$2.

95

November, 1

:.

_
...

-~'..
,.

.'

,..

_0'

AMERICAN ATHEISTS
is a non-profit, non-political, educational organization, dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of
state and church. We accept 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 are 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 histories;
to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human 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 culture in which man is the central figure who alone must 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;
to engage in such social, educational, legal and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to
members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and
aims at establishing a lifestyle 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 man finding his resources within himself - can and must create his own destiny. Materialism restores to man his
dignity and his intellectual integrity. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve
it. It holds that man is capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism's "faith" is in
man and man's ability to transform the world culture by his own efforts. This is a commitment which is in very
essence life asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation and impossible without noble
ideas that inspire man to bold creative works. Materialism holds that humankind's potential for good and for an
outreach to more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

********************************************************************
American Atheist Membership Categories
Life membership
Sustaining membership
Family/Couple membership
Individual membership
Senior Citizen/Unemployed*
Student membership*
*I.D. required

membership

$500.00
$100.00/year
$50.00/year
$40.00/year
$20.00/year
$12.00/year

All membership categories receive our monthly "Insider's Newsletter," membership card(s), a
subscription to American Atheist magazine for the duration of the membership period, plus additional
organizational mailings, i.e. new products for sale, convention and meeting announcements, etc.

American Atheists - P.O. Box 2117 - Austin, TX 78768-2117

Vol. 26, No. 11

November , 1984

American Atheist
A Journal

Editorial: Politics
Ask A.A.

with Religion,

as Usual

of Atheist

News and Thought

2
5

Jon Murray

& Comments:
National Bible Week, Infringing Your Rights
,
Reagan and God
Report from The Center of The Universe
- Frank Zindler
Dial-An-Atheist
Immorality
of Christianity
- William B. Whitworth
On Becoming
An Atheist
A Boy Named Thomas
- Lowell Newby
Confession
- Mike Kennedy
What I Believe - Sheila Simons
Joseph Lewis, Enemy of God -'- Arthur H. Howland
The Boyhood
of Charles Bradlaugh
- Hypatia Bradlaugh
Bonner
It's Only NaturalGerald Tholen
One Weekend
- Madalyn O'Hair
Oops, Wrong Hell! - Delos B. McKown
The Atheist Next Door
American
Atheist Radio Series - Madalyn O'Hair
Historical Notes
Waiting for The Messiah - Margaret
Bhatty
Potpourri
The Spanish American
Crusades
- Gerald Tholen
Poetry
Letters to The Editor
Classified Advertising
Reader Service
News

6
11
13
14
16
17
18
20
22
22
23
25
26
29
31
32
34
35
37
38
41
42
44
44

On the Cover
"Give me your tired, your poor, - your huddled masses yearning to be free, - the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. - Send
these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, - I lift my lamp beside the golden door." Noble words indeed! Thus, this "greatest symbolic structure in the
United States" bids warm welcome to the freedom loving peoples of the world; its very existence marking a final acquisition of liberty for the masses. Willit
now become the "Statue of Religious Slavery?" It now seems "necessary" for failing religio-political clowns to usurp this freedom and replace it with
Christian mindlessness in their rush toward a new and consuming theocratic fascism. Ifthey are allowed to do so human pride and dignity willputrefy and
allthat willremain willbe the stench of the "guilt and sinfulness" that is the pus-filled core of religion. How can this be avoided? - Only through Atheism
=of course! Turn then, to the pages of our Centerfold; "On Becoming An Atheist." Read also our numerous reports and articles that forewarn the
"American Dream" of an impending disaster at the hands of pious, ignorant "leadership."
Gerald Tholen
Editor/Robin Murray-O'Hair, Editor Emeritus/Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Managing Editor/Jon G. Murray. Assistant Editor/Gerald Tholen. Poetry/Angeline
Bennett, Gerald Tholen, Production Staff/ John Crump, Bill Kight, Alexander
. Stevens, Steve Paige Streeter, Glona Tholen, Non-Resident Staff/G. Stanley
Brown, Jeff Frankel, Merrill Holste, Margaret Bhatty, Fred Woodworth.
The American Atheist magazine
is indexed in
Monthly

Periodical

Index

ISSN: 03324310

1984 by Society of Separationists, Inc.

,

The A merican A theist magazine is published monthly by the American Atheist Press
(an affiliate of American Atheists), 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 787562596, and a
non-profit, non-political, educational organization dedicated to the complete and
absolute separation of state and church. (All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole
or in part without written permission is prohibited). Mailing address: P.O. Box
2117/Austin, TX 787682117. Subscription is provided as an incident of membership
in the organization of American Atheists. Subscriptions alone ate available at $25.00
for one year terms only. (Frequency monthly. Library and institutional discount:50%.)
Manuscripts submitted must be typed, double-spaced and accompanied by a
stamped, self-addressed envelope. A copy 'of American Atheist Magazine Writers
Guidelines is available on request. The editors assume no responsibility for
unsolicited manuscripts.

ARE YOU MOVING?

Please notify us six weeks in advance to ensure uninterrupted
delivery. Send us both your old and new addresses.
old label from a recent magazine issue in the bottom address space provided.
NEW ADDRESS:

(please print)

OLD ADDRESS:

Name

Name

Address

Address

City
State

(please print)

City
Zip
Mail to: American

Austin, Texas

If possible, attach

State
Atheists/P.O.

Zip

Box 2117/Austin,
November,

1984

TX 78768-2117

Page 1

POLITICS, WITH RELIGION,

AS USUAL
T

he issue of the involvement of religious groups in politics has been the

subject of both articles and editorials in this
journal so far this year in an increased
degree over previous volumes. That this
issue is of concern now more than usual is
understandable because we are in election
year. Some of you, as readers and Atheists,
have objected to any space, whatsoever,
being given to "political" issues in this journal. Others of you think that the journal
should be devoted primarily to political
issues with some even stumping for an
"Atheist" political party to be formed. Whether or not you agree or disagree with this
journal's examination of religio-politicalquestions does not change the fact that allof
us will be, as citizens of this nation, profoundly affected in years to come by the
decision made this election year in regard to
both the determination of what role, if any,
that religion should play in politics in general
and the effect of theologically based arguments on the "moral issues" that willplay an
important role in the campaigns of both
major parties.
That broad question of whether religion
should be involved at all in any aspect of the
political process is one that has been settled
by historical precedent. Even a cursory
examination of the history of civilization will
yield overwhelming documentation of the
considerable role of religion in shaping government policy in all nations. Every monarch has his priest, his holy man, by his side
in the throne room. Theocratic states have
made up the majority of governments
throughout history. It is only very recently
that the concept of any separation between
state and church emerged in the latter part
of the 18th century. It is both important and
noteworthy, within this litany of church
involvement in the governing process, that
our nation pioneered the concept of erecting a "wall of separation" between state and
church. It is ironic that, despite that pioneer
effort in this area, we find ourselves now, in
election year 1984, on the brink of a new era
of state/church entanglement. This is not
that old style entanglement of a monarch
and his state/church. It is a new breed of
entanglement that is infinitely more complicated because it now involves a diverse
mixture of theologies represented by an
ever growing list of denominations separated by not only doctrinal disputes but by
Page 2

ethnicity, all descending upon a hapless

bureaucracy which is overburdened with
the geometrically escalating problems of
20th century society operating within the
restraints of an 18th century governmental
system. In the days of Henry VIII and the
Popes and Cardinal Richelieu of France the
nature of the influence of church upon state
was clear and concise. One church was
dominant in a particular political arena and
that was that. Those who opposed the
entanglement of cardinal and king knew
their enemy. Today it is not so clear. Our
pluralism, which has had some decidedly
positive effects in other areas, has muddied
the waters of state/ church relations with the
silt of diversity. Our judicial branch has been
trying to sort it all out for over one hundred
years now with limited success. this area has
lishment of legal "guidelines" in always needed to be further and further elasticized as
one fact situation after another presented a
unique challenge to the accepted formula.
Religion is an established part of governmental affairs. It has always been. We
cannot ignore history and we cannot be so
naive as to think that we can ever achieve a
total separation of religion and government
without first achieving a separation of religion from the collective minds of men. So
long as religion is a part of the acculturation
process of successive generations it will
emerge in the programs and opinions of
those involved in the political process. I have
had this point driven home to me again and
again through my involvement as a litigant in .
state/church separation cases. A judge who
was reared in a religious home and who has
carried the burden of that religion's teachings throughout his adulthood cannot look
at a separation issue with as "neutral" and
dispassionate an eye as the utopian ideal of
"blind justice" would dictate. His acculturation willcome through and prevent him from
seeing a particular point of legal interpretation as do I, coming from an Atheist home.
In like manner it is foolish to suppose that
any elected officials can separate themselves in their decision-making process, in
fact, from their acculturation process if that
process relied in part upon religion. The
greater the proportion that religion has
played in the formative years and early lifeof
a public figure the more likely, in turn, is he
or she to pass the doctrines of that faith on
to political decisions. This is a fact of human
nature with which we must live. It affects the
November, 1984

operation of any cause organization involved in the state/church area. We must at

all times keep in mind the religious background, as well as the current level of
religious zeal, of any politician or jurist with
whom we must deal through the avenues of
social change open to us as a group. This is
not to say that we may not challenge the
positions of any incumbent officials, high or
petty, on state/church issues. We must
simply mold our challenge around the knowledge of their background and the effect that
it has on their ability to visualize and in turn
deal with our demands. As .much as I
disagree with the current executive administration on matters of religion, I must give
Reagan one point: our country has always
been a profoundly religious nation. It is the
nature of that religion and how it has
manifested itself and whether or not the
manifestations have had a positive or negative effect on society that are at issue, not
whether religion has been present as a force
in our culture in an overall sense or not. The
latter point is not at issue. Religion has been
a force, for better or for worse, depending
on your viewpoint, of indisputable power in
both the foreign and domestic affairs of the
government of this country since its inception.
Atheists have spent a good deal of time
debating whether or not the "founding
fathers" were personally religious or Atheist. Let me state for the record here and now
that not a single person involved in the
founding of our nation was an Atheist as we
think of Atheism today. We need not debate
that point any longer. Neither need we
debate the point of whether or not religion
has exercised an influence on government
or not. It has, and that is that. We must
concern ourselves instead with the present
day political realities that are of a much
more complex order than those our forefathers faced in colonial times. We are on
the thresh hold of a new era of changing
interpretations of the role of religion in
government and we must make our voices
heard in that context. We cannot go back.
Taking the lessons of history in stride we
must look toward the future. The intent of
the "founding fathers" does not matter now.
We must be instrumental as Atheists in
establishing a new "intent" among those in
power now for the years to come. What
matters now is the intent of Ronald Reagan
should he be reelected. How he views
The American Atheist

Jefferson and what he said is far more

important than how Jefferson viewed himself or was viewed by his contemporaries.
With that perspective in mind let us turn
to the events of the past few months in this
election year and take a closer look at what
is happening now in the state/church area.
Over the past two years the Supreme Court
has handed down some decisions that have
had the combined effect of causing a very
important shift in overall thinking about the
admixture of government arid religion. Prior
courts have centered their interpretation of
the Constitution around the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment. The Burger
Court has now shifted the emphasis to the
Free Exercise clause. That free exercise
shift has, in turn, significantly altered the
thrust of the major organized churches in
their efforts to bring state and church closer
together. The Roman Catholic Church has
always been the one to watch in this area. It
has the most experience and has been
involved as a body with a controlling interest
in the United States political scene from the
beginning. It was this church that established the parochial school system that now
burdens the '84 campaign with the issue of
tuition tax credits. It is this church that has
stood firm on the issue of "right to life" and
against the sovereignty of a woman over her
own body, which is also a major platform
issue of both parties. It is this church that
has led the fight against the Equal Rights
Amendment on the state level. It is this
church that was in the middle of the fight
over religious ceremonies in public schools
from as early as the 1800's. The very establishment of the parochial school system in
this country was due in part to Roman
Catholic dissatisfaction with required Prot- .
estant observances in the public schools. It
is this church that brought us Cardinal
Spellman of New York, who kept us in
Vietnam, and Cardinal Cody of Chicago,
who made the Daly political regime possible.
It is this church that brought us uncontrolled immigration that is now an election
issue. It is then fitting that we examine what
the Roman Catholic Church is doing to
establish the new interpretation of "Free
Exercise" concerns becoming dominant
over "Establishment" protection.
In June of this year Archbishop John
O'Connor of New York was speaking on the
issue of public abortion policy and the
Roman Catholic vote. In a television news
conference held on June 24th, Archbishop
O'Connor said, "I don't see how a Catholic,
in good conscience, can vote for a candidate
who explicitly supports abortion." The aftermath of that statement has been tremendous. In an interview during the first week of
August, New York Governor Mario Cuomo
complained that "The Church has never
been this aggressively involved" (in politics.)
He went on to say that "we are a country
that specifically sought to avoid people
imposing private beliefs. I am a Catholic
Austin, Texas

governor. I don't think my role ought to be

to interpolate everything I believe as a
Catholic personally into my government for
fear that I will lose to an Atheist someday"
Governor Cuomo made this statement in a
news conference prior to a speech before
the International Platform Association
which gave him an award for his keynote
speech at the Democratic National Convention. He went on to say that "As Catholics
we are taught birth control is wrong, a sin. A
fundamental sin. But then are you required
to fight for a law that would deny very child
in every ghetto ... the right to contracep.tives?" He went on, "In a nutshell, I want to
be free to be a Catholic but that also means
you have to be free to be a Sikh or a Jew ...
or an agnostic or an ethical humanist or
whatever you choose to be."
The battle lines have thus been drawn for
both the lay Roman Catholic and those of
divided opinion within the church. Although
the Code of Canon Laws directs that clerics
" ... are not to play an active role in political
parties or in directing trade unions unless, in
the judgment of the competent ecclesiastical authority, this is required for the defense
of the rights of the church or to promote the
common good." Many clerics believe that
this does not preclude them from urging
Roman Catholics as office holders or voters
from toeing the line on issues addressed by
Roman Catholic doctrine. Many Roman
Catholics outside the church, who are in
public office, disagree as Governor Cuomo
has done. Many lay Roman Catholics disagree as well.
There is even dissention among lower
echelon-clerics. One priest, a Michigan
Democratic Convention delegate, pledged
to Sen. Gary Hart, was suspended by the
archbishop of Detroit, from publicly celebrating mass and administering the sacraments, for his participation in a political
convention. On the other hand, another
priest-delegate at the same convention had
the support of his. This delegate said that
the archbishop of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
archdiocese had no problem with his participation as a delegate as long as he did not
actually run for elective office.
The position of the Roman Catholic
Church on abortion and birth control, however, remained clear. On July 11th, the
Pope issued a statement from Rome calling
for chastity in marriage as the only way to
reconcile married love with responsible parenthood. He said that a married couple
"must make their action conform to the
creative intention of God." He emphasized,
"All this is possible only if the virtue of
married chastity is seriously practiced."
Only the implementation of this doctrine
through Roman Catholic politicians is now
in question.
In July when Geraldine Ferraro was nominated for the Democratic Party's vice-presidential candidacy the arguments of Governor Cuomo came back to the forefront.
November, 1984

Ferraro is an Italian-American Catholic lawyer and mother of three. She has supported
tuition tax credits in Congress. In fact, she
has agreed with a Roman Catholic socialjustice lobby on ten of eleven issues in the
areas of defense spending, foreign policy,
human rights, jobs, and food stamps. The
rub come in the fact that Ferraro says that
though she personally opposes abortion
and would not have an abortion herself, she
favors federal funding of abortions and
opposes legal restrictions on the procedure.
She says that she accepts the officialRoman
Catholic posit iton that a fertilized egg is
human, but that she cannot impose her
beliefs on others. Echoes of Cuomo. Ferraro told reporters that "I try to separate my
religious views from my standing on the
issues." When she was pressed about not
being a "good Catholic" because of her
views on abortion she suggested in retort
that Reagan was not a "good Christian"
because his policies with regard to the poor
were "terribly unfair." She said that she
would "prefer not to discuss religion" as a
campaign issue but went on to add: "If you
(the press) don't want to discuss whether or
not Reagan's budget policies are in the
Christian tradition, don't discuss whether
my pro-choice position is in the (Roman)
Catholic tradition."
Meanwhile, in the background, Archbishop Gerety of New Jersey hosted Reagan to
dinner in Hoboken and Reagan authorized
the use of an Air Force plane to fly the
Pope's emissary from the East Coast to his
California ranch (and later to the Virgin
Islands for a religious event there.)
Then during the week of August 6th
during the World Conference on Population
in Mexico City, the U. S. representative in
the official U. S. statement said, "The United Nations' Declaration of the Rights of the
Child calls for legal protection for chilren
before birth as well as after birth; and the
United States, accordingly, does not consider abortion an acceptable element of
family planning programs and willnot contribute to those of which it is a part. Nor willit
any longer contribute directly or indirectly
to familyplanning programs funded by governments or private organizations that advocate abortion as an instrument of population
control." The point of this is that while on
the surface Roman Catholics in and out of
the church were bickering on the fringes,
behind the scenes - where the real power
structure of the church has always been
-implementation
of the Papal edict (on a
worldwide scale) was carried out through
the United States' incumbent executive
administration. This is the true story of
Roman Catholic political involvement in our
nation.
On August 9th, after having given testimony to the Platform Committees of both
major parties, the U. S. Catholic Conference issued a statement on religion and
politics. The most noteworthy part of the
Page 3

statement is that the U.S.c.c. recognizes

that giving lip service to the position of
remaining aloof from one's upbringing as a
Roman Catholic, when in public office, will
give way to the realities of the moment. The
President of the U.s.C.C., Bishop Malone
of Ohio rejected" ... the idea that candidates satisfy the requirements of rational
analysis in saying their personal views
should not influence their policy decisions;
the implied dichotomy - between personal
morality and public policy - is simply not
logically tenable in any adequate view of
both." He went on to add that "This position
would be as unacceptable as would be the
approach of a candidate or officeholder who
pointed to his or her personal commitments
as qualificationfor publicofficewithout proposing to take practical steps to translate these
into policies and practical programs. This is
true of all candidates of all parties." I have to
say, even as an Atheist, that I must agree
with this analysis of Bishop Malone. The
U.S.C.C. statement, as delivered by Bishop
Malone, went on to make some very important points about religion and politics in the
United States.
(1)" ... in American society, people have
looked to the clergy for a certain kind of
moral leadership. People have always made
up their own minds on political and social
issues; but people also have wanted to have
their stands made legitimate by the support of the church. In civic celebrations,
citizen summoned forth their pastors to
relate the community's lifeto ultimate reality; in civic crises they looked to their
pastors to offer moral commentary, generally hoping they would affirm human rights
and, at the same time, keep the fragile unity
of a pluralistic community from flying apart." As much as it galls me to admit it, the
foregoing statement is a correct depiction of
reality for the average American, especially
as to those two points to which I have added
emphasis. The majority has always looked
to one church or another to legitimatize its
actions and provide "ultimate" answers. It is
true that the church has never been able to
provide the latter but that it has accomplished the former.
(2) " ... a degree of public involvement by
priests has been a permanent feature of
church life in a free and pluralistic society."
Speaking here of involvement in political
issues, again this is true. Though we desire
as Atheists to make less of this we cannot
overlook the fact that it has been and still is
true.
(3) "Clergy are always public persons;
social issues always arise from pastoral
work; the good pastor is one who is leading
his people to be ever more fully Christ's
presence in the world, so social justice and
world peace are integral to the role of the
priest. One can indeed chose to ignore
these responsibiities or to subordinate them
to supposedly more spiritual or 'religious'
activities to the extent they become invisiPage 4

ble, but when we do so, we are not being

good priests or good pastors." This is laying
it right on the line. What is the purpose of
having a dogma, especially a complicated
and highly ritualistic one like that of the
Roman Catholics, if one does not strive to
put it into practice through both conversion
and political means?
This U.S.C.c. statement makes it perfectly clear that the Roman Catholic Church is
not going to bow out of politics. Around
August 11th a Committee of U. S. Bishops
announced that it continued to work on the
first draft of a pastoral letter on Roman
Catholic social teaching and the U. S.
economy. They say that" .. private philanthropy rather than government should take
chief responsiblitiy for welfare ... " and "free
enterprise is the key to meeting human,
needs." Again, I must refer to the statement
of the official U.S. representative to the
Mexico City Population Conference. In his
statement he says, on behalf of the Reagan
administration, essentially the same thing
over and over again, that economic policy,
Reaganomics in particular, can solve the
economic problems of the poor brought on
by world overpopulation. Who has won on
this one? While there may be disagreement
within the Roman Catholic ranks, policy has
been established.
Governor Cuomo of New York recently
said about the Roman Catholic Church,
"They will teach us - and should teach us
- what they think about abortion, what
they think about homosexuality, what they
think about helping the poor, what they
think about war. But they will not pick a
candidate."
I have to agree with the governor but I
must add that although the church is not
going to "pick a candidate," it will continue
to influence legislation as it has for many a
year to come. There are 124 Roman Catholics in the U. S. House of Representatives
and seventeen in the Senate. That is not a
majority but it represents a significant number of "swing" votes on any of the close or
highly contested issues, of which the "moral
issues" of this year's presidential campaign
are most often a part. Cuomo also said in an
.""terview that he agreed that religion and
politics had become a campaign issue this
year and he cautioned that " . . . having
opened the box, I think we have to deal with
the contents very carefully." I think that
could do down as the understatement of the
year.
On August 23rd, Reagan spoke to an
ecumenical prayer breakfast held in Dallas
prior to his acceptance speech before the
Republican National Convention there. In
that speech Reagan said, "I believe that faith
and religion playa critical role in the political
life of our nation and always have, and that
the church - and by that I mean all
churches - has had a strong influence on
the state, and this has worked to our
benefit as a nation." I must agree with
November, 1984

Reagan up to the last clause of the foregoing

quote. The conclusion as to the value of that
association between state and church is
where we differ. It is on that point that the
thrust of the Atheist position this election
year must concentrate. We must somehow
convince those already in government that
the participation of religion in politics has
been bad for the nation and not good. We
must also convince the average American of
that. This will not be an easy task. The
Roman Catholics are already at work, as are
the Falwellians, in trying to convince the
nation that religion has been good for it and
will continue to be good for it. We must
convince them otherwise.
Bishop Malone of Ohio, in his U.S.C.C.
statement, said about the issue of religion in
politics that "Raising these issues, in all
humility and with due regard for the consciences of our people, is a part of our
pastoral task, not because the popes and
bishops have spoken, but because these are
real problems, we are all involved and
silence means acquiescence." Aside from
the religiosity of the statement it is valuable
advice indeed. If we changed the word
"pastoral" to "educational" and "popes and
bishops" to "Atheist leaders," the statement
would be equally applicable to the Atheist
community particularly with regard to the
last three words, "silence means acquiescence." We need to take a lesson for the
Atheist movement from the Roman Catholics on this point. We must not remain silent
when the religious community begins to
move from covert manipulation in the political arena to overt manipulation of public
officals. That is our signal as Atheists that
we need to move from covert Atheism to
overt Atheism ifindeed we are to survive the
years to come.
Silence does indeed mean acquiescence.
If some of the more conservative among
Atheists feel that coming out of the cioset on
political issues willturn off potential support
for the Atheist movement as a whole, so be
it. We must fight fire with fire and bring
Atheism into the political area as an issue if
need be. One thing that I have learned over
the years as a cause fighter is that everything I do is better off done in the public eye,
out in front of the cameras, when it is done
for a despised minority. Although the majority may be against what you have to say it
cannot, publicly, be on record as keeping
you from saying it. That is why we need to go
public more, not less, and if that means
going public politically too, so be it. ~
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
A second generation Atheist,
Mr. Murray has been the
Director of the American Atheist Center
for eight years and is also the
Managing Editor of
the American Atheist.
He advocates "Aggressive Atheism."

