusion
when it is suggested that the Court inquire into the
intention of those who initially placed the cross upon
Sunrise Rock and the length of time the cross has
stood thereon. Because the two questions concern
the cross on federal land, they arguably concern the
topic of the initial litigation, not that of the ensuing
action concerning the appropriateness of the proposed
remedy. The intentions of the parties and the length
of time the cross has remained on Sunrise Rock are
considerations appropriate to the initial litigation that
is not open to review and is, therefore, irrelevant to
the evaluation of the land transfer as a proper way of
satisfying the initial injunction.
Finally, the plurality argues that it is better to remove
the federal from the land than to remove the cross from
the same because the latter remedy manifests disrespect
for religion. It may be questioned how the restoration
of the status quo ante, in the face of an acknowledged
Establishment clause violation, constitutes disrespect
for religion. Arguably, to restore the state of affairs
that existed prior to the constitutional violation, and in
response to the violation, shows only disrespect for the
violation. This is not to maintain that the congressional
remedy of transferring the federal land to the VFW is in

itself an act of disrespect. Rather, it is being questioned
whether the transfer, as an accommodative remedy to a
judicially acknowledged violation of the Establishment
clause, can be designated as more respectful of religion
than the simple removal of that which initially violated
the constitutional provision.
Some Modest Observations
There are a few observations one might reasonably
make about the line of cases discussed. First, in the
light of prior Court holdings that restrict general
taxpayer standing to the narrow confluence of the
Taxing and Spending clause of Article I I8(1) and the
Establishment clause of the First Amendment, many a
piece of state and federal legislation appears designed
to conjoin governmental action supporting religion
through avenues not capable of raising general taxpayer
standing. From this, it would seem to follow that a
failure to establish standing to challenge an alleged
violation of the Establishment clause is no indication
that such a violation has not been committed.
Indeed, in some instances, the Constitution that
state and federal governmental officials swear to
protect and defend is seemingly violated or otherwise
circumvented by the machinations of those same
executive and legislative actors. It is true that not all
of those referenced above are of one mind on the issue.
Justices Scalia and Thomas would simply overrule Flast
and eliminate general taxpayer standing. The advantage
of this approach is that it would eliminate the necessity,
exemplified by the Court positions in Hein and Winn, of
denying either standing through tortuous and casuistic
arguments. The clear disadvantage is that all these, and
similar cases, would likely suffer dismissal with very
little discussion, or none at all.
If the majority of the Court are going to accept the
narrow concept of general taxpayer standing based
upon Madisons remark, then the plain meaning of the
remark should arguably be utilized in the application
to general taxpayer standing. Madisons remark refers
to government, not merely to the legislature. If
the Court had not narrowed Madisons remark, then
the Court might have reached very different holdings
about plaintiff standing in Valley Forge, Hein, and Winn.
If the Valley Forge, Hein, and Winn plaintiffs had been
determined to enjoy standing, it is reasonable to surmise
that each case would have resulted in a determination
that the Establishment clause had been violated.
In Buono, the plaintiff s standing to challenge the
display of the cross was settled law, and the majority
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Crumbling Wall
held that the plaintiff had standing to challenge the
governments method of complying with the purpose of
the injunction. But even though on private land, there
remains a possible Establishment problem. Although
the issue is ever so nuanced, it is not a chimera. The
pluralitys idea of a religious symbol as a national war
memorial is, given the purpose of the Establishment
clause, a symbol the government is more, rather than
less, proscribed from implementing as a war memorial.
The government is free to use a variety of secular objects
deemed germane as memorials. But it is not clear that
the government may establish a religious qua religious
symbol as a war memorial.
The plurality might, of course, refer to its own Van
Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), where the Court
contended that a Ten Commandments display not
legally challenged for 40 years had come to represent
the areas historical and cultural heritage. But this, for
the government, is to deny the essential and primary
meaning of the religious symbol. The governments
denial for the sake of the Establishment clause would
amount to an insult to the religious group whose
sectarian symbol was to be displayed. If the above is
not mistaken, then the governments use of a religious
symbol is improper given the Establishment clause. If
the religious display by the government is to be proper,
the symbols primary purpose and message must be
extricated or at least made secondary. Either way, either
the religious group will be unhappy or the Constitution
will be trespassed. That the plurality helped the cross
become a national memorial is yet problematic even
though it doesnt stand on private land.
Clifton Perry, PhD, JD, LLM, is the Hudson
Professor of Political Science at Auburn University.
He is admitted to the bar in Alabama, New Mexico,
Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache Nation, and Arizona.
He is also a member of the United States Supreme
Court Bar.
ENDNOTES
U.S. v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1976).

There are many programmatic reasons for this
requirement, the chief one of which is the likely benefit
actual harm to the plaintiff will bring to the quality of
judicial decision-making. When conjoined to the principle
of Stare Decisis, the implication is that only the very best
judicial judgments should find future parties in similar
disputes.
3
Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), Schlesinger
v. Reservists Committed to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974),
to mention but two.
1
2
FIRST QUARTER 2012
The Establishment clause of the First Amendment

was incorporated against the states in Everson v. Board of
Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1974).
5
There are other very interesting and recent First
Amendment cases with Establishment implications.
Consider briefly Pleasant Grove City v. Summun, 555 U.S.___
(2009). The petitioner, a town in Utah, accepted various
displays to show in their city park. One such display is a Ten
Commandments monument. The respondent, a Gnostic
Christian Group, wished to have their Seven Aphorisms
likewise displayed. Petitioner refused and the respondent
brought suit arguing a violation of free exercise and free
speech. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit, noting that the
displays donated to the city become city property. The Free
Exercise and Free Speech clauses protect private expression
from governmental suppression. The sections of the First
Amendment do not govern governmental expression, as it
is not private. Justices Scalia and Thomas, concurring, noted
that it would appear that the petitioner had pulled itself out
of the frying pan of Free Speech and Free Exercise challenges
and into the fire of an Establishment challenge.
Recently, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church
and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565
US___(2012), the Court upheld the churchs defense against
two alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act by reference to the Establishment clause. According to
the so-called ministerial exception, the Establishment clause
protects the religious organizations plenary power to pick its
own officers notwithstanding concerns about discrimination
on the basis of a disability.
A perhaps more tenuous Establishment connection
is illustrated by Christian Legal Society of University of
California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S.___
(2010). The case centers around a Hastings College of Laws
(HCLs) nondiscrimination policy for Registered Student
Organizations (RSOs) and the Christian Legal Societys
(CLSs) application for RSO status while discriminating
against non-Christians, homosexuals, and those who
engage or believe in the propriety of sex outside of marriage.
HCL rejected RSO status to CLS and thus denied certain
university secular benefits to the student group. However,
HCLs rejection was not suppression of the student groups
speech or exercise. CLS sued HCL on the grounds of Free
Speech, Free Exercise, and Association. The federal district
court and the Ninth Circuit held that HCLs policy is neutral
and of general applicability, and therefore amounted to a
policy of simple non-discrimination in compliance with
California law.
The Court agreed and noted that HCL did not interfere
with the CLSs First Amendment rights; it simply did not
extend the effort to make the exercise easier for the CLS. In
dissent, Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas along with Chief
Justice Roberts argued that the law schools non-discrimination
policy discriminates against the discrimination by the CLS,
and that the CLSs discrimination is a sine qua non of CLS.
If the dissent were correct, then one of the Establishments
tests, i.e., that the government neither promotes nor hinders
religion, would be arguably jeopardized.
4
Blue Collar Atheist (From p. 9)

But in late morning on the fourth
day, while I was sitting with him, the
cadence of breaths suddenly changed,
and got softer and slower. And then
stopped. A nurse came in only a
minute later to give him a shot of
morphine, and I choked out, I think
he just died.
I stayed with him for another hour,
just looking at him. Touching his
forehead, I could feel his body slowly
cooling.
It was only many days later that I
finally thought about Jesus and God,
and some sort of fluffy afterlife, and
the thought struck me as funny. In
what some would imagine to be the
acid test of Atheism, the death of a
parent, I got an easy A.
I hope I made a difference in Dans
last few days. I think I did. As long
as I was there to tell him what was
happening, he was noticeably calmer
when the nurses came in to move
him, or administer shots. He looked
at me, seemed to like hearing me talk.
I sat for hours stroking his forehead
with a cool, wet cloth.
I thought about him a lot over
those four days, and later, finding
things to be grateful for. From mutual
friends, I had learned that he felt I was
a plus in his last 35 years, as he was in
mine, although its difficult to imagine
he gained as much as I did. But Dan
got to see me, his surrogate son, grow
up (as much as I managed, anyway)
and become my own man. He got
to see me go out and have my own
adventures in the world, and fight my
own battles, and he loved hearing the
stories. He got to read my Atheist
book, and he liked it.
After he died, I drove out to one
of the dusty desert roads nearby, and
got out of the car. I looked at the
snow-dusted mountains all around,
the mountains we had both loved so
much, and I found myself shouting,
I knew this man! He was my Dad!
Nothing can ever change that!
I did it for my own benefit and