The American Atheist

ASKA.A.
This is a response to the article "Sex as
An Argument for Atheism" by Ben Edward
Akerley.
I am a new subscriber to your magazine
since April, 1984 and was very pleased from
the start, with one exception - your listing
of a Gay's telephone number in the Dial-AnAtheist section. This shocked me.
To start in a fitting form, I like to remind to
all of you very highly educated contributors
at your magazine. add this to your weltanschauungfrom an old German Volksweisshiet. "Gegen dummheit hilft nicht eimal
studieren." Fmd it in a dictionary.

Now to Mister Ackerley.

I must remind you, sir, that you call
yourself Atheists and realists in your magazine. How then can you glorify a bunch of
freaks like the naturally and mentally crippled sick degenerate sex deviates and homosexuals and write something idiotic like this:
"Any variation provided by nature has to be
right." I willnot try to name a number for the
variations provided by nature without which
the world would be better off ...
Daniel Nuerenberg
Wisconsin
I would like to know why American Atheists does not seem to take any position on
the most vivid example of religious persecution in America today - homosexuality. I
cannot imagine any basis on which such
persecution can be morally or intellectually
justified except religion. Yet on inquiring of
San Francisco Gay Atheists why they were
not affiliated with AA, I was told that AA
had made it clear they had no interest in
defending homosexuals, and that Ms. O'Hair
herself had made disparaging comments
about homosexuals.
In June's American A theist, in the article
"A Letter from A Long Lost Cousin," references to possible homosexuality in Jesus
were presented in a clearly negative context. I do not see how anyone who can make
such references can claim to be free of
religious prejudice.
I can see how AA might not wish to
embroil itself in such a controversial area,
though I cannot applaud AA for its courage
if this is the case, but I find it utterly
reprehensible for AA to contribute to the
continued homophobia. It reminds me of
Voltaire's astonishing and bewildering, in
such a man, antisemitism.
This issue has thus far prevented me from
feeling a close kinship with AA, and I wish
you would straighten me out (no pun intended!) one way or the other as to your
position.
Sincerely
Jeff Wilson
California
Austin, Texas

The basic aims of American Atheists

are to work for state/church separation
and the civil rights of Atheists. It is
realized that there are concerns particular to Gays, women, and other groups
which fall under the jurisdiction of these
aims.
Major efforts to address those concerns are not being undertaken at this
time for a variety of reasons. First, American Atheists is a single organization,
growing but still not at its full potential. It
is felt by its officers and Board of Directors that it would be foolish to take off,
like a Don Quixote, in all directions at
once, thus dividing our limited resources.
Second, it is felt that Atheism is the
ultimate liberation and that should this
weltanschauung
become predominant
many, if not all, of the discriminatory acts
now experienced by persons not accepted by mainstream society would disappear.
We realize, however, that many individuals who are Atheists and also members of an oppressed class may wish to
take action now against those religious
policies which affect them. We strongly
feel that atheist groups devoted to particular concerns are needed. Auxiliary organizations for Atheists who are female,
from minority ethnic backgroups, etc.,
should exist. This is why we encourage
the work of the Gay Atheist League of
America and the American Gay Atheists.
Free ads for both these groups have
appeared (and now appear) in the classified ad section of the magazine. We also
applaud the efforts of the Prison A theist
League of America and the American
Atheist Addiction Reovery Group.
Some individuals, such as the first
letter writer above, do not feel that such
support is appropriate given the natures
of the individuals
involved in these
groups. In response to the particular
complain of our support (or lack thereof)
of Gays, we can only say that we do not
feel it is the business of this organization,
or any other, to patrol the bedrooms of the
United States. This position should not be
seen as either encouragement or discouragement of specific sexual acts. lt.is
simply not the purpose of this organization to mandate the type and character of
positions, techniques, and partners of
which one should partake when engaging in sexual activity.
We feel that it is appropriate at this
time to reply to the specific complaints of
both your letters.
First, Madalyn O'Heir, who - we should
remind you - is an officer of this organization and not the organization itself, does
not occupy her days with making "dis-

November, 1984

paraging comments about homosexuals. " Apparently a misunderstanding has

occurred.
This editor's interpretation of the allusions to the alleged homosexual conduct
of the Christian messiah which were
made in "A Letter from A Long Lost
Cousin" (June, 1984) was that such behaviour would have been hypocritical'
and inconsistent given the homophobic
nature of the Christian rleigion. American Atheists, here, explain to those who
took the statements to be anti-Gay; that
was not the thrust intended. And, we
hasten to remind that not everything in
this journal is "pertvline. "
The American Atheist will continue to
carry ads for special interest, affiliated
organizations and to list the Dial-A-Gay
Atheist number. All provide valuable services to their Atheist constituency.
It must be noted that what appears
above is an excerpt from Mr. Nuerenberg's letter. It went on for some length
clarifying his exact opinion of Gays. The
remarks are not reported here in order to
avoid offense.
The Editor

Often Isee important stories in newspapers or professional journals. I don't cut

them out and send them to you anymore
because Ifigure that you are already receiving them from someone else. What should I
do?
Joseph Sedasky
Pennsylvania
Everyone thinks the same thing and
consequently we often receive nothing.
The American Atheist Forum is put together from the material sent in to us.
Anything you read on state/church separation or of interest to Atheists - send it in!
Be certain that the date and source are
clipped to the article. Inundate the Center
with them - better too many than too few.
We need and want them, especially from
your professional journals. We cannot, at
this point, pay for a wire service printer in
the Center, but everything is looking up
and ... one day!
The Editor
In "Letters to The Editor" readers give
their opinions, ideas and information.
But in "Ask A. A." American Atheists
answers questins regarding its
policies, positions, and customs,
as well as queries of
factual and historical situations.
You are invited to address questions to:
AskA. A. - PO Box2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117

PageS

NEWS AND COMMENTS

NATIONAL BIBLE WEEK

INFRINGING YOUR RIGHTS
The trouble with Atheists is that they have
habitually not taken the offensive. Almost
everyone of their maneuvers tried throughout the history of Judeo-Christianity in the
western world has been defensive. Perhaps
this has been necessary in the past as they
attempted to save their hides in the destructive paths of the crusades, in religious wars,
in Catholic and Protestant inquisitions, in
witch hunts, and in their perilous positions
vis-a-vis governments intent on converting
all to specific religious ideologies. But those
days are gone. We learn lessons from history, we do not take example of how we
should proceed now since we are living in
the strange new world of science, technology, and instant communications. It is
because of our new position in history that
American Atheists has insisted on aggressive Atheism.
The religious have always known the
need for aggression The ideology that they
espouse is so insane that without an active
authoritarian-based proselytization by any
means they are knowledgeable enough to
know that religion would expire under the
weight of questions raised from its irrational
dogma. The name of the religious game has
always been to convince everyone that
every other person has already accepted
religion and that the persons who stand
outside of the circle of insanity have something "wrong" with them, else why would
they be in the minority?
Always, the primary path for the religious
has been to seize the rising generations and
to indoctrinate the children before they
have the capacity for independent critical
thought. Continually, one can go back to
the Jesuit boast, "Give me a child until he is
six and I've got him." The tactics are on the
one hand to suppress any critical attack on
religion, and on the other to isolate the
dissenter, to pummel him psychologically so
that he feels that he is the single "nonreligious" person in his family. his community, his city, his COUrrtY, his state, his
nation, and the world.
Government is only too happy to reinforce the ideas of personal inadequacy,
dependency, fear, self-abasement, uncertainty, and anxiety which religion plants in
everyone. A citizen with those disabilities is
much easier to handle than one who has an
independent mind, is roundly welleducated,
critically observant, and has a comfortable
feeling of personal self-worth. Therefore,
government gives every conceivable help to
religion. This ranges from a boost for the
Page 6

prestige of Jerry Falwell by his being accepted as a welcome guest in the White
House, through tax exemption on "religious"
land, to tax subsidies directly to religious
groups and their schools. Governmental
arms, such as the media, enhance the

reputation of religion by continued presentations of stories, news, and features, all in the
religious genre.
Nothing better illustrates this than the
contemporary notion of "National Bible
Month" and "National Bible Week" sup-

rru: \\ 111'1 E
"\'111'\,1,

National

Bible

II () I S I.
I

0'

Week,

1984

In 1984 Americans
will participate
in A political process
of
democracy
that is the earmark
of a free people.
At such
a time, it is fitting to reflect on the Bible's contributions
to the institutions,
traditions,
and cultural
values that
underlie
our country's
liberty.
Scholars
agree that t he founding- concepts
of Western Civilization ann democracy
are drawn from the Bible, which is,
at the same time, a ~uide to public and individual
fulfillment.
For a guide to personal
faith,
many Amer-icnns turn directly
to the Bible.
1\10st who read the Bible hear in it the Word
of God.
Its story of ancient
Israel and of early Christian
believers
inspires
them in looking to the future.
For them,
the Bible is Il book in whose plot they still have a part.
Its promises,
they believe,
embr-ace thc people of all
nations.
During the terrible
struggle
of the Civil Will', President
Lincoln obser-vert , "That the Almighty noes make use of
human agl'neil's,
und dirf'dlv
intervenes
in human affni r-s ,
is one of the plui nc s t stnt cmcnt s in t hc Rihle."
The meaning of the Bible must he known and
if.it is to mnke a difference
in our lives, and
Americans
to read ann study the Scriptures.
of such effort will help preserve
our heritage
and signal the message of liberty
to people in

November, 1984

understood
I urge all
The rewar-ds
of freedom
all lands.

The American Atheist

NEWS AND COMMENTS

ported by both government and religion.

The observances beckon all citizens back to
the fundamental irrationalities of the Bible.
The event is planned a year in advance.
Every conceivable effort is made supportive
of it. Although many organizations are involved in the promotion of the idea, it is
instructive to look at just one or two to have
an overall understanding of what goes on.
For example, the Laymen's National Bible
Committee, Inc. (hereinafter the LNBC)
was founded in 1940 as an interfaith, nonsectarian lay organization. An Immediate
decision was made by the organization to
sponsor a "National Bible Week" which
would coincide with Thanksgiving, described
as America's only nonsectarian, religious
holiday. National Bible Week in 1984 is the
week of November 18th through November
25th. The idea behind such a celebration
was not only to maKe all Americans aware of
the importance of the Bible but to promote
Bible reading and study and "thus, to
reaffirm the founding principles of the United States." Actually the nation was founded by Deists who completely eschewed the
use of the Bible, with the most intellectually
hardy of the founding fathers making actual
attacks on both the Bible and Judeo-Christianity (Col. Ethan Allen in his Reason, The
Only Oracle of Man, Thomas Paine is his
Age of Reason, Benjamin Franklin in .his
Autobiography, and Thomas Jefferson in
his Bible.)
The Bible is really not to be read or
studied objectively. It is to be promoted as
sacrosanct. No one is really asked to read it
from cover to cover at all, but rather only to
read those verses which are specifically
emphasized. Tedious, boring, and incomprehensible to most, its promoters know that
they can count on no one really undertaking
a comprehensive scrutiny of the Bible, and
they can, therefore, advance it with impunity solely upon its "reputation."
Calling immediately upon the president
and the politicians of the nation to promote
the idea of a reverential "Bible Week," the
idea became first a small staple in any year's
calendar and now has spread to a pugnacious campaign to push the Bible down
the throat of every American. Bristling with
"committees," the LNBC goes to its work.
But the people handling the campaign are
astute, political-minded businessmen, abreast of the issues of the day, aggressive, .
well-financed, and observant.
The 1984 chairman of the Governors'
Committee for National Bible Week, for
example, is Governor Martha Collins of
Kentucky, the only woman governor in the
nation. She was also picked by Mondale to
be the chairman of the 1984 Democractic
National Convention in San Francisco. Her
responsibility is to invite the governors of all
the states and the U.S. territories to issue
Austin, Texas

"N ational Bible Week Proclamations." And,

they are at hand, pre-printed for her by the
LNBC. From her the LNBC has a statement
which it can broadcast to the womEl,nof the
nation:
"The Holy Bible forms the basis for the
very fabric of our society, and the Holy
Scriptures permeate every aspect of our
nature as creatures of God." If that isn't
enough to sicken one, read on:
The 1984 chairman of the Mayors' Committee for National Bible Week is Harold
Washington, the first Black 'mayor of Chicago, elected in 1983. His responsibility is to
invite the mayors of all U.S. cities to issue
"National Bible Week Proclamations" (again,
canned ones are on hand - only fill in the
blanks, please) and, if possible, lead the
vocal observances.
Of course, on the local level prepackaged
"news release" material is available as well
as prewritten editorials to be delivered to
the local newspapers, radio and television
stations. Washington is a good Methodist,
both his father and his grandfather having
been Methodist ministers, and his appeal
will be emphasized in the Black communities of our nation.
One 1984 co-chairman of the Congressional Committee for NationalBible

Week

isa senator, the other co-chairman is a

representative. Their duty is to invite congressional colleagues to support the national campaign to foster interest in Bible reading
and study. They are Sen. Alfonse M.
D'Amato (R-NY) and Rep. Charles O.
Whitley (D-NC.) Upon accepting their posts,
they both issued statements which were
remarkable intellectual obscenities:
Sen. D'Amato: "The Bible is perhaps the
single-most important religious and historical document known to mankind. Today, its
influence is still felt worldwide as millions
look to the Biblefor inspiration and guidance.
Everyone should have the opportunity to
read and study the Bible." Since D'Amato is
a Roman Catholic, his denomination is
"included" in the celebration.
Rep. Whitley: "Without question the Holy
Bible is the most important and best
authenticated source of knowledge of our
God and His revelations of Himself to men.
No person who has not read and studied the
Holy Bible is truly educated, nor can he be
true in his beliefs and commitment. Its
significance cannot be overemphasized."
Since Whitley is a Baptist, his denomination
is "included" in the celebration.
The kickoff man for the luncheon, which
will launch the 44th annual "National Bible
Week," is Jewish, President of the Columbus, Ohio, Jewish Foundation, Director of
the American Jewish Joint Distribution
Committee, Trustee of the United Jewish
Appeal, Trustee of the Temple Israel Foundation, Fellow Member of the Executive ComNovember, 1984

mittee of Brandeis University, Director of

the American Retail Federation, Director of
BancOhio National Bank and President of
American Retail Education Foundation. He
has been appointed to this position so that
the Jews will feel that they are included in
the by-and-Iarge Christian celebration.
That isn't enough clout. Next, it was
necessary to get President Reagan to issue a
1984 Bible Week message. This was finished
and distributed to all participating organizations as early as the first month of the
current year.
Of course, with it all goes a photography
contest for National Bible Week, and an
editorial contest for journalism students,
plus bumper stickers, prayer breakfasts,
Bible reading marathons. And one of the
advertising industry's most respected agencies, Young & Rubicam, has volunteered
(free, of course) to develop the campaign for
the National Bible Week. The agency planned television and radio public service announcements, magazine and newspaper ads,
and billboards. Campaigns to raise money
for each and every facet of the program
were started everywhere. The theme for the
1984 drive which was developed by Young
& Rubicam is "If Life Is The Question, The
Bible Is The Answer".
You all probably remember J.C. Penney,
who made his claim for fame in the 1950's
when he stated that no Atheist was welcome
in one of his stores. Now, a former "top chief
executive officer" of the Penney stores has
moved in as director of the LNBC. His
autobiography of his personal and professionallife, "lived according to the Christian
faith," is on sale this year, also, and the
LNBC recommends it for reading by "anyone who wants to know how to grow as a
complete child of God." But a special national chairman had to be appointed for just the
44th Annual National Bible Week, and why
not the chairman of Gulf Oil Corporation,
James E. Lee? He would be both a good
example and an inspiration for all the upward striving young executives to emulate.
His comments on the Bible reflect "why the
Bible is important to all people":
"In a world of uncertainty and indecision,
God speaks through the Bible to any man or
woman who seeks His guidance. It is the
story of God's relationship to the human
race, a work of great practical insight, and
deep spiritual richness. The Bible serves as
guidepost along the way to the real meaning
of existence. If life is the question, the Bible
is the answer." James E. Lee, a Presbyterian, serves on the boards of the American
Petroleum Institute, Pittsburgh National Bank,
Gulf Canada Limited, PNC Financial Corporation, Joy Manufacturing, Western Pennsylvania Hospital, Louisiana Technical En'
gineering Foundation, Inc. and Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary. Naturally, he could
Page 7

NEWS AND COMMENTS

get to talk to Reagan, with those credentials,
and could present an inscribed edition of the
KingJames version of the Bible to Reagan in
the Oval Office of the White House with
cameramen standing by. And the LNBC,
Inc., thought so much of his remark that it is
distributing, en masse, a little pamphlet
concerned with the quote.
On the list of officers and directors of
LNBC are representatives from Phillip Morris Co., Dr. Pepper Co., Singer Co., Gallup
Poll and the Raytheon Corp. - to name but
a few. Relying on the unreliable surveys of
George Gallup, the LNBC brags that in
1944, when it started, only 10%of all Americans read the Bible daily and that after forty
years of effort, and enough money to cure all
the illsof the United States, the 1983 survey
found 15%claim to read the Bible daily. It is
just a sacrifice we all need to make. However, ifthe followingcorporations had joined
hands to rid the United States of acid rain,
or chemicals dumps, to save our air or fresh
water rivers and water bodies, rather than
contributing money to Bible reading, would
we be better off?
The major contributors to LNBC in 1983
reads like a "Fortune 500" corporations list.
But you willrecognize Texaco, Inc., Gulf Oil
Corp., Conoco, Inc., Exxon Corp., Atlantic
Richfield Co., American Telephone & Telegraph Co., American Can Co., Bell Laboratories, Burlington Industries, the Chase
Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Walt Disney Productions, Dun & Bradstreet Cornpanies, General Dynamics, Corp., John Hancock Mutual Life Ins., E. F. Hutton Group,
Inc., International Business Machines International Paper Co., Kellog Co., Kroger Co.,
Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Metropolitan LifeInsurance Co., Motorola, Inc., Pittsburgh Plate Glass Industries Foundation,
Reader's Digest, Jos. E. Seagram & Sons,
Tandy Corp., and Western Electric Co.
While the organization touts its "GoodieTwo-Shoes" staff, it also reaches out to give
a 1984 award to a U. S. Navy chaplain who,
working in the footsteps of the povertyridden Jesus Christ, has attamed the rank of
rear admiral in the U.S. Navy. And, of
course, its honorary co-chairmen include
Douglas Fairbanks, Eddie Albert, Marian
Anderson, BillyGraham, Theodore M. Hesburgh, Lane Kirkland, Tom Landry. Mrs.
Norman Vincent Peale is also a co-chairman,
and so her husband's booklet Let the Bible
Help You is one of the handouts. What else
would you expect? You did not really think
that the Christians reach out to the poor except, of course, to tell the poor to be
content with their lot for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Martin Marty, naturally,
plunks for the Bible as the Magna Charta of
civilization. With his usual foaming at the
mouth commitment to nonsense, he emotes:
"Perhaps the greatest service the Bible
Page 8

performs is to represent the eternal. The

purposes of God outlast those of the peoples and nations."
Throughout their publications and distributed literature, the committee has -larqe
blocked notices for all to see and remember.
Every handout is free in quantities up to
1,000 or even more. These include bookmarks, bulletin board posters, brochures,
daily Bible reading guides, bibliography especially for children, etc. It is interesting to
note that, realizing how important itis to
capture the mind of the child, the suggested
books for the little ones include seven on
Bible background, eight on handbooks, dictionaries and atlases, fourteen on Bible
study, not including six activity books, twenty of Bible story collections, and twenty two
on individual Bible stories. The categories
are interesting, of themselves. They include
those for children of age three years, of ages
four through eighteen, of ages seven to
eleven, for those who are two to five years
old, and for ages three to seven. Naturally
there are Learning to Read from The Bible
Series, Animals of The Bible, Women in
The Bible, The Old Testament in Full
Color Comic-Strip Form, transparencies,

overlays and spirit masters for geography of

the Holy Land, stories about Jesus as a
young boy, songs and poems from the Bible,
activity books based on the lives of Noah,
Joseph, Moses, and David, scriptural puzzle
games, world games, dot-to-dot games, crossword puzzles from Bible words, picture
books of the Bible illustrated by children of
the world. A consumer's guide for Buying a'
Bible is included with an explanation as to
what is what. Suggested versions are as
proliferate as brands of home computers:
the Revised Standard, Todev's English
Version, etc. and each is noted as to
whether or not it is approved by the Roman
Catholic Church. Every national, \louth,
religious, fraternal and civic organization
which can be conned into the deal, is. These
include the AFL-CIO, the Boy Scouts of
America, Armed Forces Chaplains, Kiwanis
International, General Federation of Women's Clubs, National Association of Manufacturers, U. S. Chamber of Commerce,
Volunteers of America. the National Exchange Club, book stores, newsstands, libraries, business firms, colleges, schools,
, uruversures, government tedders and other
state and local groups. One of these is the
Religious Advisory Council. And, naturally,
this organization harbors representatives
from the Catholic Biblical Apostolate, Lutheran Bible Ministries, National Council of
Churches, Christian Science Committee on
Publication, Salvation Army, Seventh-Day
Adventists, Greek Orthodox Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Jewish Publication
Society, United Presbyterian Men, United
Methodist Men, Lutheran Church in ArnerNovember, 1984

ica, Episcopal Church, all of the major

"respectable" denominations. The cultists,
the fundamentalists, the evangelists, are too
gauche to be included. God's folks are
quiet, orderly, and well-cowed, not the hootin'hollerin' Falwellian types, which now have
brought a bad odor to religion.
And to teach an Atheist organization a
lesson. the Media Consultants Committee
has representatives from W. R. Grace &
Co., WNBC-TV. N. Y. Daily News, Guideposts, CBS Broadcast Group, WNEW-TV,
Religious News Svc., WABC-TV, and the
Baseball Commissioner's Office. The LNCB
doesn't bother with community access cable television, alternative book stores, or
dissent publications. it only goes after the
big ones, expecting and receiving free attention,free advice, and free programming.
All of the cooperating organizations push
a one-page Guide to Organizing a BibleReading Marathon, which you thought, in
your town, was spontaneous. The Biblereading marathon has been tried and has
been successful in Amarillo and Abilene,
Texas, in Boston, Atlanta, Chattanooga,
Indianapolis, Okmulgee, Oklahoma, and in
New York City.
A second extremely important flyer which
is to be placed in the hands of "qo-qetters" in
every city contains a list of "20 Things You
Can Do to Observe National Bible Week."
Sometimes, this is done in a fanciful manner
as is that issued by the National Exchange
C~b.
'
So that no one willreally become involved
in attempting to read the gawddamn thing
in whole, selections from the Old and New
Testament have been highlighted, by James
E. Lee, for reading and study for National
Bible Week. The list, distributed widely
throughout the nation, includes several lines
each day from Jeremiah, Isaiah, Psalms, I
Samuel, Joshua and Exodus from the Old
Testament for morning readings and from
John, Romans, I Corinthians, Galations and
Matthew in the New Testament for evening
reading. Not to be outdone, the American
Bible Society immediately put out a "Daily
Bible Reading Guide" for the entire year.
Of course, at the end of this article, American
Atheists has readings suggested by Atheists
for the week - and gives you the full text.
in reviewing what was done m 1983,
NLBC reports that a television public service announcement was distributed to 250
stations and radio public service announcements were distributed to 1,000 stations.
Over 102 million saw the Bible Week TV
spot and over 20 million heard the radio
spots in 1983. The commercial value of the
air time donated by the stations was over
$600,000. A Bible Week print advertisement
was featured in several national magazines
and hundreds of newspapers. Thousands of
feature stories on Bible Week appeared in
The American Atheist

NEWS AND COMMENTS

newspapers throughout the country, including those of syndicated columnists. A typical
column is sent to those organizations which
want to participate. This is a display piece
written by the UPI religion writer, featuring
statements such as the lead-off one of
"Americans Revere the Bible." Supported
by the funky findings of Gallup, the author
stated that "only about 12% of Americans
read the Bible daily or more often. Onefourth of teenagers have never .read the
Bible." The Religious News Service distributed one article, written by a judge, to its 500
subscribers, the article being titled "Judge
Finds The Bible is Handy to Illustrate His
Legal Points." At the end of 1983 the LNBC
could report that 4,000 communities had
marked with local observances National
Bible Week. Because so much was done for
the LNBC free, its 1983 budget was
$284,793, of which only $157,260 needed to
be spent on the program and $58,71 -;on its
administration. The balance of its funding
went into financial development for the
future. A short will is printed on informational brochures so that a Christian, facing
approaching death, can buy his way into
heaven by giving his estate to help Bible
reading.

NeWS

-,----.

Faced with all of this, the literally millions

of Atheists throughout our nation cringe in
their closets and through their inactivity permit the nuts to take over the nation. Do the
Atheists love their children? Not enough to
protect them from indoctrination by religion. Do the Atheists love their nation? Not
enough to see that it adheres to the First
Amendment command of separation of state
and church. Do the Atheists love intellectual'
freedom? Not enough to fight for it. Do the
Atheists understand the consequences of
their apathy in the face of this religious
assault? Not well enough to give a damn.
American Atheists care enough to expose what the religious community is doing
in the United States and to fight it where
and as American Atheists can. It is necessary to move in an unrelenting way to widen
the avenues of communication so that Atheists stand as a wall, in determination, against
religion. That is the phase in which we are
now. It is vitally urgent that we move to the
next phase of aggressive Atheism so that we
may take the initiative and teach everyone in
the United States that they have another
right and another freedom: they have the
right to freedom from religion. That is the
battle line. Isn't it time you helped?

American Atheists' recommended Bible

verses for you to mull over during National
Bible Week, November 18th to November
25th, 1984, follow. Make certain that anyone
who quotes the Bible to you that week, gets
these verses quoted back to him.
Jesus on love and brotherhood

of man.

Matt. 10:34-35: "Think not that I am come

to send peace on earth. I come not to send
peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a
man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother."
Mark 10:20-21: "There is no man that
hath left house, or brethern, or sisters, or
father, or mother, or wife, or children, or
lands, for my sake, and the gospel's. But he
shall receive a hundredfold now in this time.
Mark 13:12: "Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the
son; and children shall rise up against their
parents, and shall cause them to be put to
death."
Luke 12:51-53: "Suppose ye that I am
come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay;
but rather division. For from henceforth
there shall be five in one house divided,
three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son

NATIONAL BIBLE WEEK

PRI!SS Sl!RVlCI!

-_._----_"..

'C'""R

Your Contributions To
LNBC Are Tax-deductible.
Austin, Texas

November, 1984

Page 9

NEWS AND COMMENTS

and the son against the father; the mother
against the daughter, and the daughter
against the mother ... "
Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and
hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea,
and his own life also, he cannot be my
disciple."
Matt. 10:22: "And, ye shall be hated of all
men, for my name's sake."
Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies,
which would not that I should reign over
them, bring hither, and slay them before
me."

Or ask the questioner what he thinks

about gentiles when Jesus Christ himself
repudiated them all?
Matt. 15:24 "I am not sent but unto the
lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Ask, do Jews and Christians really want
to murder all homosexuals? It is a direct
command from god in Lev. 20:13: "If a man
also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have committed an
abomination; they shall surely be put to
death; their blood shall be upon them."
And pose the following questions to them
about that which is completely ludicrous.
Do you really believe that the devil appeared and wafted Jesus onto a mountain
from which he could see the entire world
(which mountain is that? and where?) and
that the devil, personally, tempted Jesus
while holding a long conversation with him?
Matt. 4:111; Luke 4:2B.
Or do you think that god did "moon"
Moses - that he shoved his bare butt at
Moses? Exod. 33:23: "And I will take away
mind hand, and thou shall see my back
parts: but my facl? shall not hI?~epn "
Or do you think that god flatulates noisily? Isaiah 16:11: "Wherefore my bowels
shall sound like a harp."
Or perhaps you plan to change your diet
to suit your god? Isaiah 36:12 and II Kings
18:27: "Hath he not sent to the men that sit
upon the wall, that they may eat their own
dung and drink their own urine with you?"
On the other hand, ask them, why not
teach the kiddies that people actually have
devils in their bodies? Mark 16:17, with
Jesus speaking: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they

15thANNUAL
April
5,6 & 7,
1985
'In

Austin,
Texas
Page 10

cast out devils." And, this is repeated in

Luke 9:1: "Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and
authority over all devils, and, to cure diseases." Why haven't alldiseases been cured?
What about their god and war? When the
Jews invaded a land which was not theirs,
they killed all the men and took the women
and children prisoners back to where Moses
was. This is what happened then. Num.
31:1418: "And Moses said unto them. Have
you saved all the women alive? ... Now,
therefore kill every male among the little
ones, and killevery woman that hath known
man by lying with him. But all the women
children, that have not known a man by
lying with him, keep alive for yourself."
Should we kill little children, babies, in war
because they are male? And, should we kill
all women and young girls who are not
virgins? Should our armed forces keep little
female children to rape? Is this what Jews
and Christians consider to be moral?
And ask them also about Lev. 11:6: in
which god gave man a list of what he could
or could not eat. What he could eat included
the hare (rabbit) "because he cheweth the
cud." When did a hare ever chew a cud?
And in Lev. 11:20: "All fowls that creep,
going on all fours, shall be an abomination
unto you." Since when did chickens, ducks,
geese, or any fowl "creep, going on all
fours?"
Or what about an ass that talked? Num.
22:28: "And the lord opened the mouth of
the ass; and she said unto Balaam, 'What
have I done unto thee, that thou has smitten
me these three times?' "Or perhaps you can
ask your friendly Christian neighbor if he
has heard words of wisdom from a snake as,
for example, the one that talked to Eve in
Gen.3:15?
Ask why god becamse angry with his own
people. Deut. 8:15: "And the Lord sent fiery
serpents among the people, and they bit the
people; and much people of Israel died." Or
what happened when Aaron, Moses' brother, continued to worship a golden calf when
Moses was on the mountain talking to god?
Exod. 32:28: Moses ordered 3,000 of his
own people killed. And, when more of them
(250 princes of the assembly, famous in the
congregation, men of renown) with their

NATIONAL CONVENTION

REGISTER NOW!
write to:

American Atheists
PO Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117
November, 1984

families rebelled against Moses, what did the

Lord do? Num. 16:3233: "the ground clave
asunder that was under them: And the earth
opened her mouth, and swallowed them up,
and their houses, and all the men that
appertained unto Korah and all their goods.
They, and all that appertained to them, went
down alive in the pit, and the earth closed
upon them: and they perished from among
the congregation."
Do your Christian
friends rl?<'lllv
accept this as an esteemed and
love- filled act of god?
We hear a lot about Jesus Christ bringing
to humankind new hope and love, bringing a
fruition ot hope and salvation In the New
Testament. But Jesus did not represent a
new interpretation of old Judaism at all. In
Matt. 5:1718,he categorically states, "Think
not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy but to
fulfill.For verily I say unto you, Till heaven
and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
And again in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for
heaven and earth to pass, than one title of
the law to fail."
This is extremely important when we look
at the old law about which he spoke. For
example in Deut. 21:1821: "If a man have a
stubborn and rebellious son, which will not
obey the voice of the father, or the voice of
his mother and that, when they have chastened him, willnot hearken unto them: Then
shall his father and his mother lay hold on
him, and bring him out unto the elders of his
city, and unto the gates of his place; ... And
all the men of his city shall stone him with
stones that he die."
In concluding this entire matter, Arnerican Atheists absolutely agree with the president of Gulf Oil. Tell your Christian friends
they should indeed read Jeremiah, which
Mr. Lee recommends - except that you
should exhort them to specifically read Jer.
51:63: "And it shall be, when thou has made
an end of reading this book that thou shalt
bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of
the Euphrates." - Or any other river or
body of water which is handy to you! It is
good for nothing but throwing away since
humankind has matured from its enfant
reliance on goblins and spooks.

OF AMERICAN

ATHEISTS

GET READY TO ATTEND AN

EVENT OF A LIFETIME AT
THE BEAUTIFUL ~

Registration Fee:
Single $20.00 I Couple $35.00

The American Atheist

NEWS AND COMMENTS

REAGAN AND GOD

This is the prepared text of President Reagan's remarks to an ecumenical prayer breakfast held on August 23, 1984, in Dallas,
Texas, in conjunction with the Republican Party Convention.

The past few weeks it seems we have all habits which lead to political prosperity,
been hearing a lot of talk about religion and
religion and morality are indispensable supits role in politics, religion and its place in the
ports. In vain would that man call himself a
political life of the nation. And I think it patriot who [would] labor to subvert these ..
appropriate today, at a prayer breakfast for
. firmset props of the duties of men and
17,000 citizens, in the state of Texas, during
citizens. The mere political ... [and] the
a great political convention, that this issue
pious man out to respect and to cherish
be addressed.
[religion and morality]" He added, "... let us
I do not speak as a theologian or scholar. I with caution indulge the supposition that
speak only as one who has lived 73 years,
morality can be maintained without reliwho has been active in the political lifeof the
gion."
nation for roughly four decades and who has
I believe that George Washington knew
served the past 3 Y2 years in the highest office the City of Man cannot survive without the
this nation can bestow. I speak, in short, as
City of God, that the Visible City willperish
one who has seen much, who loves his without the Invisible City.
country, and who has seen it change in
Religion played not only a strong role in
many ways.
our national life,it played a positive role. The
I believe that faith and religion play a abolitionist movement was at heart a moral
critical role in the political life of our nation and religious movement. So was the modand always have, and that the church - and .ern civilrights struggle. And throughout this
by that I mean all churches - has had a time, the state was tolerant of religious
strong influence on the state, and this has belief, expression and practice. Society,
worked to our benefit as a nation. Those too, was tolerant.
who created our country - the founding
But, in the 1960's, the climate began to
fathers and mothers - understood that change. We began to make great steps
there is a divine order which transcends the toward secularizing our nation and removhuman order. They saw the state, in fact, as ing religion from its honored place.
a form of moral order, and felt that the
In 1962, the Supreme Court in the New
bedrock or moral order is religion.
York prayer case banned the compulsory
The Mayflower Compact began with the saying of prayers.* In 1963, the court banwords "In the name of God, amen." The ned the reading of the Bible in our public
Declaration of Independence appeals to schools.* From that point on, the courts
"Nature's God" and the "Creator" and "the pushed the meaning of the ruling ever
Supreme Judge of the world." Congress
outward, so that now our children are not
was given a chaplain and the oaths of office allowed voluntary prayer. We even had to
are oaths before God.
pass a law - pass a special law in the
James Madison in The Federalist Papers Congress just a few weeks ago - to allow
admitted that in the creation of our Republic student prayer groups the same access to
he perceived the hand of the Almighty. John schoolrooms after classes that a Young
Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme . Marxist Society, for example, would already
Court, warned that we must never forget enjoy with no opposition.
the God from whom our blessings flowed.
The 1962 decision opened the way toa
George Washington referred to religion's flood of similar suits. Once religion had been
profound and unsurpassed place in the made vulnerable, a series of assaults were
heart of our nation quite directly in his made in one court after another, on one
farewell address in 1796. Seven years ear- issue after another. Cases were started to
lier, France had erected a government that argue against tax-exempt
status for
was intended to be purely secular. This new churches. * Suits were brought to abolish
government would be grounded on reason
the words "Under God"* from the Pledge of
rather than the law of God. By 1796, the Allegiance, and to remove "In God We
French Revolution had known the Reign of Trust" from public documents and from our
Terror.
currency.*
And Washington voiced reservations aToday, there are those who are fighting to
bout the idea that there could be wise policy make sure voluntary prayer is not returned
without a firm moral and religious founda- to the classrooms. And the frustrating thing
tion. He said, "Of all the dispositions and for the great majority of Americans who
Austin, Texas

November, 1984

support and understand the special importance of religion in the national life - the
frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the
name of tolerance and freedom and openmindedness. * Question: Isn't the real truth
that they are intolerant of religion? That
they refuse to tolerate its importance in our
lives?
If all of the children of our country studied
together all of the many religions of our
country, wouldn't they learn greater tolerance of each other's beliefs? And is that not
to be desired: If children prayed together,
would they not understand what they have
in common and would this not indeed bring
them closer? I submit to you that those who
claim to be fighting for tolerance on this
issue may not be tolerant at all.
When John Kennedy was running for
president in 1960, he said that his church
would not dictate his presidency any more
than he would speak for his church. Just so
- and proper. But John Kennedy was
speaking in an America in which the role of
religion - and by that I mean the role of all
churches - was secure. Abortion was not a
political issue; prayer was not a political
issue; and it was broadly acknowledged that
religious leaders had a right and a duty to
speak out on issues of the day. They held a
place of respect; and a politician who spoke
to or of them with a lack of respect would
not long survive in the political arena. It was
acknowledged then that religion held a
special place, occupied a special territory in
the hearts of the citizenry.
The climate has changed greatly since
then. And, since it has, it logically follows
that religion needs defenders against those
who care only for.the interests of the state.
The truth is, politics and morality are
inseparable. And as morality's foundation is
religion, religion and politics are necessarily
related. We need religion as a guide; we
need it because we are imperfect. And our
government needs the church because only
those humble enought to admit "they are
sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.
A state is nothing more than a reflection
of its citizens; the more decent the citizens,
the more decent the state. If you practice a
religion - whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or guided by some other faith
- then your private lifewillbe influenced by
Page 11

NEWS AND COMMENTS

a sense of moral obligation. So, too, willyour
public life. One, you see, affects the other.
The churches of America do not exist by
the grace of the state; the churches of
America are not mere" citizens" of the state.
The churches of America exist apart - they
have their own vantage point, their own
.authority. Religion is its own realm; it makes
its own claims.
We establish no religion in this country,
nor willwe ever; we command no worship,
we mandate. no belief. But we poison our

society when we remove its theological

underpinnings; we court corruption when
we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to
believe or not to believe, all are free to
practice a faith or not. But those who believe
must be free to speak and act on their belief,
to apply moral teaching to public questions .
I submit to you that the tolerant society is
open to and encouraging of allreligions. And
this does not weaken us, it makes us strong.
Without God there is no virtue because
there is no prompting of the conscience;

.All of the asterisks indicate legal cases which were filed, and fought

without God we are mired in the material,

that flat world that tells us only what the
senses perceive; without God there is a
coarsening of the society; without God
democracy willnot and cannot long endure.
And that, simply, is the heart of my message: If we ever forget that we are One
Nation Under God, then we willbe a Nation
gone under.
I thank you for inviting me here today.
May God keep you, and may we, all of us,
continue to keep God.

by American Atheists or the Murrev-O'Heir

family.

T~IE

VOLuTloNARY
DtVE LOPMfNT
O~

TJlF

REPUBLICAN

'PAR""
Page 12

November, 1984

The American Atheist

Frank R. Zindler

REPORT FROM
THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE
A

s I drove from Columbus to Cleveland

that Wednesday evening I had no idea
just how important I was. Little did I realize
that the sun, moon, stars - yea, verily, the
farthest reaches of the heavens - were
revolving about li'l01' me! Once a day, even.
It was only after arriving at the National
Bible-Science Conference, convening at the
Brookside Baptist Church in Seven Hills,
Ohio, that I discovered that the Pope's
timing (but not, of course, his rhythm) had
been all wrong. John Paul II had hardly
finished "forgiving" Galileo - indeed, the
ink was hardly dry on the pardon - when a
gaggle of" creation scientists" assembled at
the navel of the world for the purpose of
recondemning not only Darwin but Galileo
and Copernicus as well.
As this most unusual of "scientific" conferences amen-ed and hallelujah-ed its way
through morning, afternoon, and evening
sessions of the first day, it became apparent
that the most dazzling star in the geocen
tricity constellation of the creationist firrnament was one Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw, an
astronomy Ph.D. from Case Institute of
Technology, now teaching mathematics and
computer science at Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, Ohio. Although creationists
generally reject Einsteinian physics (relativity in any form leads straight to moral
laxity, you know), Bouw made adroit use of
Einsteinian principles to "prove" the adequacy of the earth-centered universe. However, only four wicked evolutionists in the
audience seemed to notice this moral defect
in Bouw's non-Euclidean geometry.
But of course, the calculus was mostly
there to confound the mentally sluggish.
The real proofs were biblical. After explaining that the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran
Church had taught geocentricity* in its astronomy texts right up into the 20's of the
20th Century, he quoted Joshua X.13:
And the sun stood still, and the
moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of
Jasher? So the sun stood still in the
midst of heaven, and hasted not to go
down about a whole day."
After a virtuoso mixing of scientificsounding phrases and scholastic theological
arguments, he clinched his case: "... if God
cannot be taken literally when He writes of
the rising of the sun, then how can one
insist that He be taken literally when writing
of the rising of the Son?"
Austin, Texas

How many of the creationists present

were geocentrists, I do not know. One Rev.
Walter Lang, a Missouri-Synod Lutheran
and Executive Director of the Bible Science
Association (headquartered in Minneapolis)
was quite sympathetic, and I was led to
conclude that the Missouri Lutherans are
bringing back the geocentric doctrine.
According to science- writer Robert
Schadewald (along with Prof. Emmanuel Sillman, a zoologist from Duquesne University,
Pittsburgh, Prof. John Patterson, a thermodynamicistfrom Iowa State University, and
me, one of four heathens in the pews), fiveof
the 18 speakers were known geocentrists.
Just how fast "this old-time astronomy" is
spreading among believers in that "old-time
religion" I cannot guess. But not a single
creationist spoke against it, not even Duane
T. Gish, the creationists' Lochinvar of the
debate circuit. Although he had a lot of
quibbles with the thesis of one Dr. Kaufmann (who thought Christians should be
more exercise-conscious), Gish found nothing to complain of when geocentrists were
speaking.
The silence of all creationists when geocentrists were speaking is quite puzzling.
Does silence mean tacit acceptance? Ernbarrassment? Or is it a case of honor among
thieves: if you don't expose me, I won't
expose you.
Whatever the answer may be for the most
of the Ptolemaic talks, I can say with assurance that embarrassment wasthe cause ofeveryone's silence when Marshall and Sandra
Hall (authors of the widely distributed book,
The Truth: God or Evolution?) got up
together to give one talk. As the discourse
bounced back and forth between husband
and wife every minute or so, things began to
unravel.
Clearly enough, they had explained that
the heliocentric theory was a "Satanic counterfeit," and they told of traveling to the
biblical plain of Gibeon (where Joshua had
commanded the sun and the moon to stand
still) and receiving a revelation that the
moon is the clue to it all.
Without telling us how long they played
twenty-questions with god after receiving
this clue, the Halls proceeded to prove that
the sun goes around the earth. Marshall had
hardly launched into his "proof" before his
train of thought became derailed. He groped
for words and stalled. He couldn't find a way
to pass the ball to Sandra. Soon he was
weeping openly, announcing that god "any
November, 1984

minute now" was going to give him the right

words.
God not getting involved quickly enough,
however, Sandra got back into the show
and told that they had watched an eclipse of
the sun in which the moon's "shadow" had
moved the wrong way! (She never made it
clear when she was talking about the moon's
blackened image viewed against the sun,
and when she was talking of the eclipse
shadow moving across the earth's surface.)
Hope springing up eternal, she took two
styrofoam cups and tried to model the
motions of the sun and moon during the
eclipse. Marshall stopped crying and gave
encouragement.
But alas! Within another minute both
were hopelessly befuddled by the Satanic
counterfeit. Not only could they not realize
that when facing the sun their left hands had
faced east, but that when turning their
backs to the sun (and the audience) their left
hands were pointing west, they also seemed
to be unaware that the pinhole cameras
commonly used to view eclipses also reverse left and right. When their time ran out,
they could only announce that they had
given everybody the key with which to
unlock the treasure chest of astronomical
knowledge, and they implored those with
the experience in the subject to go for it. But
not even the Ph.D astronomer tried to bail
them out. Not one of the Christian scientists present offered to "throw out the lifeline" to save the sinking savants.
As if the geocentrists were not atavism
enough, E.W. Faulstich - proprietor of the
Chronology-History Research Institute in
Rossie, Iowa - took us still farther into the
Dark Ages with his computer studies of
"Moses the Astronomer and Historian Par
Excellence." According to his computations, the chronology in Luke's Gospel is
wrong 0), and the dates in "Moses" are
correct. As it turns out, Archbishop Ussher
was almost correct when he decided the
earth was created in 4.004 B.C. The true
date, according to Faulstich, is 4,001 B.C.
Sunday, March 17th, to be precise.
When I asked him if there were any other
flaws in Luke, and if he could explain why
Matthew's genealogy so totally contradicted
Luke's, he replied with the stock apologetic
that one genealogy goes through Mary and
one through Joseph. (Of what value a
Joseph genealogy would be if Jesus were
born of a virgin was not adressed.) I firmly
asserted
that both genealogies
went
Page 13

through Joseph, and the biblicists changed

the subject.
Of especial importance to me personally
was the paper given by a Mr. Hugh Miller, a
fellow resident of Columbus, Ohio. We had
previously dueled on local editorial pages
concerning alleged human footprints in Cretaceous rocks containing dinosaur trackways, discovered some years ago near the
Paluxy creek in Texas.
Being quite familiar with photographs of
the alleged human tracks, I had asserted in
print that some of the tracks were forgeries,
some were actually imprints of single toes of
dinosaurs, and that others were nothing at
all - merely irregular erosion surfaces in
which the creationists, in their ardor to save
their faith, fancied to make out human
tracks.
Miller had castigated me in the papers for
writing about the tracks when I had not been
to the Texas site and had seen only photographs. My rebuttals - to the effect that the
photographs were more adequate for the
purpose of identifying the species of mental
aberration involved - had not been deemed
worthy of publication in the august pages of
the Columbus papers.
I was still chafing with frustration from the
fact that Miller had the last word on the
tracks when, late on Friday morning, Miller
rose to deliver a paper entitled "Progress
Report of the July 6, 1983, Excavation of a
Human Fossil Footprint and Other Current
Research Activities." I had already read the
pitifullyilliterate Proceedings version of the
paper (co-authored by Miller together with
Jerry Wegner, a Ph.D. in entomology from
Ohio State University and the nominal leader of Columbus creationists, Daryl Craw-

mer, a "research scientist," and Jeff Green,

a photographer), and I was waiting anxiously to see ifI could tell in which sleeve the
magician kept his cards.
As things developed, I had no cause for
concern. Miller's slides were almost indescribably unimpressive. They were so bad, in
fact, that one slide - previously identified as
being a human handprint - was several
times referred to as a footprint by Miller
himself! The casts that were exhibited were
either uninterpretable or were clearly singletoe imprints from tracks made by three- toed
dinosaurs. Each toe (see Figure) of this
species of reptile was about the size of a
man's foot. When the other two toeprints
and foot-pad imprint erode away, the isolated remaining toeprint vaguely looks like a
human footprint (on rare occasions, flaps of
skin running from the toe to the rest of the
foot may even leave imprints suggesting the
space between human toes). Of course the
distance between successive tracks reo
mains that which is standard for this species
of dinosaur: approximately seven feet! I wanted to ask if they had found any fossilized
track-hurdles, or evidence of pole-vaulting.
About half-way through the time allotted
for his presentation, Miller unexpectedly
relinquished the stage to his mentor, "Dr."
Carl Baugh, a preacher from Texas. Baugh
struck me as the very incarnation of P.T.
Barnum - with a bit of used-car salesman
added for the benefit of his customary
audiences.
Baugh, I suddenly realized, was the man I
had seen in the book-exhibit room during an
earlier coffee- break. Trying to raise money
for a "Christian Evidence Museum," of
which he is proprietor at a site in Texas near

the fossil track-ways, he was "giving away"

aluminum (l) casts of an alleged giant's
footprint to anyone "donating" $100 or
more to his museum fund!
This print, it may be noted, was the only
one of the bunch which I consider to be
fraudulent. The others are simply misunderstood or misinterpreted. Being at least
16 inches long, the 'bigfoot track' is as
perfect a giant's footprint as ever was sold at
the fair. It contrasts so starkly with the other
prints that one marvels at the credulity of
the 'creation scientists' who can believe that
both types come from that same source.
But back to Dr. Baugh's unscheduled
presentation.
Although not previously expected at this
convocation of creationist cognoscenti, he
had come to Columbus on a fundraising
mission and to play out what he considered
to be two new, trump cards: a couple of
fossils which he expected would exterrninate evolutionism within a few months. Presumably, his disciples in Columbus had
persuaded him to bring his treasures to the
Cleveland meeting.
With the total self-assurance common to
all snake-oil salesman, Baugh announced
that he had found two "travertine" skulls
which had weathered out of the same Cretaceous bedrock that held the dinosaur
tracks. One of these skulls, he said, was that
of a cat - replete with teeth still preserving
dental enamel. The other - gasp! - was
the skull of a human child! Or, ifnot a human
skull, at least a primate. The Alley-Oop
comics had been right all along: 01' Oop and
Dinny did live together.
As his oration came to an end, Baugh told
us that he had, prior to show-time, shown

---I....