nobody elses, nailing down in my head
what I felt for him, what hed meant
to me. But I also did it simply because
howling seemed to be required. For
35 years, Id had one of the big dogs in
my life, and now he was gone.
I got to help clean out his cabin
later that day, and came away with
his spurs and chaps and a couple of
other small keepsakes. Back home a
few days later, I arranged these things
on the bookshelf near my bed, calling
it my Dan shrine. His ashes arrived a
few weeks later, and I put the box on
the same shelf, joking that not only do
I have a Dan shrine, now I have Dan
to go with it.
Id told him I would take his ashes to
one of his favorite wilderness haunts.
Some small part of me, a leftover
from my religious background, wants
to feel greater significance in those
ashes, something woo-woo and
spirit-y, but theyre just ashesa box
of randomized matter that was once
owned by my departed friend. But
also something I made a promise
about to a dying old man, a promise I
will honor with solemn pleasure later
this summer.
After a train wreck of a childhood
with my real parentsnice Christians,
allit was the confidence I gained in
my time with Dan that allowed me to
follow my own thoughts and feelings
and become a fully-realized Atheist.
It was with his encouragement and
by his example that I wrote my book,
Red Neck, Blue Collar, Atheist: Simple
Thoughts About Reason, Gods & Faith.
A copy of that book was one of the
things I retrieved from his cabin. I
ferreted it away so nobody else would
see it. Partly, it was kindnessI didnt
want to shock anybody (his Catholic
ex-wife, for instance) with it. But
also, in that moment, it just wasnt
something I was willing to share with
them.
One of his final hospital visitors
was also one of his last lady friends.

A large woman, she made what I
considered an appalling fuss at his
bedside, smothering him with kisses,
shouting for nursesBring this man
some water!and bursting into
huge histrionic tears.
But she also made me wonder if
she might have seen him reading my
book. In deeply confidential tones, she
shared with me what she obviously
considered a shocking secret: Did
you know Dan is an Atheist? He
is! He dont believe in God! A
companion there with her chuckled
at the thought. Well, hell find out
soon enough.
Knowing Id been able to come see
my dying Dad, to touch hands and
hearts with him this one last time,
only through the compassion of a
community of generous unbelievers
those whom plenty of people would
see as cold, standoffish, deliberately
wickedI smiled and thought my
own thoughts.
The whole thing is still evolving in
my head. I find myself missing him
a dozen times a day, wishing I could
call and talk to him one more time,
each time facing the fact that hes
gone forever. In light of all this, I can
definitely see the lure of religion. But I
cant accept it. Not a bit of it. Not ever.
If my Dad taught me anything,
its to be your own self. To think your
own thoughts, to never hide who and
what you are, and to never shy away
from true things.
Hank Fox, born in 1952, has been
on an Atheist journey since age 13.
He grew up with rodeo cowboys in
Texas, rode bulls, and worked with
horses and mules in California. He
blogs as the Blue Collar Atheist at
FreethoughtBlogs.com. His book,
Red Neck, Blue Collar, Atheist: Simple
Thoughts About Reason, Gods &
Faith, is available on amazon.com
and elsewhere.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Bible Bunk (From p. 27)

was also a very dishonest and central
contributor to the tall tales and
subsequent atrocities, all based on
myths and oral tradition and nonsense,
some scrawled and copied by ignorant
cultists, including dishonest Christian
fathers.
Dont get me started on Popes
Innocent III, Gregory I, or Innocent
VIII, or well be here all day. The
current pope, Herr Ratzinger, is also
worthy of many books exposing his
immoral and illegal actions committed
while wrapped in flowing female
eveningwear andnow in his current
position as infallible Vicar of Christ
comical headdress.
Summary
Christians, Muslims, and Mosesbelieving Hebrews will find that
Ward preaches to their choir, and will
appreciate his book, as long as they
remain ignorant of history and of actual
words of violence and intolerance
recorded in the Bible, Torah, and
Quran. No freethinker, aware of
history, will find anything of value in
Wards flaccid 21st-century Christian
apology.
Perhaps simply by subtle contrast,
Pat
Robertsons
aforementioned
publication offers a laugh on every page.
It is like a book report on the Bible
written by a nine-year-old. DSouzas
rants are merely sad and embarrassing:
to him, and to humanity. And if anyone
offers you Lee Strobels works, be sure
to counter with the truths in the many
publications by Bart Ehrman, as well
as Robert Price, Frank Zindler, and
Joseph Wheless.
One must be honest, and sometimes
even vitriolic about this subject,
because Christians cling to the claims
made by people like Ward, DSouza,
Robertson, Strobel, William Lane
Craig, and Frank Turek, their heads
buried deep in superstitious sand, with
a cherry-picking of the good parts of
FIRST QUARTER 2012
the Bible (and apparent ignorance of