__

D-I-A-L--A-N---A-T-H-E-IS-T-I--a

The telephone listings below are the various serv.ices where you may listen to short comments on state/church
and/or viewpoints originated by the Atheist community.

separation

Tucson, Arizona
Orange County, California
San Francisco, California
Denver, Colorado
Tampa Bay, Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
Northern Illinois
Central Illinois
Des Moines, Iowa
Lexington, Kentucky
Boston, Massachusetts
Detroit, Michigan .. '
Minneapolis/St. Paul. Minn

(210)
(505)
(518)
(702)
(614)
(405)
(503)
(512)
(713)
(713)
(801)
(703)

Page 14

(602)
(714)
(415)
(303)
(813)
(404)
(312)
(217)
(515)
(606)
(617)
(313)
(612)

623-3861
974-7110
668-8085
692-9395
577-7154
962-5052
772-8822
328-4465
266-6133
278-8333
969-2682
721-6630
566-3653

New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Schenectady, New'York
Sierra Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Columbus, Ohio
"
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Portland, Oregon
Austin, Texas DIAL-THE-ATHEIST
Houston, Texas
Dial-A-Gay-Atheist
Salt Lake City, Utah
Northern Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

November, 1984

issues
'

777-0766
884-7360
346-1479
972-8203
294-0300
677-4141
771-6208
458-5731
664-7678
527-9255
364-4939
280-4321

The American Atheist

the fossils to several of the authorities

present, and he called upon Dr. Wayne
Frair to endorse his wares. Dr. Frair, I must
pint out, is an authority on turtles and his
work is highly regarded by main-line scientists.
Obviously embarrassed by this turn of
events, Frair stood up, apparently not knowing how he had suddenly become attached
to Tarbaby, and, in an effort to get unstruck,
he stammered a bit and said he wasn't a
paleontologist or anatomist.
Baugh pressed him for an endorsement.
"Well, I think - the fossils are - very
interest mg."
Thus ended the testimony of the only
creationist present who could lay claim to
being a scientist at all. Dr. Frair sat down.
Jolted to the threshold of reality, Baugh
quicklyback-pedaled. "Well, of course, these
are only our preliminary findings. These
fossils will be studied by a scientist at a
medjcal school in Washington. D.C.." he
explained.
After Baugh's talk ended Emmanuel Sillman and I went up to examine these lithified
antidotes to Atheism more closely. Heathen
or holy, we were, it appears, the only
zoologists in the place.
As I took the alleged hominid skull into my
hands, I had to fight mightily against the
desire to fall on the floor in a fit of twitching,
jerking, and laughing. Manny, too, was
having a hard time maintaining his composure. For the "fossils" were nothing of the
sort.
Not only were we not holding cat and
human skulls, we weren't even holding
fossils!These pseudofossils, which had been
touted as the refutation of evolution, were
merely silicified limestone nodules which
had been weathered out of the Texas bedrock. Their like can be found by the millions
in every limestone terrane. The silica areas
are resistant to weathering, and the limestone parts are not. As a consequence,
intricately fissured and sculpted objects
may be formed which resemble clowns,
gremlins, doughnuts, etc. The only thing
remarkable about these particular nodules
was the fact that they had fooled a whole
passel of people over the age of twelve.
Such pseudofossils can be diagnosed with
certainty for a number of reasons. First of
all, anyone trained in field geology (as I am)
encounters their like all the time, and one
grows accustomed to finding an entire spectrum of such objects. Most of these are
amorphous, but a fairly consistant percentage bear a striking resemblance to known
objects. Secondly, Baugh, while stumping
for money in Columbus, had the two nodules cut in half with a rock-saw!
The sectioning of the nodules proved
beyond doubt that they were not skulls. The
internal matrix rock was absolutely uniform
(except for a few randomly distributed solution cavities) right up to within a millimeter
of the surface. There was no internal strucAustin, Texas

been so poignantly sad, to see these pitiful

ture corresponding to any putative external
Canutes, at this late hour, enthroned in'
structures. If, for example, a surface feature
were, say, a frontal bone, internal features of solemn state upon the shore of time, bidding
the great wave of scientific truth and prosuch a bone should be visible in the crossgress to stay and come no farther.
section. But of course, no such features
Hankering after simpler times, they vainly
were visible. The existing shapes of the
try to force the world into biblical bounds.
nodules wera.purely the result of weathering.
Unfortunately, they choose to call their
procrustean product "science."
While the sectioning of the nodules was a
great service to debunkers of creationism,
viewed in a broader context it was an act of
appalling wantonness. It is inconceivable
that a real paleontologist finding, for example, the first Zinjanthropus skull, would saw
it in half - thus losing precious pieces of an
osteological puzzle.
Baugh told me that the saw had cut a cleft
about a quarter of an inch wide through the
nodules! This is more than enough to destroy a molar tooth, a structure capable of
revealing enormous amounts of information
to a good paleontologist.
It is distressing in the extreme to realize
that creationists ignorant of the most elementary paleontological procedures are
swarming over the paleontological preserves of this country with bulldozers,
shovels, and saws. Although I have no
evidence that they have, as yet, done any
serious damage, the probability is very high
that they will do so in the future.
To give just a single possible example:
Although the Cretaceous period was the
Figure 1. Diagram of a track of a threelast major period in which the dinosaurs
toed dinosaur. The darker the hatching, the
ruled the earth, primitive mammals did exist
deeper the imprint likely to be formed.
at that same time. In fact, the ancestors of
the present-day orders of mammals were
C = claw
present as small, retiring, rodent -sized creaT = toe
tures engaged in the full-time pursuit of
FP = footpad
avoiding the undersides of dinosaur feet.
SF = skin-fold imprints.
With few exceptions, these critically important forms are known almost entirely from
It may be noted that that when the clawisolated teeth and tooth-bearing jaw frag- marks and foot-pad imprint fail to show up,
ments.1t is not inconceivable, however, that
we are left with three marks which vaguely
a relatively complete skull of such a creature
resemble a human foot. In some cases, the
willbe found, and the Paluxy area is as likely impression of the toe on the right continues
a place as any to find it. Enter Dr. Baugh
as a long ridge, resulting in a 'giant's' footwith his slab-saw ...
print. ~
Although I know time-travel is not a
possibility, the two days spent in Seven Hills
*Geocentric theory: earth is the center of the
Ohio were indeed a trip into the past. Overt
universe.
religiosity - evangelism, in fact - mixed
with some of the finest scientific thinking of
the Sixth Century. Rev. John Dempster
gave "scientific proof" of Christ's resurrection, and Duane Gish continued to misABOUT THE AUTHOR
understand Nineteenth Century thermodynamics. Eighteen spiritual des endents of
Frank Zindler was formerly'
Martian Luther nailed their theses to the
Chairman of the Division of
office-door of the Nobel Committee.
Science, Nursing and Technology
Together pitted against all the Nobelists
at Fulton-Montgomery College, a branch
alive today, against every scientific society
of the State University of New York.
of substance on this planet, and against the
Frank recently retired from teaching
accumulated knowledge of the ages, these
to join a private industry group.
bibliolaters declared their judgment against
His degrees are in geology and biology,
all the fruits of man's mental labor: Astronhis research in brain physiology.
omy ... wrong! Biology ... guilty!Geology ..
He is adept in a dozen languages .
. a fraud!
It would have been laughable, had it not
November, 1984

Page 15

William B. Whitworth

IMMORALITY OF CHRISTIANITY
(Reprinted from The Free Humanist, March, 1963)

belief in God can be a harmless

superstition or it can be a demoralizing
way of life.Deism, which assumes that there
is a power behind the universe about which
nothing can be known, is relatively harmless. But theism, the fundamental tenet of
the Christian religions, teaches the existence of a personal, human deity - the
Heavenly Father, the Earthly Son. This
doctrine, I believe, is responsible to a large
degree for lowering of our moral standards.
The attitude a person takes toward religion carries over into his attitude toward
society. So let us examine Christianity and
its theistic beliefs. Suppose a Christian sins
against his church. Does he pay the consequences? No. He appeals directly to the
Heavenly Authority, or to a vested intermediary, and is forgiven. Suppose he wants
help, he prays for special attention and
believes that he is granted divine favors.
Transfer this religious thinking to social
thinking and what do we have? Suppose a
man breaks a civillaw. He may get a parking
ticket, or a ticket for speeding, or he may be
guilty of a more serious crime. He runs to his
politician as he ran to his preist in religious
matters, and this intermediary between him
and the courts gets him off the hook. Sometimes the politician needs the man's votes;
at other times the politician is paid, like the
priest, to intercede with higher authority.
Favors for a price are offered by the
churches. For instance, Catholics are taught
that a deceased's chances after death can
be improved by the payment of money for
masses. A high mass costs more than a low
mass and of course improves the chances
for leniency for the departed. Smaller payments willpurchase a priest's prayers, (called spiritual bouquets) but of course don't
carry the weight with the heavenly father
that a high mass does.
In like manner we get favors from our
politicians. by the payment under the table
for special permits, special jobs, special
number plates on our cars. Try to get a
three or four number plate on your car and
you willfind out what the present "payoff'
is. For us to ask for these favors and for the
politician to grant them, 'is immoral. But
since this immoral practice is imbedded in
Page 16

religion, it is only natural that we should

expect to find it in our civil life.
What twisted thinking these Christians
have! They believe that god can be influenced to treat a departed soul more kindly
than another because a priest said a few
masses! But such is the case! A Christian
believes that his god's judgment can be
altered by the payment of a tribute; that one
can. sin and, by appealing to a heavenly
authority, can be forgiven; that his prayers
can bring special favors, while his neighbor
who didn't pray gets nothing.
While blindly believing that his god
KNOWS ALL, he informs him o] his plight!
How ridiculous! He prays for help because
he doen't trust his heavenly father to help
him without being asked! Like a hungry
child who has to ask his father for food even
though he knows that his father is aware of
his hunger.
How a Christian can continue to believe
in the justice and morality of this kind of a
deity is beyond me. But believing it as he
does, he quite naturally believes that this

November, 1984

kind of immorality is transferrable to society. Therefore he courts the favor of his

politicians as he courts the favors of his god.
He relieves himself of his responsibility for
crimes by appeals and payment of money, in
the same manner that he gets absolution
from his priest. And believes that those who
don't know anybody or don't have the
money are rightfully out of luck.
Ifa religion should emerge that teaches its
followers that it is immoral to seek forgiveness; that it is their duty to be punished for
their transgressions; that to get more than
they deserve, or even to wish for more, is
dishonest; that we must help ourselves and
stand or fall on our own efforts without
appealing for supernatural assistance; then
that religion would not pass on its immorality to society, and, while being completely
ridiculous in many of its other teachings,
would at least not be harmful.
Until such a time, a great deal of the
immorality in public office and the growing
immorality of our citizenry can be laid at the
doorstep of Christianity. ~

The American Atheist

Austin, Texas

November, 1984

Page 17.

A BOY NAMED THOMAS, A true story / Lowell Newby

One upon a time there lived a boy named Thomas. Thomas was a good little boy. even down deep. He loved
people and plants and animals, and he had such an immense sympathy for things that were in pain that he felt
sorry for the rocks because they had to stay outside in winter and for old cans and bottles because nobody wanted
them. Sometimes he even cried when a cartoon character got hurt or when Roy Rogers got hit over the head with a
gun butt.
When Thomas was four or maybe five, he went to Vacation Bible School and made Indian headresses out of
colored paper. He also ate cookies, and drank Keel-Ald. and learned about the Bible. The most important thing
that he learned from the Bible was that Jesusis strong and good and that he loves little children. One day Thomas
asked his teacher where Jesus lives. She said that Jesus lives in the hearts of children who obey him. Thomas
became very happy because he thought that he had a new playmate to help occupy the long summer days at his
home in the country.
When Thomas was six, his mother bought a book of Bible stories for him. He enjoyed the stories in the book, but he
especially liked the colorful pictures of Noah's ark the good shepherd rescuing a lost lamb, and Daniel in the lions'
den. Often he would imagine that he could step into the pictures, and then he could almost sense the jagged rocks
under the shepherd's feet and the cries of the animals as they were being loaded into the ark.
The year that he started the first grade, Thomas heard a preacher say that only the church would go to heaven.
He imagined a happy scene in which hundreds of church buildings were setting on fluffy white clouds in a blue sky.
But then the preacher said that all those who were not ready to meet Jesuswould have to live forever in a lake ot
fire. Thomas wondered if he was ready. When he got home, he hid under the bed. The next Sunday when his family
didn't go to church because of a thunderstorm, he got sick because he was afraid that the rain would never end,
and he knew that he wasn't ready to meet Jesus.
When Thomas was ten, he built a cardboard pulpit behind his house, decorated it with wisteria flowers, and
preached to his friends. His mother became concerned when she saw him giving communion with grape juice and
saltines, but the preacher told her that their god wouldn't mind. He also told her that she should be proud that her
son was wanting to become involved in the work of the Lord.
When Thomas was twelve, he started to take an active part in church affairs. At first he only passed the collection
plate from row to row, but before long he was being asked to direct singing, to lead in prayer, and to go with the
preacher to visit sick people. When he was fourteen, he began to preach short sermons in church and over the local
radio station. Sometimes he even got to accompany the preacher to revival meetings in far away states.
Thomas' church was the important thing in his life. All of his best friends went to the same church, and what tun
they had going skating or on a hayride together. Because his grandfather and his great-grandfather
were
preachers, Thomas hoped that god would make him a preacher too. Sometimes he felt that god was inside his
heart, and it seemed as if he would burst with happiness. At other times he found it hard to believe in god because
god never actually spoke to him. He told the preacher about his doubts, and the preacher said that it was sinful to
want god to say something. He said that god only spoke to people like Moses and Paul because they didn't have
the complete Bible, but having given us the complete Bible, god has nothing more to say. That made sense to
Thomas, sort ot. but he still wished that god would say something, anything, just once. That way there would be no
more doubt.
When Thomas was seventeen, some of the things that the Church of Christ believes began to bother him. The idea
that his god would send people to hell for being sprinkled instead of immersed or for playing a piano during a
church service seemed unfair. His preacher reminded him that the Bible is clear about what god expects of us,and
that only wicked people would do otherwise - people who deserve to go to hell. Thomas imagined that such a
concept made god seem like a school teacher who murdered people for talking during study period or for being
late to class.For a while he tried to change his church's beliefs by writing articles for the church newsletter, but when
none of his articles were printed, and when no one would listen to his "radical" ideas, he quit attending services.
Many of his church friends never spoke to him again.
When Thomas was eighteen he went to college. It was a Methodist school. and many of the people there were
studying to be preachers or missionaries. Because it was a small school. the dean of students was also head of the
theology department. He and Thomas became friends, and when he found out about Thomas' disillusionment with
the Church of Christ and his growing disillusionment with Christian doctrine in generaL he invited him to take some
of his courses, free. Thomas did this, but instead of answering his questions about love, and mercy, and justice, and
why god really doesn't talk to people anymore, the courses only caused him to have even more questions. Only
now he knew how to ask his questions using big words like eschatology, hcrnortioloqy. and soterioloqy. At times the
big words made him feel smart because ordinary people would just look at him and not know what to say. But at
other times he felt overcome by emptiness, and he knew that he was using his education as a front to hide his
feeling of desperation.
Thomas read the writings of everyone from St.Paul to St.Augustine to Paul Tillich to Joseph Fletcher, thinking that
surely within the nearly twenty centuries of Christian apologetics there had to be rational answers to his questions,
but he found none. He also "rededicated his life to the Lord" several times each year but felt nothing. He was told by
the dean that, "faith is the only key to victory in Jesus." and that if he would ever once let go of his doubts that they
would drift away in the "blood of the Lamb." But Thomas knew from reading the Bible that faith is also a gift, a gift
that he was losing a little more of each day. Meanwhile the doubts clung and multiplied like barnacles.
Once Thomas even decided that maybe he had committed the unpardonable sin without knowing it. That
would explain why god never seemed real to him anymore. But since nobody knows exactly what the
unpardonable sin is,he couldn't be sure. When he talked to the dean about his fear, the dean told him that he had
nothing to worry about because the fact that he still wanted to find god meant that the Holy Spirit was alive in his
heart.

When Thomas was twenty-one, he decided that he might be able to regain his faith if he started going to church
again. He wasn't sure which church was best so he visited nearly forty different ones. He finally joined the Episcopal
Church because he liked its decorative
buildings, its liturgical form of worship, and the fact that the people were
mostly educated and liberal minded.
For a while after he joined the Episcopal Church, Thomas was very happy. A friend gave him a silver cross and a
monogrammed
prayer book, and his intense involvement
in his new religion made it seem so real that he almost
felt as if he were a little boy again. His old doubts didn't go away, but he stayed so busy that he didn't think about
them much anymore. Besides acting as an acolyte, Thomas served on several different committees and visted new
members and the sick. He also made a hobby of studying famous church figures and visiting historic church
buildings. Ai one time, he even thought about becoming
a priest. but he finally decided that he had become too
shy to talk to a whole church full of people at once.
As the years passed, the old questions that Thomas had tried to shut out began to creep back into his mind. He
prayed for answers, but the answers didn't come. Sometimes he would get out his Bible, say a prayer and then with
his eyes closed, open the Bible and point to a verse. Only once did the verse that he pointed to make any sense. All
of the other times, the passage would be part of a genealogy
or maybe a description
of a battle or a miracle.
Suddenly he didn't feel god in church anymore, and he wodered if. all along, he had not really been worshipping
the building and the liturgy and all the little trinkets like patens and chalices and the carvings of the stations of the
cross.
Once again Thomas quit going to church, only this time he never went back. But because he was still searching
for god, he began reading books by people like Alan Watts, who had given up western Christianity for a more
mystical blend of Far Eastern religion. Its teachings were somewhat satisfying for a while, but eventually their talk
of trusting in a god of whom one cannot conceive in any way started to sound like piously decorated
nonsense.
After all, how is it possible to conceive of a god about whom one can have no conceptions when the affirmation
of
his existence is a conception
in itself? And doesn't trust in such a god necessarily imply a conception
about his
nature? Furthermore,
upon what is this trust based in a natural order in which life is obviously
of so little
importance? The more he studied theology, the more he wondered how anyone could believe such foolishness. Of
course, like the Christians, the Eastern mystics' had that base covered by claiming that what seemed like foolishness
was actually wisdom when seen from a higher spiritual plane.
It was about this time that someone recommended
to Thomas that he read the works of Richard Alpert and
Timothy Leary. When he did he discovered that here was a road to contact with a god that demanded
as its first
premise, not gullibility, but rather courage and an open mind. In the months that followed he smoked marijuana
and hashish, and he also ate psilocybe mushrooms and took 1.S.D. Sometimes the drugs that he took made him
laugh, and at other times they made him cry. One morning at sunrise after he had been tripping all night. he saw a
huge tree dancing gracefully
across a pasture. Another time he watched terrified as hideous faces full of hatred
rushed out at him from within a candle flame. On several occasions he heard unearthly music coming from such
places as toilet bowls and electric heaters. But he never saw god and he never felt that god was near.
When Thomas was twenty-six, he became an agnostic, if indeed he had not been one all along. He no longer
really believed in god, but still there was the question of whence everything came, and god seemed as good a
solution to the problem as any. There was one thing that Thomas felt sure of. though, and that was that if there were
a god, he/she/it took no personal interest in our little comer of the universe. With this thought in mind, he went for
several years without thinking about god or religion at -cll, The possible existence of god became just another
interesting cosmic theory with no more immediate
importance
than the origin of black holes, or whether there is
life on Mars.
As time passed, Thomas moved gently, almost imperceptibly,
toward the atheistic end of the agnostic scale. But
instead of being miserable for not believing
in god, as the preachers always said a person would be, he was
happier
than ever. That was because he was finally free of the agonizing
struggle between
reason and
observation on one side, and the demands of a blind (and therefore irrational)
faith on the other. As for his attitude
toward the church, he admired
the good that it did, such as building hospitals and orphanages,
but he was
saddened that such inherently good works were prompted
by such a deluded motive as thE1saving of souls.
By the time Thomas was thirty, he was becoming
increasingly
alarmed by the many ways the church tries to
intrude its beliefs upon the public. He began to see such things as blue laws, censorship, anti-abortionism,
creationism within the schools, and the school prayer movement as steps toward replacing our democratic
system
of government with a theocracy.
When Thomas was thirty-three, Ronald Reagan was elected president. Reagan's continual talk of god together
with his frequent statements to the effect that freedom from religion is not guaranteed
by the Constitution made it
obvious that his goal was to make patriotic Americanism
and conservative Protestantism synonymous. Because this
goal was shared by most of the people in Thomas' hometown in south Mississippi. Thomas began to feel more and
more like an alien in his own country. He saw plainly for the first time that the masses of his neighbors have no
conception of real freedom; to them freedom is only a word that means the power to impose their own prejudices
on everyone else. He felt powerless and alone, but the thought occured to him that surely, somewhere there must
be an organization
of people who felt as he did, people who were willing to fight not for the power to force their
views about religion on other people, but merely for the right to be left alone. His search for such an organization
began in the reference section of the public library. It ended when he received his first informational
packet from
the Society of Separationists.
Thomas' escape from religion was not an easy one, but he does not regret it because it has made him a better
person. StilL he wonders at times: what if all of those hours, and days, and years, that were spent entangled
in
Christian mythology
had been spent reading
great books, or studying nature, or going to art galleries, or
practicing the writing the he loves so well; what would his life be like now? How much more intelligent. how much
better educated in ways that matter, would he be? He can only wonder, and maybe feel just a little bit sad.

Austin, Texas

November, 1984

'r

CONFESSION - Mike Kennedy

<:

"Forgive me, master, for I have a sin."