actual history and Bible anathemas).
Such beliefs and disjointed obstinance
are ultimately dangerous. Never has
any act of genocide or suicide bombing
been perpetrated by, for instance, a Jain
or a level-headed secularist.
To help convince them that they
are perhaps misguided, simply point
believers to the evil parts of the
Bible, the plethora of contradictions,
and the sad, mad results that these
religions have exacted across the
millennia. Such a task might seem
almost impossible, but take heart.
Many true believers have come to their
right minds. Contemporary examples
include Christians who had sought to
become preachers, including Ehrman,
Matt Dillahunty, David Smalley, and
Dan Barker. They studied the Bible
to such a great extent that they finally
pulled their heads from Christendoms
contradictory and immoral mud pies
to realize it is, in fact, 99 and 44/100%
pure: that is, pure bullshit.
Point out the atrocities, the millions
murdered in the name of Jesus, and
contrast that with the number of people
killed by, say, Quakers or Jains. By very
definition, Quakers and Jains cannot
use their religion to rationalize murder,
or any evil action. Yet Christians are
able to cite multiple scriptures to
prove that gays should be killed, god
supports slavery, misogyny is valid, and
the notion that Christians should travel
the world and preach their religion
while annexing all lands occupied by
heathens.
The core of your argument can
rightly be: if the Bible never existed,
then early Hebrews and later
Christians could not have claimed god
on their side in performing their many
immoral and murderous acts, still in
practice today. No Crusades, no witchhunts, no Inquisitions, no oppression
of gays, apostates, non-virgin brides,
or people of other belief systems. If no
Bible: peace, prosperity, continuation

of Hellenistic enlightenment, and no
Dark Ages.
Michael B. Paulkovich, a systems
engineer at NASA, came out as a
non-believer in the previous issue of
this magazine. Raised Protestant, he
questioned both the Santa Claus and
the Jesus stories around age ten, and
considers his brain to be recovered
from the washing it received as a child.
Suggested reading:
1. Treatments on Bible absurdities
and errors:
- The Bible Handbook
by W.P Ball.
- The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy
by C. Dennis McKinsey
2. Scholarly and neutral examination
of the Bible:
- Constantines Bible
by David L. Dungan
- New Oxford Annotated Bible
- Bart Ehrman (any of his books)
3. Witch-hunts throughout history:
- The Cathars and the Albigensian
Crusade by M.D. Costen
- The Devil in the Shape of a Woman
by Carol F. Karlsen
- The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern
Europe by Brian Levack
- Witchcraft in the Middle Ages
by Jeffrey Burton Russell
4. Scholarly treatment of deities and
religions:
- Man and His Gods
by Homer W. Smith
- The Womens Encyclopedia of Myths
and Secrets by Barbara Walker
- The Complete Gods and Goddesses
of Ancient Egypt
by Richard H. Wilkinson
Three Lives of a Warrior (From p. 23)

was of enormous value for me.
Ive been an Atheist for probably our guards, interrogators, and camp
Unfortunately, the
physical more than 40 years. I say probably officials. We hated them with such
requirements of constant travel because like most Atheists, I passion that we resisted them with
became
too
onerous.
The was one before I realized it. My every fiber of our beings.
This, I think, is a key lesson
uncoordinated ejection from my journey began in my early teens,
plane resulted in seven compression- when I started to reject the hard- when it comes to interrogation and
fractured vertebrae. I have heart, shell, inhumane teachings of interrogation techniques, especially
skeletal, and neurological problems fundamentalist Southern Baptists. since the issue of enhanced
from malnutrition, beriberi, and the I resent Christians who try to co- interrogation techniques has come
other diseases I had in prison. I have opt ethics, integrity, and virtue as a to the fore while fighting Al Qaeda.
It has been proven to this day that if
osteoarthritis and osteoporosis from result of belief in god.
years of malnutrition and physical
They even try to co-opt our legal you want something from a prisoner
abuse. I live with constant tinnitus system, so its not going to surprise or a prisoner of war, the way to do
from multiple broken eardrums.
anyone that I raised the issue of it is to be decent and respectful and
But thanks to wonderful VA care torture back in 2002 when it was not to do the kinds of things they
and a magnificently understanding first surfacingwith America as did to us. Nor what we apparently
and supportive wife, Im doing the perpetrator this time. I am did to people we captured in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
well these days. I
We prisoners all
can
continue
to
had to be hard-line,
work because I have
but that didnt mean
taken my socialwe didnt discuss issues
psychological training
about the war when
back to the individual
we had cell mates later
level of analysis. I work
in our captivity. We
one-on-one, exploring
tried to understand,
the processes that
through discussions,
go on inside the
why we were in this
individual. My clients
war. Most of the guys
have to be open and
who had been shot
willing to talk about
down said that most
whats going on inside
of their missions had
them and my goal is
no real, viable, military
to help them work on
targets. They called it
and solve their own
Butler at the Peace and Justice Center, Seaside, California, 2009
bombing snakes and
problems. Im vitally
concerned with making this life incensed, astounded, and massively monkeys.
But we couldnt afford for it not
on Earth as good as possible, even disappointed in how Americans
heaven-like, for myself and everyone tolerate the blatant violations of our to make sense. Not as prisoners
else, because I dont count on there Constitution. The single event of and not as veterans, given all
being any other heaven.
9/11, horrendous though it was, was that we had been through. These
When people learn I am an not a full-scale war. That Americans were the lessons of our military
Atheist, they sometimes reprise the would react as though it was, and indoctrination. For POWs, they
line that there are no atheists in then buy into torture, which doesnt were the lessons we learned in order
foxholes. This is no more true than even work, just made me heartsick. to become hardened to deal with
the sad distortion that we never leave
One of the factors that kept the interrogators.
Vietnam veterans often take one
our dead soldiers behind. On a scale American POWs in Vietnam
of religiosity, POWs were just like determined and resistant was anger. of two courses to rationalize their
a normal curve of Americans. We From 1965 up through almost service. One direction, to the right,
were everything from non-believers all of 1969 we were abused and is to say they had done their job the
to people for whom religion was a tortured so much that every one of best they could, only to be betrayed
huge part of life.
us developed an intense hatred for by the political system and the
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Three Lives of a Warrior

policies of the left wing. They often
say they should have been allowed
to continue to fight and win the war
but it was the politics that defeated
us. We should have defeated the
communists, so the Vietnamese
people could have freedom and
democracy.
The other direction, to the left, is
to make sense of it all in a different
way. Its the path Ive taken after
considerable soul-searching and
study: we never should have been
there in the first place. The war
was a cataclysmic mistake that this
country will carry for generations
to come. Just like the way we have
carried the effects of the Civil War
throughout our society for almost
150 years, we will carry the effects of
this war in our culture for decades,
maybe centuries.
The bottom line for me is that
American warriors performed
courageously, selflessly, and loyally
for their country. We did our very
best and should be given credit as
warriors for having done what we
were sent to do. In the end, the way
I make sense of the Vietnam War
and all of the wars and interventions
since World War IIis to hate the
war but love and respect the warriors.
Im no longer a warrior for war,
but a warrior for peace and justice.
But that doesnt mean Im a pacifist.
The fact is, there are different kinds
of wars. If we were to be invaded by
some other nation or military entity,
with bad guys coming toward my
town, this old man would be one of
the first to the barricades. Id have to
borrow a gun though because I dont
own one anymore.
I have physical disabilities as a
result of my prison experience that
are daily reminders of what I went
through. It was an experience that no
amount of money or reward on this
planet could get me to go through
again. By the same token, I wouldnt
FIRST QUARTER 2012
Confrontations (From p. 29)

trade it for any amount of money or
reward on this planet. Those eight
years were the most powerful and
defining of my life. I am who I am
as a result of that time. It brought
about a lot of introspection that has
been so valuable in my third life.
I have all kinds of other benefits
from having been a prisoner of war.
There is the enjoyment of turning
a doorknob and walking through a
door, something that nobody would
think about unless they had had the
experience of losing their freedom
by being locked up with all your
actions controlled by armed and
hostile guards.
Writing my book has reminded
me of how thankful and incredibly
fortunate I am to be here today.
I have been blessed with a loving
family, good friends, reasonably
good health, an excellent and
extensive education, and a rich and
interesting life. Because of that Im
motivated to help make a few things
better for other people, animals,
plants, and this lovely blue marble
we call Earth. For all those, I hope
this testament of my three lives as a
warrior will serve in some positive
way. Perhaps it will motivate others
to Live With Honor so that things
might become just a little better
because we were here.
scientists usually respect each other.

And they know which methodology
of validation is applicable in each
field.
Phils website, phillipbutlerphd.com,

contains more photos, relevant links,
and additional writing. From there
you can go to threelivesofawarrior.
com and order the book or download
Ludwik Kowalski is Professor

Emeritus of Physics at Montclair
University.
The author, 2009
His evolution, from being an active

atheistic student in Poland, to a
theist, is described in his on-line
autobiography:
http://csam.montclair.
edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
Endnotes
Collected internet comments:
http://pages.csam.montclair
edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html.
1
Russell, Robert John. Bridging