"Excuse me," begged the priest, "But I'm not the
master. I'm just a servant of the lord."
"Well then," said L "forgive me, servant for I have a
sin."
"Excuse me again:' begged the priest "You may
refer to me as 'Father'."
"Father!" said L aghast at the impudent assertion,
"Look if you're suggesting that my mother "done it"
with a servant and that my real dad didn't do the job
himself. I'm going to have to call you outside. I'm no
bastard and even if I were I'm not here to confess my
predecessor's sins."
The priest said, "I don't understand."
I said, "Then you carry the same sin as 1."
The priest said, "What do you mean? What seems to
be your problem?"
I said, "There won't be any problem if you agree to
forgive my sin."
The priest queried, "You speak as if you have only
one sin."
"Only one that concerns you:' said L "The rest are
scattered as opportunity dictated, across a random
and diverse populace. We won't pretend you can
forgive the sins I earned wronging
other people
whom you don't even know, so we'll omit those sins
from this trcnscction. Besides most of my other sins are
not yet due for rotation."
The priest asked, "You're content to live with your

carried a sin I conceived upon myself from Church

teachings: the sin of the missing mass. At the time I was
eight years old and Unable to determine whether that
sin truly merited storage or if it should be brushed off
like so much dirt. I was told it was a sin by those
purportedly pious, whom I trusted, yet it didn't sit quite
right with me. But I kept the sin on just to be on the safe
side. And each week as I missed another mass my sin
would grow larger taking up more and more conscience space. Naturally when I was older I realized
that conscience space was finite and sins such as
missing indoctrination
sessions and cult ish rituals
could effectively clog up my conscience. I knew that
real sins,obscured by Church 'ordained' sins,could go
by unnoticed and hence uncorrected. Therefore I
discarded that sin and set myself the task of discarding
other 'ordained' sins based on bane imperialistic
Church concepts. Since that time I review my sins
regularly and forgive myself my erroneous or outmoded sins. Thus my visit here today. I need help
getting a particular sin out of the way so I can replace
it with a newer, updated, version."
The priest said in a peevish tone, "Simply preposterous, unheard 01.totally unorthodox. Why the procedure you have described is a sin in itself. I can do
nothing for you."
I said, "Then you cannot forgive sins?"
The priest said righteously, "Of course I can."
"Good:' said L "Forgive me for I am an agnostic."
. ?"
The priest said, "An agnostic, shocking. Such sin as
SIns.
that cannot be forgiven. Only the sins of believers can
"Yes," said L "as 10n(J as they serve me well.
be forgiven."
Guidelines they are of personal reprimand, formuI said, "If I was a believer I wouldn't have this
lated and maintained to promote utilization of more
particular sin."
altruistic behaviorisms. But as all things must fall, even
The priest said, "Then clearly you must accept
my sins,as the lessons they represent are learned, lose
Catholicism. "
their purpose and form, eventually to be brushed oft
"Why, already it's done:' said L "I have accepted
replaced with newer, fresher, more obscure sins."
The priest said knowingly in the forced voice of Catholicism as part of my new concept."
"Well." said the priest "that is a start. How did you
uncertainty, "You can't replace sins. Sins are forever.
accept CatholicismT
You cannot simply grow out of them."
"As a disease:' said 1.
"Why not?" asked L "They're just a concept subject
"WhatT cried the priest voice quivering in outrage.
to my interpretation.
Like any concept they have
Attempting to be helpful, I clarified, "as a plague
values accorded in transient degrees. They must be
upon mankind."
reappraised according to the interpreter's fluxuating
The priest said, "Heaven forbid, I cannot be exexperience, education and evolving conscience. I
pected to forgive a non-believer who possessessuch a
carry them until they get old and tarnished and
deprecioted and aren't worth the display space they . contrary attitude."
I said, "I don't believe you. I believe that before I
occupy, then I replace them."
The priest whispered, "You cannot do that."
leave this place you will forgive my sin. For if my sin is
"But I do:' said 1.
not forgiven I shall add another to keep it company."
Asked the priest "Do you threaten meT
The priest said, "That's preposterous. Sins last not
I asked, "Do you remember a child whom you
until you choose to discharge them but until such time
deceived with your pernicious dogma. A boy who
as the Church sees fit to forgive them."
was small and all too trusting and ignorant? Would
"Not mine:' said L "When they stockpile too high
and start getting in the way, inhibiting growth, out they
you feel threatened if that boy grew to a man and
came to visit you and ask your forgivenessT
go. Out out out! like yesterday's newspaper, read,
The priest said, "I don't know what you're driving at
understood, contemplated and disgarded. Out with
and I don't care. But I do care about this holy church
the old sins and in with the new. For example, I once

and cannot see how your presence can be tolerated

within its holy walls. This temple of god is out of limits
for such as you. You must be gone from this place, you
do not belong here."
"Look servant" said I. "I agree with you a hundred
percent. I fully realize this place is from the outer limits
and I'm not far enough gone to belong here. I also
realize you care more for your walls of god than the
words and fate of men. You see, that is my sin."
The priest had a feeling of testing the water with his
toe before the big plunge as he carefully asked,
"What do you mean?"
"Well." said L "Its because of servants such as
yourself and your comrades up and down the hierarchy, who profess the imaginary to propagate the
patronage of these insane asylums, which you franchise for profit that I have determined to trade in my
sin. I no longer, with a clear conscience, profess
agnosticism. I was born into Catholicism, parentally
molded Catholic, schooled and catechismed Catholic and it wasn't until I was ten or twelve that I had
wisdom enough to doubt those collective forces. Now I
am a man and I have the strength to openly defy and
cast off their insanities. I have experienced religion in
it's array of manifest incongruity. I have noted the
absolute absence of scientific factual foundation. And
I have determined beyond a doubt that my agnostic
belief was an error. Or a sin, if you will. I beg
forgiveness so that I may remove that sin and replace
it with one more fitting to my new beliefs."
The priest said, "You wish for me to forgive you for
embracing the philosphical doctrines of nescience"
so you can thereby be freed to pursue other sins?"
I informed him, "Pursuit won't be necessary. I already have the replacement sin ready and waiting. I
just need a little help getting my old sin off main stage
and into the reservoir of antiquated sins."
The priest said, "You talk as if this sin of yours has lost
its value."
I said, "Of course it has, within the context of my
interpretation. "
The priest asked, with growing caution, "Which is?"
I said, "That agnosticism does not recognize your
institution as inherently evil. Therefore what your
church espouses as evil could actually be the inverse
- good. Sin is but a concept and let us not pretend that
the Church is concerned with reconciling its concepts
with morality."
The priest mentally measured the distance to the
door and simultaneously wondered if he served time
enough in the cloth to fear not hell. Or if that time spent
meant he truly should fear hell. He wondered why this
stranger was confusing him. With a hint of desperation
in his voice he asked, "What do you want from me?"
"Forgiveness," said I.
"Very well," Said the priest questioning fear in his
voice, "you are forgiven."

Austin, Texas
-'

"That sounded forced," said L "I would rather you

saw fit of your own free will to forgive me."
"What does it matter?" cried the priest.
"It is more fitting," I said, "considering that you, of
your own free will participated
in forgiving me my
sin."
"Very well," said the priest "I forgive you your sin."
"Thank you, servant" said L standing to leave, "I
bear now a more deserving sin and I thank you for it. I
shall never forget how you, here in this domicile of
lunacy, helped me this day sling off an old sin and
bestow upon me a new sin."
The priest said, "All I did was forgive you for being
an agnostic."
I said, "And in doing so you cleared the way for my
new belief."
.
The priest asked, "What belief is that?"
"Atheism," said I.
The priest stood white faced, he pleaded, "now you
require even greater forgiveness."
"No," said I.
The priest said, "But what of your Catholic upbringing?"
"That is your sin," said I.

'1
"

.
sr:J.t.

Po

'

\.

.s~"&t

"But what of forgiveness," asked the priest.

"I do not choose to give it" said I. I departed.
"nescience -lack

of knowledge; ignorance; agnosticism.

What I Believe

Greek and Roman gods, which were mere personifications of certain

qualities or unexplainable phenomena. Why should we believe in our
Christ who was seemingly so perfect that people began to worship him?
Religion belongs to an era of ignorance and as we enter a new
scientific age there is no room for ancient ceremony that binds
individuals and influences the laws of society. We do not need someone
on whom to rest responsibility and to whom we run with problems, for
although people can claim to have been guided by god, their decisions
are made unconsciously by themselves.
If there is but one god why are there so many religions in the world?
We do not believe in other religions; so why believe in ours? Christianity
has stolen attributes of other religions and has woven them into the
story. How many people know that many other religionsclaim their
founders were born of virgins, that Buddha is supposed to have walked
on the water, that Christmas was a pagan festival and that Easter was
named after a god of the Norsemen, Eastre?
What man has accomplished is to no one's credit but his own.
Indeed, if one looks back in history, religion has always been a
reactionary force in disputes. Even today religion opposes change and
in the most religious countries poverty is widespread. Some wars were
caused by religion, and extreme cruelty has been practiced by religious
believers.
People still cling to the skirts of the fast disappearing nursemaid, who
is no longer needed in this age, but the children who ar.e growing up
now have no desire for religion. Soon, I believe, it willdisappear and no
longer stand in the way of progress.

Sheila Simons
I am fifteen years old, and for the past eleven years, I have attended
morning assemblies at school, recited the Lord's Prayer and gone to
Sunday school and occasionally to church as part of an understood
routine ..All the time I was told how all-merciful and kind god was and
how he loved each one of us. This I accepted until I began to be
conscious of the world around me.
From that time I began to find it impossible to believe in an all-loving
god who allowed war, floods, earthquakes and all types of disasters in a
world he is supposed to have created. People say that man is
responsible for much of the misery and, although this is true in many
cases, why does not god intervene and help us? Children die of hunger
and disease, and are left orphans by war. Are they somehow
overlooked by this great creator whose supposedly only son once said,
"Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such
is the kingdom of heaven."?
I was also told that I must be meek and humble but I find these
qualities undesirable in human beings. When I look back and see what
man has achieved I realize that he is not a creature to prostrate himself
before an imaginary being, and to crawl through life,afraid and worried
in case he willnot qualify for heaven.
I believe that all gods of all people were invented because of fear born
of ignorance. It is well known that early man worshipped the sun and
moon and rain - things he did not understand. Science banished his
fears and with them went the numerous gods. Around these ancient
gods fantastic stories were built, but these are now only regarded as
legends. Is our god so different from theirs? We do not believe in the

From: The Freethinker, London, England, January 17, 1964 edition.

.: .
.::' .

~-r------------------------~

JOSEPH LEWIS
Enemy of
God
from a b
.

[Excerpt
Mass Th S
ook by Arthur
.
e tratford Co
mpany,

H H
. owland Bo t
1932]
,s
on,

. ~e nOW Come to the f

mInIng factor in his cha rst definitely deterfi~eof IngerSoll struck a raner an? work. The
mInd and spirit He
n answenng fire in his
g

.
never s
N
rear
Inteenth C
aw or heard. the
b h
entury A
.
u r IS books roUsed hi
T ~encan infidel,
th~ ~ge of twelve_a
m." hIS Was at about
relzgIon. His b h real conversion" to .
d .
rot et N
h
Ira mIrer of IngerSOll's' w .a~, ad become an
the bOoks home
fItIngs and, bringing
th'
, spen t ma
h
em aloud to his
h ny ours reading
alnd Soon began to ~~t he~.Joseph listened,
a oud . Th' e majestic ph e IS tUrn
.
- a t readIng
~f ~e. fighting human~:se~, th~ Warm spirit
oy s Imagination
d a~an Inflamed the
wo~ld be like In
an hIS ambition. He
his work.
gersoll and try to carrYon

November, 1984

-:

The Boyhood of Charles Bradlaugh

Now came the time when the little Charles Bradlaugh should put aside his childhood and make a beginning
in the struggle for existence. His earnings were required to help in supplying the needs of the growing family;
and at twelve years of age he was made office boy with a salary of five shillings a week at Messrs. Lepard's,
where his father was confidential clerk. In later years, in driving through London with him, he has many a time
pointed out to me the distances he use to run to save the omnibus fare allowed him. If he had to cross the
water he would run round by London Bridge to save the toll. The money thus saved he would spend on books
at secondhand bookstalls, outside of which he might generally be found reading at any odd moment of leisure.
One red-letter day his firm sent him on an errand to the company of which Mr. Mark E. Marsden was the
secretary. Mr. Marsden, whose name will be remembered and honored by many forhis unceasing efforts for
political and social progress, chatted with the lad, asking him many questions, and finished up by giving him a
bun and half-a-crown. As both of these were luxuries which rarely came in the office boy's way, they made a
great impression on him. He never forgot the incident, although it quite passed out of Mr. Marsden's mind,
and he was unable to recall it when the two became friends in after years.
The errand-running
came to an end when my father was fourteen, at which age he was considered of
sufficent dignity to be promoted to the office of wharf clerk and cashier to Messrs. Green, Son, & Jones, coal
merchants at Britannia Fields, City Road, at a salary of eleven shillings a week. About this time, too, partly
impelled by curiosity and swayed by the fervor of the political movement then going on around him, but also
undoubtedly with a mind prepared for the good seed by the early talks with old Mr. Brand, he went to several
week-evening meetings then being held in Bonner's Fields and elsewhere. It was in 1847 that he first saw
William Lovett, at a Chartist meeting. His Sundays were devoted to religion; from having been an eager and
exemplary Sunday school scholar he had now become a most promising Sunday school teacher; so that
although discussions were held at Bonner's Fields almost continually through the day every Sunday, they were
not for him: he was fully occupied with his duties at the Church of St. Peter's, in Hackney Road.
At this time the Rev. John Graham Packer was incumbent at St. Peter's; and when it was announced that
the Bishop of London intended to hold a confirmation at Bethnal Green, Mr. Packer naturally desired to make
a good figure before his clerical superior. He therefore selected the best lads in his class for confirmation, and
bade them prepare themselves for the important occasion. To this end Charles Bradlaugh carefully studied and
compared the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England and the four Gospels, and it was not long before
he found, to his dismay, that they did not agree, and that he was totally unable to reconcile them. "Thorough"
in this as in all else, he was anxious to understand the discrepancies he found and to be put right. He therefore,
he tells us, "ventured to write Mr. Packer a respectful letter, asking him for his aid and explanation."
Instead
of help there came a bolt from the blue. Mr. Packer had the consummate folly to write Mr. Bradlaugh senior,
denouncing his son's inquiries as Atheistical, and followed up his letter by suspending his promising pupil for
three months from his duties of Sunday-school teacher.
This three months of suspension was pregnant with influence for him; for one thing it gave him opportunities
which he had heretofore lacked, and thus brought him into contact with persons of whom up till then he had
scarcely heard. The lad, horrified at being called an Atheist, and forbidden his Sunday school, naturally shrank
from going to church. It may well be imagined also that under the ban of his parents' disapproval home was no
pleasant place, and it is little to be wondered at that he wandered off to Bonner's Fields. Bonner's Fields was in
those days a great place for open-air meetings. Discussions on every possible subject were held; on the week
evenings the topics were mostly political, but on Sundays theological or anti-theological discourses were as
much to the fore as politics. In consequence of my father's own theological difficulties, he was naturally
attracted to a particular group where such points were discussed with great energy Sunday after Sunday. After
listening a little, he was roused to the defense of his Bible and his Church, and, finding his tongue, joined in the
debate on behalf of orthodox Christianity.
The little group of Freethinkers to which Mr. Bradlaugh was thus drawn were energetic and enthusiastic
disiples of Richard Carlile. Their out-door meetings were mostly held at Bonner's Fields or Victoria Park, and
in the in-door meetings at a place known as Eree's Coffee House. In the year 1848 it was agreed that they
should subscribe together and have a Temperance Hall of their own for their meetings. To this end three of
them, Messrs. Barralet, Harvey, and Harris, became securities for the lease of No. I Warner Place, then a large
old-fashioned dwelling-house; and a hall was built out at the back. As the promoters were anxious to be of
service to Mrs. Shaples Carlile, who after the death of Richard Carlile was left with her three children in very
poor circumstances, they invited her to undertake the superintendence of the coffee room, and to reside at
Warner Place with her daughters Hypatia and Theophila and her son Julian.
When my father first met her, Mrs. Sharples Carlile, then about forty-five years of age, was a woman of
considerable attainments. She belonged to a very respectable and strictly religious family at Bolton; was
educated in the Church with her two sisters under the Rev. Mr. Thistlewaite; and to use an expression of her
own, was "quite an evangelical being, sang spiritual songs, and prayed myself into the grave almost." Her
mind, however, was not quite of the common order, and perhaps the excess of ardour with which she had

Austin, Texas .

thrown herself into her religious persuits made the recoil more easy and more decided. Be this as it may, it is
nevertheless remarkable that, surrounded entirely by the religious people, reading no anti-theological
literature,
she unaided thought herself out of "the doctrines of the Church." After some two-and-one-half-years
of this
painful evolution, accident made her acquainted with a Mr. Hardie, a follower of Carlile's. He seems to have
lent her what was at that time called "infidel literature," and so inspired her with the most ardent enthusiasm
for Richard Carlile, and in a less degree for the Rev. Robert Taylor. On the 11th January, 1832, whilst Carlile
was undergoing one of the many terms of imprisonment to which he was condemned for conscience' sake, Miss
Sharples came to London, and on the 29th of the same month she gave her first lecture at the Rotunda.
On the 11th of February this young woman of barely twenty-eight summers, but one month escaped from
the trammels of life in a country town, amidst a strictly religious environment, started a "weekly publication"
called Isis, dedicated to "The young women of England for generations to come or until superstition is extinct."
The Isis was published at sixpence, and contains many of Miss Sharples' discourses both on religious and
political subjects. In religion she was a Deist; in politics a Radical and Republican; thus following in the
footsteps of her leader Richard Carlile. I have been looking through the volume of the Isis; it is all very
"proper" (as even Mrs. Grundy would have to confess), and I am bound to say that the stilted phrases and
flowery turns of speech of sixty years ago are to me not a little wearisome; but with all its defects it is an
enduring record of the ability, knowledge, and courage of Mrs. Sharples Carlile. She reprints some amusing
descriptions of herself from the religious press; and were I not afraid of going too much out of my way, 1
would reproduce them here with her comments in order that we might picture her more clearly; but although
this would be valuable in view of the evil use made of her name in connection with her kindness to my father, it
would take me too far from the definite purpose of my work. In her preface to the volume, written in 1834, she
thus defends her union with Richard Carlile:
"There are those who reproach my marriage. They are scarcely worth notice; but this I have to say for
myself, that nothing could have been more pure in morals, more free from venality. It was not only a marriage
of two congenial spirits; or two minds reasoned into the same knowledge of true principles, each seeking an
object on which virtuous might rest, and grow, and strengthen. And though we passed over a legal obstacle, it
was only because it could not be removed, and was not in a spirit of violation of the law, nor of intended
offence or injury to anyone. A marriage more pure and moral was never formed and continued in England. It
was what marriage should be, though not perhaps altogether what marriage is in the majority of cases. They
who are married equally moral, will not find fault with mine; but where marriage is merely of the law or for
money, and not of the soul, there I look for abuse."
Of course, all this happened long before Mr. Bradlaugh became acquainted with Mrs. Carlile; when he knew
her, sixteen or seventeen years later, she was a broken woman, who had her ardour and enthusiasm cooled by
suffering and poverty, a widow with three children, of whom Hypatia, the eldest, could not have been more
than fourteen or fifteen years old at the most. I have been told by those who knew Mrs. Carlile in those days in
.spite of all this she still had a noble presence, and looked and moved "like a queen." Her gifts, however, they
said, with smiles, certainly did not lie in attending to the business of the coffee room - at that she was "no
good." She was quiet and reserved, and although Christians have slandered her both during her lifetime and up
till within this very year on account of her non-legalized union with Richard Carlile, she was looked up to and
revered by those who knew her, and never a whisper breathed against her fair fame.
Amongst the frequenters of the Warner Street Temperance Hall I find the names of Messrs. Harvey, Colin
Campbell, the brothers Savage, the brothers Barralet, Tobias Taylor, Edward Cooke, and others of whom
most Freethinkers have heard something. They seem to have been rather wild, compared with the sober dignity
of the John Street Institution, especially in the way of lecture bills with startling announcements,
reminding
one somewhat of the modern Salvation Army posters. The neighbourhood
looked with no favourable eye upon
the little hall, and I am told that one night, when a baby was screaming violently next door, a rumor got about
that the "infidels" were sacrificing a baby, and the place was stormed by an angry populace, who were with
difficulty appeased.
It was to this little group of earnest men that the youth Charles Bradlaugh was introduced in 1848, as one
eager to debate, and enthusiastically determined to convert them all to the "true religion" in which he had been
brought up. He discussed with Colin Campbell, a smart and fluent debater; he argued with James Savage, a
man of considerable learning, a cool and calm reasoner, and a deliberate speaker,whose
speech on occasion
was full of biting sarcasms; and after a discussion with the latter upon "The Inspiration of the Bible," my father
admitted that he was convinced by the superior logic of his antagonist, and owning himself beaten, felt obliged"
to abandon his defense of orthodoxy. Nevertheless, he did not suddenly leap into Atheism: his views were for a
little time inclined to Deism; but once started on the road of doubt, his careful study and - despite his youth
- judicial temper, gradually brought him to the Atheistic position. With Freethinkers of Warner Place he
became a teetotaller, which was an additional offence in the eyes of the orthodox; and while still in a state of
indecision on certain theological points, he submitted Robert Taylor's "Diegesis" to his spiritual director, the
Rev. J. G. Packer.

It is now the fashion to make Mr. Packer into a sort of scapegoat: his harsh reception of his pupil's questions
and subsequent ill-advised methods of dealing with him are censured, and he is in a manner made responsible
for my father's Atheism. If no other Christian had treated Mr. Bradlaugh harshly; every other clergyman had
dealt with him in kindly fasion; if he had been met with kindness instead of slanders and stones, abuse and illusage, then these censors of Mr. Packer might have some just grounds on which to reproach him for missing
his position; as it is, they should ask themselves which among them has the right to cast the first stone. The
notion that it was Mr. Packer's treatment of him that drove my father into Atheism is, I am sure.iabsolutely
baseless. Those who entertain this belief forget that Mr. Bradlaugh had already begun to compare and criticise
the various narratives in the four Gospels, and that it was on account of this (and therefore after it) that the
Rev. J. G. Packer was so injudicious as to denounce him asan Atheist, and to suspend him from his Sunday
duties. This harsh and blundering method of dealing with him no doubt hastened his progress towards
Atheism, but it assuredly did not induce it. It set his mind in a state of opposition to the Church as represented
by Mr. Packer, a state which the rev. gentleman seems blindly to have fostered by every means in his power;
and it gave him the opportunity of the Sunday's leisure to hear what Atheism really was, expounded by some
of the cleverest speakers in the Freethought movement at that time. But in spite of all this, he was not driven
pell-mell into Atheism; he joined in the religious controversy from the orthodox standpoint, and was
introduced into the little Warner Place Hall as an eager champion on behalf of Christianity .
. Those persons too who entertain this idea of Mr Packer's responsibility are ignorant of, or overlook, what
manner of man Mr. Bradlaugh was. He could not rest with his mind unsettled or undecided; he worked out
and solved for himself every problem which presented itself to him. He mounted his ideas on no man's: he
looked at the problem on all sides, studied the pros and cons, and decided the solution for himself. Therefore,
having once started on the road to skepticism, kindlier treatment would no doubt have made him longer in
reaching the standpoint of pure Rationalism, but in any case the end would have been the same.
[excerpt from Charles Bradlaugh,
Unwin, 1895.]

A Record of His Life and Works, by His Daughter,

"

Hypatia

Bradlaugh

Bonner.

London:

IT' 5 ONL'/ NArURAL

Charles Bradlaugh: (1833 - 1891) English politician and Atheist.

Austin, Texas

T. Fisher

I GERALD THOLEN

MAN'I PEOPLE Hi\VE i\SKED, "HOW DOESONE BECOME i\N

ATHEIST2/1 'fET EVEN WHEN FURNISHED WITH PROPER
i\NSWERS, IT IS NOTLlKEL 'I TH!\T RELIGIOUS PEOPLE COULD
I="V~Q UNDERSTAND
- ONEMIGHT S"IMILi\RL 'I i\SK OF i\N i\CORN, "HOW DOESONE
BECOME i\N OAK TREEf/l THE ANSWER,?F COuRSE, IS THA~
EVEK'1 PA~mCL..EOF A HEALTH'I ACORNS BEING IS GENETI
Ci\LL'I STRUCTUREDINTO BECOMINGi\ FINE, STRONG,TALL
i\ND MAJESTIC PRODUCTOF EARTH'S BEi\UTlFUL ENVIRONMENT. THERE, THEN, IS THE KE'I - "i\ BEAUTIFUL ENVIRONMENT."
Mi\N'I i\CORNS FALL WITHIN THE i\RID, LIMESTONE HILL
COUNTR'I WEST OF AUSTIN, TEXi\S. MOST OF THEM NEVER
GROW i\T i\LL. THOSE THi\T DO TAKE ROOT IN THE Hi\RSH
Ni\TIVE SOILS ARE, FORTHE GREATER Pi\RT, DWi\RFED i\ND
TWISTED INTOSOMETHINGTHi\ T BEi\RS ONL'I Fi\INT RESEMBLANCE TO THEIR STURDIER COUSINS THi\T TOWER OVER
RICH MOIST TERRi\IN. ONE MIGHT DO WELL TO HEED THE
OLD 5i\'IING - "AS THE TWIG IS BEND, SO SHALL THE TREE
INCLINE /I
WHERE THEN MIGHT ONE FIN() A PROPERENVIRONMENT
IN WHICH'i\N ATHEIST CAN "GROWf" IT'S REi\LL'I QUITE i\N
Ei\S'I PLACE ro FIND, i\LTHOUGH Mi\N'I PEOPLE SELDOM
RECOGNIZE IT. B'I Ei\RNESTL'I i\SKING QUESTIONSSUCH ss
"WHERE2 WH'If HOWf" 'IOU HAVE i\LREi\D'I DISCOVERED
THE ATHEIST'S PLi\CE. "STAND Ti\LL" THERE - IN INDIVIDUi\LIT'I AND THINK - ENDLESSL'I. ANSWERS WILL
COME SLOWL'I BUT TRUTHFULL'I. SOON'IOU WILL NOTICE
THi\T ''IOU i\RE BEGINNING TO "TOWER" OVER "THOSE
PERSONS" WHO Ci\NNOT WONDER i\T NATURE i\ND WHO
CANNOTKNOWTHE THRILL OF FINDING NEW TRUTHS.
AFTER Mi\N'I 'IEARS 'IOU WILL FINi\LL 'I COME TO REi\LIZE
_ "HELL I'VE BEEN AN ATHEIST i\LL ALONG!/I THEN, IT
WILL Hi\PPEN TO 'IOU! SOMEONEWILL i\SK 'IOU, "HOW DOES
ONE BECOME i\N ATHEIST?" 'fOU WILL ONL'I BE ABLE TO
LOOK AT THEM, KNOWING THE i\NSWER, 'lET UNi\BLE TO
Mi\KE THEM UNDERSTAND.

ONE WEEKEND
This is how-it was.
It was in tbebeginning
of the Great Depression,
and we were living
outside of Akron, Ohio. Pup had just finished building a gas
station I barbequel restaurant
with a large apartment on the second floor, at
Talmadge and Brittain roads, in what was called Bettis Corners. The large
piece of land belonged to his sister Ann and her husband Bob - and we were
living in the house behind the new building.
I had started the fifth grade in school, having already "skipped"
one or two grades. I don't know how old I was, but at any age I was a
vociferous reader. I was perhaps 9 or 10 already,
tall, long legged, gangly,
in love with life, curious, and lively.
I had almost memorized the Books of Knowledgf, a children's
encycopedia. But all of that was in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania,
in storage.
We were
in Akron only temporarily.
I was busy compiling my own dictionary
of
cross-word-puzzle
terms, in my sturdy,
well-worn note-book. And, there
was always Webster's Dictionary.
One could open it to any word and then
look up the meaning of each word used in the definition.
I could spend
hours doing that - most often when inclement weather kept me inside.
I
had my small china doll for whom I could sew elaborate costumes from
small fragments of cloth. Or, when the weather was nice, I could sit on
the back stoop and play jacks.
There was jump rope, too, or catch-ball.
Tangled in all of the memories is a thrilling,
rich encounter with Benjamin
Franklin's
AutobiograE..!!.x. But I don't know when that was. The two best
things were going to cnurch and to the library.
One could actually
smell the
books in the public library,
and if I scurried I could get six or seven to
.
bring home at a time. I loved church, the music, the dressing up to go, the
beautiful
stained glass windows, the singing,
the responsive
readings,
a
certain hush of silence,
the organ, and the minister talking of love and
Jesus. I loved Sunday school, and I learned my lessons well. I was proud of
the colored tinsel stars on my papers,
the small prizes I won, the praise of
teachers and parents.
Pup and, Mother humored me with "Sissy and her library
books."
They would wait patiently
while I popped into and out of the old library
. building.
But one weekend they absolutely
declined to take the trip to
Akron. I don't even know the reason. It was probably
trivial.
And, that
. very small decision changed my life. I could have gone to my usual pursuits,
but I wanted to read. So, I took the big black Bible with its red edges
and started.
I read it that weekend from cover to cover, hardly stopping
to take in the successive
shocks I felt. When I was all done, I tiptoed
to my door, to peek into the kitchen at my mother and father.
One sentence
kept coming to me, "They believe it. _They believe this is true. They think
there is a god like this." What are the words to describe what a child
feels? I was dumbfounded,
shocked, dismayed.
I simply found the entire
Bible unbelievable.
There I stood, peeking into the kitchen,
in the fragments
of it all, with the beautiful,
shiny crystal of god /love I church I bible strewn
in a thousand jagged pieces around my feet. God was ugly, mean, cruel,
picky.
The stories were absurd. Jesus Christ was petty,
selfish,
even crazy.

November, 1984

"Why do they bother with this?" I thought about my mother and father.
I
thought of our beautiful
church, sun streaming through the stained glass
windows. I thought of me in my Sunday School dresses (smelling
slightly
of
the Satina that my mother used in the starch.)
I thought that the minister
did not tell it right.
The big, black book wasn't the same as he represented
it to be. I was hurt, angry,
discouraged.
They had lied to' me. They had
all lied to me. But maybe my parents
did not really know either,
as I had
not known. Characteristically,
I had to tell them. I went into the kitchen.
"Do you know what it says In the Bible?"
"Yes, dear."
And so I read a part that was, simply,
outlandish.
My mother looked
at me.
"That's not in my Bible."
"Yes it is. It is right here, right here," pointing.
She refused to look.
"Lrv , see what book that child has."
"It's the Bible." I insisted.
Pup didn't
approach me.
"Now Sissy, you go back to your room and read that again.
You've
made a mistake,
that's
all."
I read it again. I read it quite a bit that summer. Always I came
: back to my opinion.
It was not true. It simply could not be true because it
. made no sense. But after that weekend, when Sunday came I didn't put on
my pretty dress.
"I'm not going. It (the Bible) isn't so." I stood my grounds.
"Lrv , Sissy won't get dressed for church."
"Let the kid go. She can stay home and read it here."
Over and over that year I went to them with contradictions,
absurdities.
,Sometimes they would listen.
What else could they do? But they did not
side with me. They listened,
and that was all. Always Mother would say,
"That is not in my Bible."
I was done with religion,
there and then, one weekend,
and I stayed
done with it. I was absolutely
alone in my disbelief,
and I was unable to
discuss it with anyone for .et least several decades. I did not know there
was such a thing as an Atheist.
I had never seen the word in print anywhere. No one whom I or my parents knew ever thought there were people
who did not accept the Bible, and certainly
there was no word to describe
them. My parents
told no one, and I knew it "was "improper" to discuss it
with anyone.
But, suddenly,
and with overwhelming
knowledge of it, that one
weekend I discovered
that there was no god and that the Bible was a
horrible,
hatefilled,
disgusting,
and ugly book.
I first encountered
the word "Atheist" over a breakfast
table in Dijon,
France, in 1944 - sixteen years later - when I was twenty-five
years old,
a commissioned officer in the W.A. C. and in the European Theatre of Opera. tions of World War I I. I first read about an Atheist in the newspapers

Austin, Texas

in 1950

lowell Newby: A freelance writer from Mississippi. Heard to say that "I suspect that, rather than
being an isolated fact about themselves that Atheists happen to have in common, their Atheism is
a clue to many other positive similiarities that have yet to be identified."
Mike Kennedy: Said to be inhis "mid twenties." Lives, in his words, "shortly south of mid-Texas"
with three Pit Bull Terriers. His short stories have appeared in the April and July, 1984 issues of
the American Atheist.
Sheila Simons:No real data available. A London teen-ager back in 1964; would be 35 years old by
now.
Joseph lewis: (1889 - 1968) Outspoken Atheist and author. Tried to popularize the writings of
Thomas Paine; erected statues to Paine in England and in New Jersey.
Charles Bradlaugh (1833 - 1891) English politician and Atheist. Elected to the House of
Commons, English Parliament, in 1880. Eight years before he was allowed to assume office - he
would not swear to his seat with a "so help me god." (More information in June, July, and August
issues of the American Atheist.)
Gerald Tholen: Married to nature and the Texas Gulf marshes; training retriever dogs; fighting
for environmental conservation. Real Texas "good ole boy" type with surprising inner qualities.
Thorough fighter for Atheism; just won't quit.
Madalyn Q'Hair: Founder of American Atheists. Reads incessantly. Born on Palm Sunday in
1919. Has written 13 books so far. Loves to travel, loves animals. Her daschund is eclept
"Keegan."
/'

,-

Delos B. McKown

OOPS, WRONG HELL!

hen RolfSmegmaa, of Holland, Michigan, was a little boy of four or five, he
loved his maternal grandparents more than
anybody else. Upon hearing Pastor Vanderdam (of what was commonly called the
Dutch Reformed Church) repeat Jesus'
words to his disciples - "Whatsoever ye
shall ask in my name that willI do, that the
Father may be glorified in the Son. Ifye shall
ask anything in my name, I willdo it" - Rolf
began to ask god routinely, especially in his
bedtime prayers, that his grandparents might
not die. At the end of each such plea, he
carefully added, "so that you can have all the
glory, God, ifyou want it, Amen," as a safety
precaution. To bolster his oft-repeated request, he sometimes announced to god,
rather boldly for a little boy, that his grandparents would not die. At the time, Rolf
seems to have believed that his life right
there in Holland was to be everlasting, and it
was, therefore, just a matter of taking the
appropriate steps to' see to it that his
beloved grandparents were going to get to
stay around, his grandfather to play with
him and draw choo-choos and his grandmother to make apple dumplings, mincemeat pies, and the like.
When in the course of just a few years
(and only eight months apart), the grim
reaper came, cutting down each grandparent, Rolf was shattered, but only for a short
time. Nor did he lose his faith in Jesus'
promises; no, not at all, for in the meantime
he had heard Pastor Vanderdam say with
great authority that when "god's won't
confronts man's will," god always has his
way. Oh, god does answer prayer, to be
sure, but not necessarily as the asker hopes
or expects. In short, god never has to dish
out exactly what the asker wants on his
plate, or in the intended way, being able to
serve up whatever he pleases any old way he
likes. Strange to say, this comforted the
boy, strengthening his faith. No, the age of
miracles is not past.
Anyway, since Rolfs grandparents slept
the sleep called death, and since he had
matured to the point at which he supposed
that he too would have to slumber in the
same way, it was obvious to him that he
must do everything in his power so that he
could be united with them in heaven and in
the life everlasting there. What, then, must
he do? Pastor Vanderdam made that ever
so clear.
"Are you baptized or are you not?" he
asked Rolf, deep in his jowly throat.
"Yes, sir."
"Have you or have you not learned the
catechism of the Reformed Church?"

Austin, Texas

"Oh, yes, sir, you yourself taught it to me,

remember?"
"Quite so. And is it not also true that you
have been confirmed in the faith of the
Dutch Reformed Church?"
"Yes."
"So, what remains, eh?"
"I'm not quite sure, sir," Rolf replied,
thinking that he really did know but wanting
to make doubly, even triply, sure by dotting
every "i" and crossing every "t" twice or
more if need be to be sure that he had
procured his one-way ticket to heaven in
just the right way.
"Not quite sure?" Pastor Vanderdam
asked, sounding miffed that his catechetical
efforts had borne so little fruit in young Rolf.
To that, Rolf squeaked as though asking a
question, "Keep the faith and ... bear the
fruits that befit repentance."
"Of course, you silly imp, you, and don't
be forgetting it either," Pastor Vander dam
thundered, standing up and hulking over
Rolf like an escarpment.
Anyway, that made it pretty clear. Although it might take a head and a half or
even two heads to comprehend what he
already believed with his whole heart, he
redoubled his efforts at understanding his
faith. The Trinity, of course, was an adorable mystery; everyone said so (even the
idolatrous Catholics); and that made it more
palatable to Rolf, even ifnot less mysterious.
As for the Incarnation of the Second Person
through the agency of the Third (together
with the Virgin Mother), the Third for his
part proceeding from the First and the
Second (somewhat like the lines in one of
Escher's impossible buildings), well, that did
confuse Rolf. Pastor Vanderdam liked to
illustrate the Incarnation by referring to a
certain C.S. Lewis (not a Dutchman, regrettably, but a darling nevertheless) who had
written somewhere that the believer could
get a useful, if distorted, glimpse of the
monumental mystery if he would try to
imagine what it would be like if a human
being, in full personhood and spirituality,
were incarnated in a garden slug (Rolf did
not like slimy things and could have hoped
for a happier example, but, no, Lewis had
said garden slug), true man of man, in full
human essence without confusion in true
slug of slug, come down, hypostatized, to
save fallen slugs. As a distorted glimpse, it
was probably OK. In any case, Pastor
Vanderdam had said that a person should
always intensify his faith whenever his comprehension crumbled. And, intensify Rolf
did, especially when he tried to get supralapsarianism and prevenient grace together,
November, 1984

the former holding that god had predestined

every soul to heaven or to hell before the fall
of Adam and Eve (and maybe even before
the creation of the world), the latter holding
that god had to give a person grace beforehand so that that person could then freely
choose to accept Jesus through faith in
order to be saved and bear the fruits that
befit repentance. Unable to keep his comprehension from crumbling when pondering
such imponderables, Rolf settled on intensifying his faith, testifying often and loudly as
to how very strongly he trusted (and he did)
in that which he did not even pretend to
understand.
With his faith thus preserved throughout
life, Rolf Smegmaa turned his attention to
the fruits of the spirit. Pastor Vanderdam
had also made that part of getting to heaven
perfectly clear. "We can do no good thing by
ourselves," he rumbled in the pulpit on
Sunday morning, looking much like a thunderhead, dark and billowy.
Because we are fallen beings by nature,
Rolf thought to himself, beating his pastor to
the punch line.
"Because we are fallen beings by nature,"
Pastor Vanderdam said, and then added,
"Our righteousness is as filthy rags."
Because we were shaped in iniquity and
conceived in sin, Rolf raced ahead catechetically.
"Because we were shaped in iniquity and
conceived in sin," Pastor Vanderdam roared,
thumping the pulpit smartly. Then, the good
man paused to reason rhetorically with his
flock, pointing out that even if we humans
were able to do good works on our own,
which we aren't because corrupt seed never
yields good fruit, it would be a terrible sin to
do so, and would avail us nought. "Man
cannot bribe the holy God with good works
or otherwise buy his way into heaven; that's
what the Jews thought they could do with a
little
sharp
trading,
but THEY
COULDN'T," he all but shouted triumphantly, savoring the thought of their damna
ion collectively and individually. "No, indeed, good works do not suffice," he continued, hissing the word, "suffice."
Rolf lost interest at that point, perhaps
because he knew the rest so well. It seems
that even to try to do good works so that
one can get to go to heaven is selfishness of
the worst sort, just like original sin itself.
Yes, it was pure egotism that caused Eve,
morally the weaker of the primal pair, to
rebel against god and sink her insubordinate
teeth into the forbidden fruit.
So, what was one to do? Why, have faith,
ifone was predestined to have it, and accept
Page 29

Jesus' atonement for sin as an absolutely

unmerited, undeserved gift with no strings
attached at all. As soon as that happened,
the Holy Spirit would make one bud and
bloom and burgeon with good fruit, good
fruit galore. Such fruit was not a way of
buying, or bartering, or bribing one's way
into heaven, heavens no! It was simply a sign
that one was redeemed, the corrupt old tree
was made new, just as though Eve had never
sunk her sharp rebellious teeth into the
forbidden fruit.
The only difficulty was that getting the
Spirit to make a Christian fruit with the
desired fruits was much like doing it on one's
own, the hard way, alone. Indeed, to the
profane eye, it looks just as though Christians are struggling and suffering to beat all
to do good works (and relying on those good
works too) to buy, barter, or bribe their way
past the pearly gates. "But, not so," de
clared Pastor Vanderdam, glowering at his
congregation, "No indeed, it is the Spirit
working in us and the Spirit alone that brings
forth the fruits that befit repentance."
"And furthermore," thundered Pastor
Vandenberg, Pastor Vanderdam's young
but equally authoritative successor, "It is
not selfishness at all that motivates the true
Christian to hope for heaven and for reunion with the loved ones who have gone on
before."
Much could be written about the rich
harvest of good works in Rolf's life, but the
story is shortened below not because it is
not edifying, but because it might produce
envy in those readers who are weak in faith
or lacking in the spirit. So, lest the reader's
soul be imperiled, let the following condensed version suffice: Throughout his life,
Rolf exhibited long-suffering (lots of longsuffering), love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness (except toward his
wife and children whom he ruled over
sternly as befits a Christian husband and
father), and temperance. And, while being
richly fruited by the spirit, he avoided the
bitter fruits of the flesh such as adultery,
fornication, impurity, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, magic arts, animosity, contentiousness, imitations of evil, wrath, strife,
sedition, and heresies (especially heresies).
Moreover, he purged himself of all evil
imaginings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, carousings, and vaingloryings - in
short, of all fleshly affections and lustings.
What an exemplary person Rolf was!
How inspiring his life!Never more inspiring,
in fact, than when he was cut down at the
height of his powers with great good fortune
and fame at his fingertips, to all appearances. But, not once did he curse god as he
took to his deathbed, being wasted daily by
a virulently pernicious form of leukemia.
And so, Rolf Smegmaa died, "exceedingly
rich in the fruits of the spirit," as Pastor
Vandenberg put it at the funeral, "and now
sleeps with his fathers until the return of the
lord Jesus to claim his own."
Page 30

When Rolf awoke, seemingly only an

instant after his eyes had closed in death, he
found himself gasping for breath in thick,
black, stinking smoke, his whole body buffeted this way and that by scorching air,
gusting. Tethered to a burning rock by a
short chain, he was constantly prodded and
hooked by sharp rods of iron held by
unseen, malignant hands. His clothes were
on fire but not consumed, and his skin kept
melting only to be regenerated to melt again
and again. He also seethed, quite literally,
inside and out, for boiling water was poured
over his head continuously, and he was
forced to drink of it, thus boiling his bowels
as well. There was no doubt about it; he was
in hell, all of his worst fears having been
realized.
Tormented beyond endurance, yet having to endure, but not about to take it lying
down, since his Dutch tenacity was still
intact, he shouted and screamed, roared
and squealed, that there had been a mistake, a terrible mistake in his case. "Only let
me speak to the Lord about it!" he cried
again and again, and sure enough, the
"Merciful One" had mercy, as is his nature,
and appeared to hear Rolf Smegmaa's complaint. Unable to see at all well due to the
black smoke and the eye-searing winds, Rolf
said, in what he thought was the right
general direction, "Lord, throughout my
entire life I have kept faith and borne the
fruits that befit repentance. So, why am I in
hell? Tell me that, if you please?"
"Did you believe that I was three?" asked
the Almighty.
"Oh, yes, yes, Lord, even though I didn't
understand it very well, I always believed in
your Triune godhead, Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost and testified to it often in season
and out."
"I AM ONE!" the Deity thundered, like a
thousand Pastor Vanderdams, "NEVER
THREE, nor ONE OF THREE, but ONE

crucified?"
As though saying the catechism without
thinking, Rolf blurted out, "I've always believed in Christ and him crucified."
"FIE on you, FIE," said the Almighty. "Do
you really think I would have let a bunch of
miserable Jews and Roman idolators kill my
messenger, crucify my prophet shamefully?"
"Well, I had alwa ... "
"SILENCE, INFIDEL! You have believed
lies. You have testified to lies. You have
taught lies to others. No, no mistake was
made in the disposition of your case. You
and all other Christians richly deserve your
doom," said Allah. Poor Rolf, in avoiding
one hell, he made himself a prime candidate
for another one. Despite his eternal preoccupation with his torments, with burning
flames and searing winds, with scalding
water, melting skin, and boiling bowels, he
sometimes wishes for the sake of others that
he could get out of hell, not just to escape its
endless miseries for a moment, but to share
his experiences with them, to warn them
against his fatal mistake. If he could only do
that, he would say, "Before you do anything
else, make absolutely, positively sure that
you're trying to avoid the REAL HELL, for
what does it profit a man if he avoids phony
hells?"

1M]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Delos B. McKown, Ph.D., is a Professor

and Chairman of
the Philosophy Department at Auburn
University.

only!"

"But, I always believed in your unity too,

God," Rolf protested weakly.
"Did you think that I had a son named
Jesus by a woman called Mary?"
"Of course, I did," Rolf replied, brightening a little at so obvious a question, despite
his continuing torments.
"It is MONSTROUS to think that I, THE
LORD OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, the
maker of all things, should have had a boy
child with a mere woman, that I would plow
a virgin's field and have issue with her. Jesus
was my messenger; he was my prophet,
NOTHING MORE!"
Suddenly, sickeningly, it dawned on Rolf
in the black hellhole where he stood that the
Almighty was speaking to him in Arabic.
Moreover, he not only knew it to be Arabic,
he understood what was being said in Arabic, miraculously. But, before he was able to
express his consternation and profoundest
dismay, the Almighty said sarcastically,
"And, I suppose you think that I let Jesus be
November, 1984

The American Atheist

THEATHE~TNEXTDOOR
Thomas Thompson hails from Nevada. Though he is only eighteen. he is already proving himself an able Atheist leader in his
position as ViceDirector of the Sierra Nevada Chapter of American Atheists.

What is Atheism?
Atheism is the philosophy of life in which
vital existence takes precedence over spiritual pipe dreams, where eternal life is to be
gained through undefiled wisdom and good
works rather than through the self-deceit of
a spiritual hereafter. Atheists respect even worship - the earth and life because
they realize that there is nothing more. An
Atheist tends to transcend national and
racial differences because of the feeling of
cameraderie which accompanies the realization of what man is - the highest incarnation of intelligence in the known universe
-rather than letting fear-inspired dogma divide man into the absolutes of chosen/not
chosen, good/evil, and saved/damned.
Why are you an Atheist?
I am an Atheist because I feel that it is my
duty to raise the collective human conscience above petty superstition. I would be
collectively embarrassed for the human
race if we were to be visited by any nonterrestrial lifeforms and show them allof our
lovely technology and then show them the
contradictory temples of frightened minds.
They would just "shake their heads," ifthey
were able, and laugh at us.

Has your Weltanschauung caused you

any personal or profession problems?
My Weltanschauung has never caused
me any person or professional problems
except for one time when I tried to pronounce it which resulted in much embarrassment and a sore tongue.
Do you feel that the general situation
for Atheists has grown better or worse
in recent years?
I don't know about the general situation
for Atheists, since I have nothing to compare it to. I imagine it can be expected to
worsen as the United States slides toward
conservatism.
Do you feel that Atheism affects your
day to day life? Your performance on
the job or in personal relationships?
Atheism does not affect my day to day life
in the sense that I wake up saying, "Boy,
there's no god today!" But I do occasionally'
think about all the lonely people, especially
when I see a church or a tortured man on a
cross around someone's neck.

How did you become an Atheist?