Science and Religion: Why it
Must be Done at http://www
ctns.org/about_history.html.
2
Kowalski, Ludwik
Publications: http://csam
montclair.edu/~kowalski
LK_publications.html.
Kowalski, Ludwik. Diary

of a Former Communist:
Thoughts, Feelings, Reality
at http://csam.montclair
edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html.
4
Gould, Stephen Jay. Non

overlapping Magisteria, Natural
History, Volume 106, March 1997,
pp. 16-22, at www.stephenjaygould
org/library/gould_noma.html.
5
Butlers license plate 2,855 days and nights
STATE DIRECTORS SPOTLIGHT

by Al Stefanelli
Edwin Hensley
Kentucky State Director for American Atheists
lease allow me to introduce Edwin Hensley,

our Kentucky State Director. Like many of us, Ed was
a dedicated fundamentalist Christian who became an
Atheist through his analysis of the Bible and investigating
the history of the church. Having taken over the role in
2010 from our National Legal Director, Edwin Kagin,
Ed has done a remarkable job in furthering the causes of
American Atheists.
I had the pleasure of speaking to him about some of the
issues that he is involved with in Kentucky, and I can report
with great confidence that he is very much dedicated to the
principles of the total and complete separation of religion
from government, and speaks with a level energy and
enthusiasm that leaves no doubt about his future successes.
Ed has been working tirelessly to unify all the freethought
groups in Kentucky. In fact, September 22, 2012, will see
the very first Kentucky Freethought Convention, to be held
in Lexington at the University of Kentucky.
This summer the Louisville Atheists & Freethinkers, in
cooperation with the Louisville Coalition of Reason, ran
a billboard advertisement on the grounds of the Kentucky
State Fair, where they also hosted a booth. This was, of
course, a wonderful victory that highlighted the presence
of freethought groups in the state where the Creation
Museum gets a lot of attention.
Ed, along with American Atheists and other individuals,

are plaintiffs in an ongoing legal challenge to the Kentucky
Department of Homeland Security. The suit addresses
the legislative finding of the General Assembly that the
security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved without
reliance on Almighty God.
The statute requires the Director of Homeland Security
to prominently display the finding on a permanent plaque
at the entrance of Kentuckys Emergency Operations
Center. Penalties for not complying can include prison
time. The case was won at the district court level in 2009,
but was defeated in the Kentucky Court of Appeals in
2011. National Legal Director Edwin Kagin has petitioned
the Kentucky Supreme Court to review the case.
Ed has also been part of a recent success in ending the
unconstitutional way the Gideons have been distributing
the Bible in the military for 70 yearssee page 5 for the
full story.
Activism works, and Ed is at the top of his game. We
are extremely fortunate to have someone like him at the
helm of one of the most difficult geographical areas in the
country with regard to the separation of church and state.
He continues to work tirelessly for our causes and we look
forward to having him with us for many years to come.
Contact Ed at ehensley@atheists.org.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
STATE DIRECTORS
DIRECTOR OF STATE
OPERATIONS
Ken Loukinen (S. FL Reg. Dir.)
7972 Pines Blvd., #246743
Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
954-907-7893
kloukinen@atheists.org
MILITARY DIRECTOR
Justin Griffith
jgriffith@atheists.org
ALABAMA
Scott Savage
P.O. Box 12486
Huntsville, AL 35815
256-426-6473
ssavage@atheists.org
ARIZONA
Don Lacey
P.O. Box 1161
Vail, AZ 85641
520-370-8420
dlacey@atheists.org
CALIFORNIA
Larry Hicok
P.O. Box 277
Pinole, CA 94564
510-222-7580
lhicok@atheists.org
CONNECTICUT
Dennis Paul Himes
860-454-8301
dphimes@atheists.org
FLORIDA
Greg McDowell
P.O. Box 680741
Orlando, FL 32868
gmcdowell@atheists.org
FIRST QUARTER 2012
GEORGIA
Al Stefanelli
P.O. Box 3531
Peachtree City, GA 30239
256-496-5777
astefanelli@atheists.org
IOWA
Randy Henderson
P.O. Box 375
Ankeny, IA 50023
rhenderson@atheists.org
KENTUCKY
Edwin Hensley
P.O. Box 6171
Louisville KY 40206
502-713-8354
ehensley@atheists.org
MASSACHUSETTS
Zach Bos
zbos@atheists.org
MICHIGAN
George Shiffer, Asst. Dir.
gshiffer@atheists.org
MINNESOTA
Randall Tigue
rtigue@atheists.org
MISSOURI
Greg Lammers
P.O. Box 1352
Columbia, MO 65205
573-289-7633
glammers@atheists.org
NORTH CAROLINA
Wayne Aiken
P.O. Box 30904
Raleigh, NC 27622
919-954-5956
waiken@atheists.org
OHIO
John Welte
jwelte@atheists.org
OKLAHOMA
Ron Pittser
rpittser@atheists.org
PENNSYLVANIA
Ernest Perce
eperce@atheists.org
RHODE ISLAND
Brian Stack
bstack@atheists.org
TEXAS
Dick Hogan, Regional Dir.,
Dallas/Ft. Worth
dhogan@athiests.org
VIRGINIA
Rick Wingrove
Leesburg, VA 20176
703-433-2464
rwingrove@atheists.org
WASHINGTON
Wendy Britton
12819 SE 38th St., Ste. 485
Bellevue, WA 98006
425-269-9108
wbritton@atheists.org
WEST VIRGINIA
Charles Pique
P.O. Box 7444
Charleston, WV 25356
304-776-5377
cpique@atheists.org
Aims
and
Purposes
American Atheists, Inc. is a nonprofit, nonpolitical, educational organization dedicated to the complete and absolute separation
of state and church, accepting the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was meant to create a wall of separation between state and church.
American Atheists is organized:
To stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets,
rituals, and practices;
To collect and disseminate information, data, and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough
understanding of them, their origins, and their histories;
To advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the complete and absolute separation of state and church;
To act as a watchdog to challenge any attempted breach of the wall of separation between state and church;
To advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the establishment and maintenance of a thoroughly
secular system of education available to all;
To encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy,
understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in
relation to society;
To develop and propagate a social philosophy in which humankind is central and must itself be the source of
strength, progress, and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
To promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance, perpetuation, and
enrichment of human (and other) life; and
To engage in such social, educational, legal, and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to the members
of American Atheists and to society as a whole.
DEFINITIONS
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural
beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.
Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a
life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions
of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent,
immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the
resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and
strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice.
Materialisms faith is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a
commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is
impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works.
Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes,
unlimited.
FIRST QUARTER 2012
FIRST QUARTER 2012
American Atheists Affiliates