It's not that I actually became an Atheist.
You see, I was born one. True, I went
through a period. of religionism, but only
because I was inculcated at a young age.
After a very small investigation into other
religions and then Atheism, I came to understand who was logical and who was silly.

How do you deal with traditionally religious activities or ceremonies, like marriages or wakes?
I deal with traditionally religious holidays
usually by educating myself on their histories and then showing people the ridiculousness of the practice by pointing ut what the
churches try to cover up, usually their
pagan origins. I do, on the other hand,
devote a certain amount of time for reverence of the Universe or naturally occurring
events such as aphelions* and solstices,
simply to reaffirm my lack of faith and review
where my life is headed, since that's all I
really have.
If you have children or intend to, how
did/are/will you deal with Atheism and
religion with them?
IfI were to have children I would deal with
religion with them as close to objectively as
possible. I would obviously point out the
con traditions and absurdities, but I would
not force a purely Atheistic attitude upon
them, for passing one's belief to one's children to have them accept it unquestioningly
is the single greatest crime against nature
that can be committed. Doubt in what has
gone before is the only road to progress and
the eventual dethronement of brain-chaining ideals.
* Apehlion - the point in the orbit of a planet or a
comet at which it is further est from the sun.

What do you consider to be specifically

Atheist values and ethics?
Atheistic values and ethics include respect for liberty, life, the earth, history,
science, mathematics, and learning. Atheists do no require a supernatural law-giver to
realize that killing members of the same
species is not a good idea.
What have reactions to your Atheism
been? From family, friends, co-workers?
The reaction to my Atheism is at first
violent distrust, and then, after a small
amount of discussion, a reaction ranging
from acceptance to respect. It should be
fairly easy to dispel misconceptions in
people's minds about the nature of the
universe. In reality, however, that is not so:
it is simply too comfortable to believe in a
god, without the fear of death. The violent
reaction of my family, co-workers, and
friends comes from exposing the pitiful
human ego to scrutinization, only to find
fear.
Austin, Texas

"The Atheist Next Door" is an attempt to supply

information
regarding the contemporary Atheist, his
feelings, problems, and perspectives written by the experts
in this field: average American Atheists. Each month the
life and opinions of an Atheist is spotlighted in this column
through the answers to our questionnaire.
Anyone interested in being "The Atheist Next Door"
should write to-American Atheist/P.O. Box 2117/ Austin,
TX 78768-2117 and ask for our questionnaire.

November, 1984

Page 31

AMERICAN A THEIST RADIO SERIES / Madalyn O'Hair

E. HALDEMAN JULIUS,
AMERICAN ATHEIST
Program #120; originally broadcast 10/26/70

When the first installment of a regularly scheduled, 15-minute, weekly American Atheist radio series on KTBC
radio (a station in Austin, Texas owned by then-president Lyndon Baines Jounson) hit the airwaves on June 3,
1968, the nation was shocked. The programs had to be submitted weeks in advance and were heavily censored.
The series was concluded on October 18, 1975 when no furhter funding was available.

Haldeman-Julius, the father of the

paper-back book industry, a nonbeliever in god, wrote a series of vignettes
about lifein 1926. This is 44 years ago (at the
time the program was first broadcast - it is
now 58 years ago) and curiously they sound
like something out of today.
Let's hear what he has to say on the
following.
The Upper Dog
Given my choice between the upper dog
and the under dog, I always prefer the top
canine. He is the better dog. The under dog
is poor stuff, with soft muscles, slow eyes, a
weak mouth, and no spirit. The upper dog is
better from nose to tail, including a fine,
brave spirit. I am for the upper dog because
he willsurvive through his own better faculties. He was made right and will, therefore,
come out on top ifhe is given a fair chance. I
am always with the winner, whether it is a
dog fight, a prize fight or a race. I have no
patience, nor have I sentimental sympathy,
for the beaten dog. It is better that he should
be eliminated. In life among men, I take
instinctively to the upper man. And by that I
do not mean merely the man who sells more
bonds or real estate, I mean men who are
gladiators in the arena of thought, of character, of self-expression, of literature, of art,
of music, of all forms of contest in which
men grapple for genuine. I prefer men like
Clarence Darrow to the puny, consumptive
editors who denounce him. Darrow has
survived and won because he is the better
man. He is my idea of the upper man. He
does not win through cunning, but through
courage and inherent superiority. In life
among men, the under dogs, mangy, weakkneed, fundamentalist, whimpering curs,
combine in packs, like so many hyenas, in
order to beat down the upper dog, but even
then the upper dog whips them in the end.
The under dog is contemptible, and he is a
Christian because he believes his.weakness
is a virtue, when it is really a sin.
Page 32

Practical Atheism
I am practically an Atheist in that I do not
consider a god in my philosophy and plan of
life. I proceed quite calmly as if there were
no god and am, so to speak, "on my own."
Of course, I "accept the universe," but I do
not depend upon any fine theory of the
universe for success in life. I work with what
realities lie visibly and usefully at hand; and,
ifeternal truth be false, I shall be no whit the
worse. As a matter of fact, I believe that
everyone does as I do in this respect, only
they do not realize it or willnot admit it. The
Christian may talk piously about being in
partnership with god, but that is ony a way
of speaking; really he is in partnership with
men and insofar as he succeeds he deals
practically with the real everyday forces of
life. God or no qod, his success or failure
rests upon quite other contingencies. The
truth is that all men are at bottom Atheists.
As Samuel Butler expressed it: "To put
one's trust in god IS only a way of saymg that
one willchance it."
Consciousness of Sin
Preachers say that if a man stays away
from church, this is due to a consciousness
of sinful guilt. The man is afraid that, if he
enters the tabernacle, he will hear his sin
denounced, he will be exposed more early,
perhaps to himself as well as to others. He is
trying to hide his sin. The clergy, seldom
willing to concede virtue in an opponent,
cannot admit that a man may be kept away
from church by freedom of belief, or boredom, or the attraction of more interesting
pursuits. There is truth on the other side
that the clergy ignore - deliberately. It is
that a number of persons who regularly
frequent the temple, and perhaps participate most ardently in the procedure of
holiness, are worse sinners, so to speak,
than non-worshipping skeptics. These men
attend church, and make a great show of
piety, for the purpose of hiding their sins or
diverting attention from them. They realize
November, 1984

the practical value of piety as a protecting

cloak. They know that the good, Christian
community, is less apt to scrutinize - or to
denounce - the sins of him who is well
known in the confabulations of the godly.
His misdeeds may be familiar enough, and
they may be discussed privately, but openly
his reputation willnot suffer. And the preacher especially will refrain from saying aught
that might offend a respectable, active, wellpaying parishioner. The sinner who will
faithfully attend and contribute may depend
upon immunity from the wrath of custom.
He is supporting the most sacred custom of
all - that of praying (and paying) and
pretending. What preacher ever castigates
with the whip of the lord, for the good of the
soul, the man whose pew is seldom empty
and whose contribution never fails?
A Belligerent Note
Consistency is not a Christian virtue.
God is all powerful, say the Christians. Yet
they talk about "helping god" to do this and
do that. A Kansas lady, writing to the editor
of a newspaper there, laments the downward trend of the world in certain matters of
behavior and suggests that good Christians
"help god to overcome the fault, whatever it
is." The editor, who did not agree with the
lady that the world is headed for the bowwows, also failed to agree that god needs
help. He wrote: "I take it that Mrs. Bartlett is
a religious woman, but does she not reveal a
lack of faith in the power of god when she
proposes to 'help him overcome' the evils
she talks about? That seems to assume that
god wants to overcome the evil but is not
able to do it without her help. If that is true,
then he is not all-powerful, and if he is allpowerful then evil exists because for some
reason he wants it to exist." I suspect that
this lady is not simply proposing to help god
but to direct him - tell what him he should
do. Advising god is one of the commonest
and easiest things Christians do - a habit
that must cause god no little worry. He who
The American Atheist

prays is begging god for something, or

informing about something, or urging him to
get busy and do something. The truth, as
the editor suggests, lies between the two
alternatives: god is not as big a man as the
Christians say he is; or he prefers evil and
creates it and lets it flourish to grieve and
amaze Christians, who can ony murmur
that godis"inscrutable."So he is- and excruciating, no less.
On Football
It is the true Christian view that god
overlooks nothing. He has a finger in every
pie, as it were. He is interested in football,
too, it appears. Whether he would heed a
scrub game on a vacant city lot, I am not
prepared to say, but at any rate there is a
presumahly divine attention for a larger gridiron battle between the Army and the Navy
teams. We note that after a game in which
West Point defeated Annapolis, the West
Pointers piously removed their helmets and,
standing on the field of victory, thanked
Jehovah on the spot for that victory. This is
the way it happened, as told by the captain
of the Army team: "We have prayed before
every game this season, not for victory, but
that we might acquit ourselves like men. At
the conclusion of Saturday's game, when I
think our prayers were answered, we jerked
off our helmets and thanked god fervently
for the victory." It is not recorded that the
Navy team similarlyrecognized the intervention of god. We are not told that they swore,
nor that they prayed. The interesting thing,
however is that god, busy though he may be,
can always layoff to watch over a football
game.
On Mice
Numerous letters come to my desk, in
which irritable and sharp-tongued defenders of the faith warn me against wasting my
time, my energy and my substance in attacking the church and its moribund and decadent jumble of idiocies. The favorite argument seems to run like this: Voltaire, Paine
and Ingersoll aimed their mightiest blows at
the church, without leaving so much as a
dent in the holy armor of the children of god.
So why raise your little voice? Why throw
away your feeble strength on the impossible?
Granted that the church survived a hundred Voltaires. Does that mean the rationalists were wrong? Why expect one voice to
silence millions of bellowing fanatics? The
churches have noise-making machines powerful enough to make my voice sound like a
mouse-squeak in a thunderstorm. Does that
mean the mouse should be deprived of his
inalienable and constitutional right to deliver
himself of his squeak? Better one faint chirp
for truth than an endless roar of brassthroated clericals. And let me add this: one.
preacher who "converts" a thousand souls
to eternal happiness and salvation is considered a good battler for the lord. If I, with
Austin, Texas

my presses succeed in keeping a hundred

thousand persons from the holy clutches of
the church (and I am reaching a much larger
audience than that) can it be said that this
lone mouse squeaketh in vain?
On Ministers
You know, I believe the preachers are the
ones who willget the worst of it - who will
have the most to answer for - in the next
life. They are the ones who 'have misrepresented god. Not that I know anything abut
god. But neither do the preachers. Speaking
out of their ignorance, they have surely put
god in the wrong time and again. They are
the fellows who have passed themselves off
as god's spokesmen. They have presumed
to act in the name of god and to bless, in
god's name, certain acts of other men in
peace and war and politics. IfI am any judge,
the preachers have made no end of trouble
for the Most High. They have loaded him
with all sorts of crazy responsibilities,
blamed him for everything under the sun,
and praised him for things that, it may well
be, were disgusting in his sight. I know very
well that I wouldn't be pleased to have a lot
of men setting up in business at every
wayside tabernacle as my agents. Yes, I
believe god will have a special punishment
for the preachers. I am not worrying. I have
never spoken for god nor made a move in
his name. I have left him alone. I have
minded my own business, and let god mind
his business. He probably won't notice me.
But the preachers have forced themselves
unmannerly upon his attention. God, I sup-

pose, has been on the job and he knows

what these frauds have been about. If god
has any self-respect and independence and
ordinary regard for his reputation, he will
certainly not failto mete out due and drastic
rewards to the one bunch of men who have
most conspicuously interfered with his affairs. Allpreachers, please note. And repent
while there is yet a little time.
On The Bible
Good books lead to toleration, as well as
to independent thinking. They incline the
mind toward broad views. They dispel the
terrible, intolerant feeling of certainty that
turns men into fanatics. On the contrary,
bad books sow endless discord. Judged by
its fruits of intolerance, I do not know of any
book that is worse than the Bible. It has
been a prolific breeder of hatreds, dissensions, calamities of insensate strife. One can
mention hardly an injustice that the Bible
has not been used by the holy sophists to
defend. The book at once lends itself to
many different systems of fanatical belief
and cultivates the spirit that leads men to
persecute and destroy in behalf of their
creeds. It is a babel of delusions which has
given rise, not simply to a confusion of
tongues which has no parallel in the history
of man, but the clashing of swords and the
lighting of horrible fires of martyrdom in
support of each lingo of ridiculous faith. The
"Book of the Ages" must bear the chief
blame of bloodshed and hatred and intolerance throughout the ages. [jpI
L:::.J

Hea.r
G-od's

~@Ir@1=
~ :00

"WELL,

ToNi~h+

IF HE'S ONL'l GOT ONE ...

November, 1984

/I

Page 33

HISTORICAL NOTES
200 YEARS AGO ...
Jerome Bonaparte, youngest brother of
Napoleon, was born on November 11th,
1784. He was reported by P. de la Grace in
the Historie du second empire to have
"cherished a systematic hostility to every
religious creed in general and to the Catholic religion in particular."
He died on June 24th, 1860 and was
entombed in Les Invalides in Paris.

100 YEARS AGO ...

This short report was to be tound In the
November 1st, 1884 issue of The Truth
Seeker, A Journal of Freethought and Reform:
"We learn incidentally, through an eastern paper, that the people of Wyoming
Territory are to vote upon the 4th inst. on
the question of taxing the church property.
We know not what steps the Liberals of the
territory have taken to make this vote favorable; perhaps they have done all that is possible ... Ifthe vote should be adverse a great
opportunity has been lost."
Under the title "Notes and Clippings" the

"The subject of Theosophy has, according to the Calcutta correspondent of the

London Times, occupied a large share of
the attention of the Indian. press and public
recently. It has been brought prominently
forward by the publication in the Madras
Christian College magazine of a correspondence alleged to have passed between
Mme. Blavatsky and a Monsieur and Mme.
Coulomb, who appear to have been followers of her but who, having fallen out with
the sect, have placed the letters in the hands
of the editor of the magazine. These letters,
if genuine, are calculated to prove Mme.
Blavatsky to be a consummate imposter,
who, with the help of Coulomb, imposed
upon the credulous by ingenious trickery.
The so-called "astral body" of the Tibetian
Mahatma, Koot Hoomi, is described as a
crafty arrangement of bladders, muslin, and
a mask, while the wonder working shrine at
Madras is said to be a mere conjurer's
cabinet. The Theosophists indignantly declare the letters to be impudent forgeries,
and state that the Coulombs were expelled
from the socity, and have taken this means
to revenge themselves."

30 YEARS AGO ...

Truth Seeker of the November 8th, 1884

issue had several other short shockers:

"The Roman Catholics of Sharpsville,
Pa., recently petitioned the school board to
prohibit the reading of the Bible in the public
schools. This action caused great excitement, and the decision of the board was
awaited with deep interest. Finally the directors decided that the reading of the Bible
must not be discontinued, but that all children whose parents object to such exercises may withdraw until they are concluded.
"The Presbyterian synod of Alabama has
condemned the evolution teachings of Rev.
Dr. Woodrow, Perkins professor of natural
science at the Theological seminary in Columbia, S.c. It is the opinion of the synod
that evolution must go.
"Judge McFarland, of Sacramento, California has decided that an Atheist cannot be
barred from testifying (in court.)
"A Mormon paper predicts the spread of
cholera in this country as a divine retribution for the appointment of Gov. Murray
over Utah territory.
"Two hundred women of the city of
Mexico, members of leading families of that
city, says an account, went Monday (November 1st, 1884) to the sanctuary of Our
Lady of Guadaloupe (sic) to pray the Holy
Virgin for intercession to prevent cholera
invading Mexico. Praying willnever have the
effect to keep cholera out of any country
where the inhabitants are habitually filthy.
Bathing as a practice should be substituted.
Page 34

. The editor of the Progressive World took

delight in recounting this next bit in the
"News and Comments" section of that
journal.
"A Prayer room for members of Congress
will be ready for their use when they reconvene in January. The Capitol architect
says it will hold as many as six of the
lawmakers at a time. Ifthe prayers are short
enough and the Congressmen pray in relays
of six from morning to night we figure that
about two weeks will be required for every
member to have a round with the Almighty.
Probably very little harm will result. In fact,
some good may come off the prayer room: it
willkeep some of the pious members off the
floors of the two houses for at least a little
while occasionally. With this in min'd we
propose having the prayer room vastly
enlarged."
An editorial note in the same issue of the
Progressive World is still viable today:

"It may sound supercilious to say it but we

just don't respect every man's opinion. We
can't respect It unless IS seems to us to be
worth of respect. Of course, we may err in
judging the worth of a man's opinion, but
there is nothing for us to do but to give our
best judicial consideration and then rate it
accordingly.
No, we don't respect every man's opinion
- but we do respect his right to have an
opinion of his own, provided he shows that
he has made some consistent effort to arrive'
November, 1984

at a reasonable conclusion.
. If, however, he shows that he isn't willing
to make the honest effort necessary to
arrive at ajudicial opinion but merely mouths
his prejudices, we can have very little respect for either him or his opinion. Anyway,
an opinion that is merely a prejudice, is
merely a prejudice and not an opinion at aIL"
The November 26th, 1954 edition of The
Freethinker, a journal founded in 1881 by
G.W. Foote, included the following in its
"This Believing World" section.
"We note that the very pious President of
the American Medical Association, Dr.
Elmer Hess, is angrily denouncing all doctors who do not believe in God. 'Do they
know,' he bitterly complained the other day,
that all a doctor does is to administer the
right medicine, but 'his faith in God does the
rest?' And he insisted that 'the doctor who
lacks faith in a Supreme Being has no right
to practise medicine.' Why does not Dr.
Hess take as a magnificient example Senator McCarthy, and institute a medical
witch-hunt? Any doctor who does not believe in Dr. Hess's God should be hounded,
not only out of medicine, but out of the
country. There's nothing like religion as a
background for witch-hunting."

20 YEARS AGO ...

The November 1964 Liberal contained
the next report.
"The Freethinkers of America have asked
the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the
New York of Appeals which upheld use of
the words 'under God' in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag in public schools.
"The Freethinkers contend that the words
are inconsistent with the Supreme Court's
ruling against prayers and Bible reading
sponsored by public school authorities.
"Meanwhile, a similiar suit was filed in
Hawaii by Mrs. Madalyn Murray, an Atheist.
She claims the pledge with the words 'under
God' constitutes a religious ceremony.
In another section of that journal, more
encouraging news was reported under the
tittle "Testimony by Atheists."
"A news item says that the New Jersey
supreme court has unanimously adopted
new trial rules that permit testimony from
Atheists. A person's belief or disbelief in
god has no relationship to his credibility as a
witness, the court has decided in adopting
new rules.
Previously Atheists had been barred by
state law from testifying under the theory
that an oath to tell the truth would be
meaningless to a person who professed no
religion.
"The new code affirms the requirement
that a witness must swear to tell the truth
before testifying but removes all barriers to
a witness because he is an Atheist."
The American Atheist

REPORT FROM INDIA / Margaret Bhatty

WAITING FOR THE MESSIAH

ome time ago the Nagpur Atheist

Association organized a series of public
lectures. Among the speakers invited was
the well-known Marxist scholar Ashgar Ali
Engineer. His subject was the problem of
communalism in our country, and he gave
an incisive analysis of Hindu-Muslim riots
where religion is used as a front for economic and political power games. I'd comment
on this thesis here but for a startling development. While in Cairo, at the end of March, to
attend a conference on Palestine, Mr. Engineer was brutally beaten, in the Jamia
Anwar mosque, by a large group of the
Muslim sect from which he comes. His
companion, a member of parliament, quickly brought the police to his rescue. The
attackers explained they had merely roughed
him up because he had blasphemed the
Prophet. But he knew from their threats
when they assaulted him that this was in
retaliation for an article he had published in
a Bombay weekly. Titled "Godfather II," it
was an open attack on the religious head of
their sect. Flown back to India, Engineer
was put under intensive care; his back was
injured, and his vision was severely impaired.
This is not the first time Engineer has
been attacked. At a press conference in
Calcutta he was manhandled by hired goons.
When he was invited to read a paper at a
literary seminar in Hyderabad, a man tried
to slash his face with a razor. The hotel
where he was staying was invaded by hoodlums who beat him up. Threatening calls
were made to the manager demanding his
eviction. The police were summoned to
protect the premises.
Last November a smear campaign was
launched in Bombay accusing him of having
raped a certain prostitute who had jumped
from a five-star hotel to escape her Arab
tormentor. After he returned from Cairo,
Engineer received phone calls threatening
him with death for selling Hindu girls to
Muslim sheikhdoms. The police commissioner advised him to get a gun for protection.
Who is his enemy? And why is he being
made a target?
Ashgar Ali Egineer comes from a small
Muslim sect called the Dawoodi Bohras, of
which there are a million in all. Of these sixty
percent live in India and, the rest the world
over, engaged chiefly in business and trade.
Because of their industry they are more
Austin, Texas

affluent than other Muslim sects. But they

are all held in thrall by a priestly hierarchy
headed by a pontiff whom our press, with
unintended humour, describes as "The Holy
Terror."
Engineer is the rarest of his kind, a breed
which can be counted on the fingers of one

hand in this country - he is a reformer. But

unlike the majority of our religious heavyweights he acts on his convictions. As a
rebel he confronts the establishment with
only a small following as yet. gut of late more
members of the Bohra sect are beginning to
support him.
"The only difference between the Roman
Catholic Church and the Bohra community," he says, "is that the Church has given
up its medieval practices but the Bohras
have not."
The analogy is very apt. At the top is the
Syedna or Dai, the 53rd in a long line. Up to
134 years ago the pontiff was chosen from
among the wisest of the sect. But after the
November, 1984