For detailed Affiliate information, please visit atheists.org/affiliates or contact Stuart Bechman at sbechman@atheists.org.
ALABAMA
Alabama Atheists & Agnostics (UA)
Auburn Atheists and Agnostics
Birmingham Atheists
Montgomery Area Freethought Association
North Alabama Freethought Association
West Alabama Freethought Association
Marshall County Atheists & Agnostics
UAH Non-Theists
ALASKA
Alaskan Atheists
Anchorage Atheists
ARIZONA
Tucson Atheists
CALIFORNIA
Agnostic & Atheist Student Association
Atheist Coalition of San Diego
Atheists & Agnostics Group of Rossmoor
Contra Costa Atheists & Freethinkers
Atheists & Other Freethinkers
Atheists of Silicon Valley
Backyard Skeptics
Central Valley Alliance of Atheists & Skeptics
East Bay Atheists
Humanist Society of Santa Barbara
Orange County Atheists
San Francisco Atheists
Atheist Advocates of San Francisco
Santa Cruz Atheists
Shasta Atheists & Freethinkers
New Atheists of East County
COLORADO
Atheists and Freethinkers of Denver
Boulder Atheists
Metro State Atheists
Western Colorado Atheists
CONNECTICUT
Atheist Humanist Society of CT & RI
Connecticut Valley Atheists
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington Area Secular Humanists
FLORIDA
Atheist of North Florida
Florida Atheists & Secular Humanists
Gator Freethought (UF)
Rebirth of Reason in Florida
Saint Petersburg Atheists
Tallahassee Atheists
Treasure Coast Atheists
GEORGIA
Atlanta Freethought Society
Black Non-Believers of Atlanta
Fayette Freethought Society
Kennesaw State U. Student Coalition
for Inquiry
Macon Atheists & Secular Humanists
ILLINOIS
Bradley Atheists
Chicago Atheists & Agnostics
The Chicago Freethought Project
IWU Atheist, Agnostic, & Non-Religious
IL/WI Stateline Atheists Society
The Secular Segment
IOWA
Atheists United for a Rational American
Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers
Iowa Secularists
Siouxland Atheists
KANSAS
First Church of Freethought/Fort
Riley Atheists
Heartland Humanists
Individuals For Freethought
Kansas Freethought Society
KC FreeThinkers
Univ. of KS Soc. of Open-Minded
Atheists & Agnostics
KENTUCKY
Humanist Forum of Central Kentucky
Kentucky Atheists
Lexington Atheists
Louisville Atheists & Freethinkers
LOUISIANA
Ark-La-Tex Freethinkers (Shreveport)
New Orleans Secular Humanist Association
MARYLAND
Freethinkers Union at McDaniel College
Maryland Freethinkers
MASSACHUSETTS
American University Rationalists & Atheists
Atheists of Greater Lowell
Boston Atheists
MICHIGAN
Atheists at Oakland University
Michigan Atheists
Mid Michigan Atheists and Humanists
MINNESOTA
Atheists for Human Rights
Campus Atheists & Secular Humanists
Minnesota Atheists
MISSISSIPPI
Great Southern Humanist Society
Gulf Coast Atheist and Freethinking
Association
Mid-South Humanist Society
Humanists Ethical Atheist Rational
Thought Society
MISSOURI
Black Freethinkers of Kansas City
Columbia Atheists
Community of Reason
Joplin Freethinkers
MU Skeptics Atheists Secular Humanist
Agnostics
Rationalist Society of St. Louis
Springfield Freethinkers
St. Joseph Skeptics
Secular Student Alliance at UCMO
NEBRASKA
Lincoln Atheists
Omaha Atheists
New York City Atheists

Science Club of Long Island
NORTH CAROLINA
A-News
Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics
NORTH DAKOTA
Red River Freethinkers
OHIO
Free Inquiry Group of Cincinnati
& Northern Kentucky
Freethought Dayton
Freethought Wright State University
Humanist Community of Central Ohio
Mid Ohio Atheists
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma Atheists
Tulsa Atheists
PENNSYLVANIA
Central Susquehanna Valley Freethought
Northeast Pennsylvania Freethought Society
PA Nonbelievers
RHODE ISLAND
Rhode Island Atheist Society
SOUTH CAROLINA
Secular Humanists of Lowcountry
TENNESSEE
Chattanooga Freethought Association
Memphis Freethought Alliance
Nashville Secular Life
Rationalists of East Tennessee
TEXAS
Atheist Community of Austin
Atheists Helping the Homeless
Denton Atheists Meetup
Freethinkers Association of Central Texas
Freethought Oasis of Amarillo
Houston Atheists Meetup
Kingwood Humble Atascocita Atheists
Lubbock Atheists Meetup
Metroplex Atheists
San Antonio Atheists
UNT Freethought Alliance
Golden Triangle Freethinkers
UTAH
Atheists of Utah
Salt Lake Valley Atheists
VIRGINIA
Beltway Atheists
WASHINGTON
Seattle Atheists
Tri-City-Freethinkers
WEST VIRGINIA
Morgantown Atheists
NEVADA
Reno Freethinkers
WISCONSIN
Southeast Wisconsin FreeThinkers
NEW YORK
Freethinkers of Upstate New York
Hudson Valley Humanists
Long Island Secular Humanists
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Atheist Nexus
Atheists for Human Rights
Atheists United for a Rational America
Military Assn of Atheists & Freethinkers
NEW JERSEY
New Jersey Humanist Network
Secular Student Alliance at
Montclair State University
MILITARY (APO/FPO)
Southeast Asia Freethought Association
379th AEW
FIRST QUARTER 2012

American Atheist Magazine First Quarter 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Atheist Magazine First Quarter 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Atheist

A JOURNAL OF ATHEIST NEWS AND THOUGHT

A Virginia Courthouse Lawn

FIRST QUARTER 2012

A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

ISSN 0516-9623 (Print)

2011 American Atheists Inc.

All rights reserved. Reproduction in

Cover: Atheist display on the Loudoun County, Virginia, Courthouse lawn

Gideon Bible Distribution Limited| Edwin Hensley

atheists.org | AMERICAN ATHEIST | 3

A Virginia Courthouse Lawn

FIRST QUARTER 2012

Letter from the

4 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org

FIRST QUARTER 2012

Gideon Bible Distribution Limited

Dont confuse camouflage

Louisville MEPS, where

The historic Loudoun County Courthouse in Leesburg, Virginia, 30 miles outside

Photos by Rick Wingrove

the committees recommendation

Perrys presidential hopes and

The Blue Collar Atheist:

Dying Without Gods

omething amazing and

Hank Fox, John Muir Wilderness, California, 1977

he put up with me and allowed me

nightwith two big dogs!and all

from the outside porch railing,

Dan Farris, near Independence, California, 1977

hours later from my Droid phone.

with him pretty much around

In what some would imagine to be the acid test of

was over-the-top kindness, the type

Old Man. Your life mattered, you

The Crumbling Wall of Separation

he constitutional requirement of standing is

derived from the governments authority to tax and

The importance and precision of the Flast test are seen

W. Bush also created Executive Department Centers for

t was nearly the date of my

much thought, even though I was

children. The claims of divine love,

best symbolized by the Catholic

thousand years past these dark ages,

caused the suffering of millions. If

fact. Crucifixion is also a fact, used

suffering to the exclusion of real pain

Morality and the iMind

an Darwins theory of evolution by natural

14 | AMERICAN ATHEIST | atheists.org

the human mind. We have specific modular systems

FIRST QUARTER 2012

different kinds of things. You see

possible, given all the constraints on

Morality and the iMind

ourselves because of things like

we want people to behave.

own moral goals.

youre holding over other peoples

Its a good question. People think

Faith Should Get No Respect