47th Syedna, the office became a family

tradition. The present Syedna is 71 years
old, titled the Sultan of the Bohras, with
more than 200 members of his family called
Princes and Princesses, each with a subsidy
of four thousand rupees a month, furnished
flats, chauffeur-driven cars, a central kitchen, many servants, and large chunks of
taxes wrung from the followers in the name
of their god.
The Syedna is easily among the richest
men in the country. But legally "as a religious institution" most of his wealth goes
untaxed. The Bohras believe that he holds
office on behalf of a messiah who is always
on earth and will one day reveal himself.
This is the Imam Maulana Tyeb, who, 800
years ago, went into seclusion when he was
six years old. He will emerge one day and
name a successor to the imamship, but until
then the Syedna and his descendants will
hold in trust all the accumulated wealth of
centuries.
The Bohra Vatican is called Saifi Mansion, a magnificent building on Malabar Hill
in Bombay. There are three buildings in fact,
spread over 20 acres, with enough space for
180 members of the family. Here the faithful
come on pilgrimage from all over, as many
as 500 every day, to seek audience with
Syedna. Each must bring an offering of
money.
The pontiff is regarded with great awe and
dread. Women ascribe magical powers to
him. A mother who remained childless for
eleven years after her son was born finally
conceived twins. She was convinced this
miracle had been granted by the Sydena. A
Bohra girl who topped in Poona University
told reporters it was because of the Syedna's blessings. The Syedna even has powers
extending beyond the grave. The dead have
a letter from him to his brother Gabriel tied
around their necks. Without this letter the
two angels who visit a dead person in the
grave willchop him into pieces on a basis of
his sins. But when they see the letter they
know he comes with the goodwill of Syedna,
and he is admitted into paradise. An indulgence of this kind costs a poor man 140
rupees and a rich man ten times as much.
Like the Catholic Church the hierarchy of
priests is not above thinking up miraculous
happenings to over-awe their credulous
followers. A show-piece for tourists to Bombay is a gigantic white mausoleum of marble
in which the father of the present Syedna
Page 35

lies buried. The Koran is inscribed on its

four walls in gold, the first line of each
chapter studded with diamonds, emeralds,
pearls and rubies. Around this fabulous
tomb live thousands of Bohras in ruined
tenements which are likelyto be demolished
to make place for gardens. Some years ago,
when I lived in Bombay, there was considerable sensation when tear drops were discovered by the custodians, dotting the marble walls. Bohras flocked in numbers to
witness this miracle, and the hysteria was
astonishing. The priesthood interpreted
these "tears" as the former Syedna's grief
over the growing sin among his followers
and the rifts created by them in the community.
His holiness the Syedna has a vast staff of
priests and agents to carry out his orders. In
addition, like the Roman Catholic Inquisition, there are informers placed within scattered communities. Called shabbab for the
men and bunayyat for the women, these
secret agents report the slightest hint of
heresy. Errant Bohras are subject to persecution by the Inquisition. The repentant
ones confess their sins in public, entering a
place of worship barefooted and loudly proclaiming their guilt, while the faithful hurl
abuses and spit on them.
This vast network of control operates
even in distant countries. Every aspect of a
Bohra's life is supervised and controlled by
the priestly class. Among the seven kinds of
tax levied by the Syedna, one is a tax on the
foetus in the womb (since it is conceived by
his grace.) Another tax is levied on the dead,
since they are obliged to him for recommending them for salvation.
.
Like the pope, the Syedna is also infallible.
As the sole representative of god on earth
he is not accountable to the law of the land.
He has absolute control and power over the
lives and property of his followers. No Bohra
who offends him can enter paradise. A
marriage solemnized without his permission
or blessing is not valid and all the issue are
illegitimate. He can raise or lower the status
of any Bohras and order the entire community to ostracize and boycott them without
any reference to the principles of natural
justice.
On attaining puberty every Bohra youth
takes an oath surrendering his will to the
Syedna. Defaulters to this oath can have
their property looted and burnt by the
others; even their wives can be taken away.
Several women, whose husbands have joined
the reformist movement, have been forced
to divorce them. In Bombay a son who
refused to submit to priestly tyranny saw the
body of his recently buried mother dug up
and thrown on the pavement outside the
Bohra cemeterv A Bohra newsman with
progressive ideas was severely beaten, and
his face was scarred with acid. He was finally
burnt to death in Pakistan. Retormers have
been harrassed, assaulted and ostracised.
One businessman saw his entire staff walk
Page 36

out of his firm, never to return

Bohra girls must also submit to a rite
which renders them dasi (slave) and gives
the Syedna complete control over their
lives. When a few weeks old, they are
secretly circumcised to curb their sexuality.
During the freedom movement the Bohras did not identify with the mainstream.
They remained aloof and exclusive in their
ghettos. But with the spread of education
many are now acutely aware of how the
priesthood exploits them and extorts obedience and money. They cannnot exercise
their right to freedom of speech, stand for
election, vote for a particular candidate,
publish a newspaper, write articles, or join
any public forum unless the Syedna gives
them permission. All institutions such as
hospitals, schools, and orphanages along
with charitable trusts endowed by wealthy
Bohras must be maintained only in the
Syedna's name.
Many educated Bohras have preferred to
opt right out of the sect. Yaya Lokhandvalla
was one such. When he died last year he
was president of the Indian Rationalist Association and an active Atheist. Others have
chosen to stay on and help fight for the
rights of the credulous among the community. Ashgar Ali Engineer, brother-in-law to
Lokhandvalla, is general secretary of the
central board of the Bohra community and
also active as vice president of the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights
(DPDR).
The government refuses to get embroiled
in the controversy because it needs the
Bohra vote bank. The entire community will

vote the way the Syedna tells it. During the

Janata government's term a commission
was appointed to investigate the Syedna's
tyranny, but Mrs. Gandhi returned to power
and did not take any action on the report.
The Syedna contributes generously to national causes such as party elections.
However, violent clashes between reformers and believers are now more frequent.
The press has also begun publishing accounts of injustice within the community.
Ashgar Ali Engineer believes that the reign
of terror willintensify. Bohra priests in seminaries are being trained in psychological
tactics.
Having started from a small nucleus, the
reform movement is steadily growing in
numbers. Many believers still within the fold
secretly support it. But Engineer has no
illusions about just what he is up against in
challenging the Syedna. "If they think that
by killing or paralyzing me, the movement
will die, they are mistaken." he declares.
"The struggle will go on." ~
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
In 1978 your editors,
assisted by Joseph Edamaruku,
editor of an Indian atheist publication,
combed India seeking writers
who would consistently offer an
interpretation of Indian religious events.
Margaret Bhattv. in Nagpur
a well-known feminist journalist, agreed
that she would do so in the future.
She joined the staff of
the American Atheist in January, 1983.

JOE, WHERE THE HELL'S

THE REST OF 'IOU?

November, 1984

WELL, FIRST M'I LEFT E'IE OFFENDED

ME - 50 I PLUCKED ITOUT - THEN
M'I LEFT LEG OFFENDED ME, 50 OFFIT CAME - THEN M'-I _RIGHT ARM
OFFENDED ME - 50 I ...
. ETC ETC ETC.

The American Atheist

POTPOURRI

Christianity's Bloody Record."You confound our ethical system, which we all accept, with Christianity. Our civilization is founded
upon reason and science. Our civilization is not founded upon Christianity." - John Burroughs.
The Inquisition. A Christian institution, established by the Roman Catholic Church, for the extirpation of heresy. Victims burned alive,
tortured with molten lead, thumbscrews, iron boots, iron virgins, etc. Founded on the teaching of Jesus Christ: "But those mine enemies
which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27.
Convents. Lecky, a famous historian, thus refers to the Catholic convents of the Middle Ages: "The writers of the Middle Ages are fullof
accounts of nunneries that were like brothels, of the vast multitude of infanticides within their walls, and of that inveterate prevalence of
incest among the clergy, which rendered it necessary again and again to issue the most stringent enactments that priests should not be
permitted to live with their mothers and sisters."
Crusades. Medieval military expeditions, under the banner of the cross, to capture the Holy Land. Any Christian onslaught against the
life and property of others was condoned.
Roman Catholic Church. A gigantic, parasitic organization, the history of which ~isa nightmare of unbridled bigotry and brutality.
Fawned upon by politicans and feared by intellectual poltroons. A "red" organization, ifever there was one. Caters to the mentally feeble by
means of idols, shin-bones, miracle-joints, and holy water. Passes as respectable because of its political influence.
Jesuits. Says the Encyclopedia Brttennice: "They had their share, direct or indirect in the embroiling of states, in concocting
conspiracies and in kindling wars. They were also responsible by their theoretical teachings in theological schools, where cases were
considered and treated in the abstract. for not a few assassintions of the enemies of th? cause"
Protestantism.
Christianity under Martin Luther was just as despotic and cruel as Christianity under the popes. And it was just as
bloodthirsty. "They, the Protestants of the Reformation." writes Edward Gibbon, the English historian, "asserted the right of the magistrate
to punish heretics with death."
The Scotch Kirk. Here Protestantism was found in its worst form of despotism and brutality. The historian Buckle thus pictures itin his
famous work, History of Civilization in England: "When the Scotch Kirk was at the height of its power, we may search history in vain for
any institution which can compete with it, except the Spanish Inquisition. Between these two, there is a close and intimate analogy. Both
were intolerant, both were cruel, both made war upon the finest parts of human nature, and both destroyed every vestige of religious
freedom."
Christian Science. A faith-healing cult. Opposed to the science of medicine and all basic treatment for the prevention of epidemics.
Responsible for the deaths of thousands through neglect of medical attention. Founded on Biblical mysticism and pseudo-science,
Exorcism. The act of expelling "evil spirits." At one time a popular superstition. Practiced by the founder of Christianity, who drove
demons into hogs as well as out of human beings. The "demoniacal possession" delusion was directly responsible for the flogging of the
insane, who were thought to be "possessed." Practiced by Christian Europe for many centuries. Founded on the authority of "sacred
literature."
The Witchcraft Delusion. Founded on the Biblical verse, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18. Responsible for the
trial, conviction, and death of countless victims. Believed in by a large part of Christian Europe and by our Puritan forefathers.
Human Slavery. A qod-sancticned institution. Supported by numerous Biblical passages. Defended and practiced by Christians. An
indescribable story of brutality and suffering. Woolsey Teller

Slavery. An old slave proverb: "Got one mind for white folks to see, 'nother what I know is me." This could well be paraphrased to fit
closet Atheists: "Got one mind for religionists to see, 'nother for what I know is me." Hansel Harper

Ancient Myths & Old Ideas. Now think for a moment. The myths surrounding the Judeo-Christian faith were formed over 2,000 years
ago. Do you think humankind has progressed since then? You might wonder why I do not believe in the -Judeo-Christian god. The reason,
quite simply, is that there is no such god. There are no gods at all. Deities are only figments of the human imagination. If you think there is
such a god, then prove it. And before you ask ifI can prove that such a thing does not exist, I must remind you of two things. First of all, the
burden of proof is upon those who assert. Secondly. you can't prove a negative case. So ifyou think that such a god exists, it is up to you to
prove that it is so. Ifyou want to argue the point, present the evidence. I must warn you, though, some arguments are not evidence at all, and
are useless: argument from authority, internal conviction, irrelevance, and anecdote. When that and other varieties of nonevidence are
eliminated, there turns out to be nothing.
.
The greatest aspect of religions are the methods by which they are forced on others, which usually begin as early as possible. With
generations and generations of people being told by their forebears that it is right and it is so, people are in'effect brainwashed. They in turn
brainwash those who come after them. who in turn do the same. and it continues indefinitely. The inability of people to accept that death is
final is probably one of the greatest factors that brings the breakdown in rationality. When people are provided with an alluring myth of life
Clftprdeath. they cling to it. unwilling to accept the ultimate Aqain. if vou think it is so. prove it.
The blind acceptance of ancient scripture is irrational, misleading, and dangerous. This blind acceptance of archaic dogma has had a
disastrous affect on the welfare of humankind. We willfind the nature and workings of the universe through the diligent efforts of scientists,
people with an insatiable desire to uncover the truth about the world in which we live. We willnot find the answer in the offhand musings off
nomadic people who existed thousands of years prior to the origin of modern science. Is it not better to live not knowing than to accept an
answer that might be wrong?
Think about this, Think about all of this. Step out of the bounds of ancient tradition which serve only as a bar to progress. Accept the
supremacy of reason, and not the supremacy of authority, and think about what you are doing. T. Robert Grace
Austin, Texas

November, 1984

Page 37

NA TURE'S WA Y / Gerald Tholen

THE
SPANISH-AMERICAN
CRUSADES
A

mong some of the most brilliantly

conceived tactics of deception is the
writing of history by "historians." The often
intentionally misleading annals of the past
have distorted most of our perceptions to a
point at which we now can only accept a
glossing of historical events with which to
salve our culturally patriotic consciences. It
is thus relatively easy to form inaccurate
opinions as to what really happened during
the past thousand years.
To compare the writings of a vast number
of historians with the actual events they
presume to record is, in most cases, a folly
for the wildest imagination. I have stated on
a number of occasions that one might be
inclined to "believe" any number of slanted
interpretations of past events simply by
reading the various ethnic, socio-cultural,
and religious archives originated by contemporary writers in a particular geographic
community during a given period of time. So
it has been with writings concerning "The
Crusades."
We have been given to believe that the
Crusades were a series of eight "glorious"
campaigns designed to "free" the holy city
(Jerusalem) from Mohammedan control.
Predominately Judeo-Christian states see
the effort as an entirely noble one and the
"barbaric" conduct of the Islamic states as a
terrifying and intolerable condition that our
society should find abominable!
The truth of the matter is that two separate and horribly cruel forms of religious
insanity, not to mention their equally insane
prototype, Judaism, have been confronting
each other since their conceptions, and it is
not likely these circumstances will change
until one obliterates the other. Even then
the "Crusades" will not have ended. The
victor will simply seek out other religious
ideologies and attempt to promote global
mind control of all the religious, as evidenced in current Hindu-Muslim clashes in
India.
And so the Crusades continue even though
it might appear, at least to those with only
little historical enthusiasm, that the magnificent Hollywoodized versions had concluded and that the warring between Christians and Muslims had finally come to an
end. As anyone can see, this is far from true.
Previously it had not occurred to me that
after the classically depicted Crusades era
Page 38

Pacific Ocean
China Sea

~~MCebu

1095 - 1291) there was only a temporary lull

in hostilities. This was largely due to the fact
that the Muslims, for all practical purposes,
had thoroughly defeated the Judeo-Christians' attempts to recapture Jerusalem and! or
various surrounding eastern Mediterranean
lands. Faced with bitter defeats at Tripoli
and Acre,- and after two hundred years of
costly expeditionary efforts, the ChristianEuropean nations became disenchanted with
the cause. At any rate, it would seem that a
"regrouping of resources" might then have
been in order.
Meanwhile, as you might recall, unrest
was still continuing between the Moors
(Muslim invaders of southern Spain) and the
Spaniards. This warring situation had been
going on since the year 711 and therefore
hadpreceeded the "Crusades" by over 300
years. The eventual expulsion of the Muslims from Spain was not complete until 1492
- that's right - the same year as Columbus' memorable voyage to the New World
and some 200 years after the so-called
Crusades had "ended."
Enter now a new interest. After 781 years
of territorial conflict it is discovered that
there are probably other vast territories
over which Christians and Muslims (or any
other idiotic religion, for that matter) can
November, 1984

fight! With the development of "great sailing

ships," Spain now turns her attention to
maritime explorations in the West. Other
European nations quickly follow Spain's
lead in frenzied attempts to capitalize on
acquisition of the numerous "new land"
discoveries. But what about the Mohammedans? Were they content simply with the
satisfaction of retaining the southern and
eastern Mediterranean lands? Not quite! So
far as Christian "history" is concerned only
Christian explorations transpired. No one
ever told us about an Islamic exploration
period in which Mohammedan maritime
(and land) explorations ventured in an opposite, eastwardly direction! There have
been significant omissions from the pages of
our christianized history books concerning
explorations in the early and middle 1300s.
Nevertheless, Mohammedan explorations
were made, and global Islamic religious
intrusions were initiated as far away as the
Philippine Islandst' A point of interest is
therefore raised; were Christian explorers,
like Columbus, intrigued and possibly educationally motivated on hearing of the success of Mohammedan sailing ships reaching
"strange new lands" in the Far East and
reporting on vast unexplored seas beyond?
Was it these stories that caused Spain to
The American Atheist

gamble fortunes that she could ill-afford on

sea voyages? Was it, in fact, the Islamic
explorations that started Christians to suspect that, indeed, the earth might actually
be "round?"
It is understandable that Islamic intrusions into India and other Asiatic nations
were thwarted by the fact that the Hindu
and Buddhist insanities were too well established for even the fanatical and persistent
Mohammedans to infiltrate. It would then
seem logical that Islamic interests would
necessarily be redirected toward areas that
were still in even more primitive stages of
development. So on to Malay, Borneo, and
beyond. There would be a brief exploratory
period before western Christianity and eastern Mohammedism would again face-off in
hostile confrontation.
The original inhabitants of the Philippines
were, according to most "historians," a
people known as Negritos (Caucasian and
Mongolian pygmies.) It seems that various
"waves" of Malays and Indonesians subsequently immigrated to the islands to the
extent that the early population became
somewhat mixed. All of these early inhabitants, again according to "historians," were
originally pagans. In about the year 1380
(fullyone hundred and twelve years before
the initialvoyage of Columbus) Islam reached
the Islands from Sumatra and Malaya by
way of Borneo, and by 1475 (pay particular
attention to the dates) Mindanao and the
southern islands (Sulus) were "converted"
and dominated by Mohammedans.
Simple arithmetic will show that these
events preceeded, by over a hundred years,
the subsequent "Christian discovery" of the
islands in the year 1521 . Your Christian
history books will tell you that it was in the
year 1521 that Magellan, a Portugese navigator in the service of Spain, discovered the
Philippine Islands - an obvious falsification
of history. Mohammedans not only reached,
but colonized, the Philippines long before
Spain even conceived the idea of extensive
maritime explorations and, in fact, even
before Columbus was born! Why do our
Christian history books totally omit these
historic facts? What, and how many, adventurous, Islamic explorers' names fail to
appear therein - and why?
Another fact is that it was not until the
year 1565 that a permanent Spanish settlement was established at Cebu, in the
south central islands. Cebu had previously
been a Moslem settlement. So, it's back to
the Crusades again - only this time slightly
relocated. The players names remain the
same even to the term Moros, Spanish for
Moors, their old home land foes.
At this point something new to the "oldfashioned" Crusades takes place - Portugal gets into the act. Now, in a three-sided
struggle, and faced with harrassments from
both the Moros and the Portuguese, Spain
retreats northward from Cebu to Manila,
Luzon. The Moros confined most of their
Austin, Texas

colonization to Mindanao and the south.

At this point I would like to inject an
interesting paragraph from American Peoples' Encyclopedia (1958 Vol. 15 col. 644)
that effectively demonstrates the incessant
greed of fanatically religious nations "While the other peoples of the Philippines
before the Spanish conquest lived in family
and village groups with no central authority,
thus being without communal force and
protection, the Moros had central authority
in the persons of their sultans. Consequently, while small Spanish forces found little
trouble in subjugating the other peoples of
the Philippines, they succeeded only in
ridding the seas of Moro pirates. Even after
the United States acquired the islands, the
Moros proved troublesome, and a number
of punitive expeditions were dispatched
before they were pacified." This short statement speaks directly to the incredible manner in which early explorations were carried
out. They were simply methods whereby
aggressive nations reached out to sieze,
strangle, and eventually annihilate, either
physically or intellectually, other cultures first to rob them of any "wealth" or resources and then to obliterate their history,
their cultural development, and, most importantly, their opposing religious ideologies. In such rabid campaigns a Christian
does not even mind annihilating another
Christian on occasion - if he happens to
stand in the way. Nor does a Moslem mind
annihilating a Moslem. After all, what are
different sects for? The Portugese were
made well aware of this! Besides, in the
passage of time, in order to make things
appear quite innocent, and serene, and to
justify cultural insanity, "historians" need
only destroy true accounts of historical
events and replace them with newly edited
history that better suits their needs.
The reason that I came to write this article
about Crusades and the Philippines and etc.
was, in part, accidental. Ben Akerley had
mentioned in an article included in the
August issue of American Atheist that
cruel and inhuman sexual repressions under Christianity were a means of social
control. This is certainly no less true of
Islamic practices. I then recalled a rather
bizarre tale that I had been told when I was
rather young. Whether the story is actually
true I have not been able to verify. In my
attempts to do so, however, I came upon
much of the information included in this
writing. The tale concerned the Moro tribesmen during their above mentioned encounters with U.S. "punitive expeditions." I was
told that in order to drive themselves to
suicidal ferocity in their clashes with clearly
superior military adversaries, the Moro guerillas would bind their scrotums with leather
thongs, thus inflicting agonizing pain which,
added to their already seething hate for the
Christians, enabled them to attack without
caution or self regard. Today, knowing
considerably more about Islam, I find no
November, 1984

reason for not being able to accept that such

insanities did actually occur. I then recalled
a movie that was produced in the late
thirties or the early forties in which Wallace
Berry starred as a tough drill-sergeant whose
duty it was to train the Philippine (Christian)
regular troops in "modern" battle techniques. The Moros were depicted as insanely
cruel fighting tools who would arbitrarily
murder anyone who represented opposition
to their cause. As is the case with any
Hollywood production, feeble attempts at
"reality" are made so far as the violence of
fighting is concerned. That is how they
make their money. But, there was no mention of the Islamic history of the Philippines,
nor was it disclosed who the Moros really
were - only that they were cruel and
sadistic. So, no viewer guessed that what he
or she was really watching was are-stirring
of the coals of the Crusades. Adding everything together now - the Spanish-American War; the continuing conflicts between
the Spanish, the Portugese, and the Moros
prior to that time; the fact that few if any
people knew of the Islamic history of the
Philippines, it would not seem, on the surface, that religion was the primary catalyst.
During my unfortunately restricted search
for historical material concerning the people
of the Philippines I came upon a book
entitled A Christian Archipelago; A Review of Religion in the Philippines by
Alexander McLeish (1941.) I acquired a
photocopy of this 30 page "war-time survey
series" reportedly authored by "evangelical
interests" in order to reflect "Christian
progress." Reading the pages of this incredible little pamphlet was like reading something condensed out of some of the more
disgusting of the fundamentalists' propaganda tracts. Although it did attempt to give
a "documentary" style narration addressing
the history of the Philippines, including
many of the Islamic connections, it was
pompously slanted from a Christian point of
view. Yet, it openly admitted to greedy
acquisitions of property and resources by
the Friars who were first sent by Spain to
"christianize" the islands. An interesting
point may be noted in the following passage
from page four: "At first the Friars were
closely identified with the government, but
later as their powers grew and they became
oppressive, an increasingly bitter struggle
developed between the church and the
government. As a rule, the church controlled the government, and governors who
refused to obey it were recalled. The Friars
who now owned a considerable part of the
land, had also acquired supreme political
power in the parishes. They suppressed all
liberty and freedom of action; education was
reserved for the privileged few and denied to
the masses. Immorality was charged against
them and the condition of the people was
deplorable."
Tome, this sounds remarkably like the
identical conditions that prevailed, and still
Page 39

prevail to a large extent, in any "third world"

locality in which Spanish and/or any other
Christian exploration/colonizations have operated historically. i.e. Mexico.
Such conditions continued even to that
point in history when the Spanish fleet was
destroyed by Admiral Dewey in retaliation
for the sinking of the U. S. Battleship Maine
in far away Cuba. It has since been strongly
suggested, however, that the "Maine incident" was the result of an accidental powder
magazine explosion aboard the Maine or
that it might have been an explosion subversively detonated by someone who simply
wanted to create a hostile situation between
the U.S. and Spain. At any rate, Spain
strenuously denied that she had sunk the
Maine and suggested that the incident was
probably of our own (U.S.) making. Nevertheless, war ensued, and Spain was quickly
defeated in Cuba and the Philippines. Manila was captured in August of 1898, and it
was at that point that the U.S. came into
conflict with the Filipino Republicans who
were demanding a "more democratic constitution" that would provide, among other
things, for the separation of church and
state. Hundreds of the hated Friars had
been imprisoned, and when the U.S. Government demanded their release as a preliminary to further discussions, Filipino Republican President Aquinaldo refused. The
Filipinos contended that the settlement between Spain and the U.S. had neither consulted nor considered the wishes of the
Philippine people. The U.S. attacked and
captured the Republican Capitol of Malalos
in March of 1899 and a period of guerilIa
warfare "of a particularly savage character"
followed. It was not until April of 1902 that
this conflict was ended. During this conflict
Spain "ceded" the islands to the U.S. (along
with Guam and Puerto Rico) in lieu of a
twenty million dollar settlement in April of
1899. On the restoration of peace the U.S.
Government immediately proceeded to deal
with the position of the Catholic Friars.
Their lands were taken over and "resold to
tenents" and a sum of seven million dollars
was paid in compensation to the Friars. This
amounted to the Filipinos "buying back" the
lands that had originally been stolen from
them much earlier! Oh well!What the hellthey were stilI "good Catholics" weren't
they?
With the destruction of the powers of the
Friars and the inclusion of certain church/
state separation agreements, the prestige of
the Catholic Church had been greatly weakened. Yet, under the influence of American
Catholics the Christian churches predominate, and religious influence and oppression
have been widely criticized by the people.
We claim to have brought "liberty and
independence" to the Philippines. Yet. internal poverty and unrest stilI exist there as in
every other part of the world where powerful, monotheistic religions have left their
filthy heel-prints. The story is the same - no
Page 40

matter where the locality - a naive and

relatively happy "primitive population" is
suddenly set upon by a "savior" - and all is
lost from that day forward. The original
happiness can never return because the
people involved become, themselves, intellectually twisted and tormented during their
"salvations."
When (and if) the "Crusades" ever do
end, how many broken people will be numbered among the lists of casualties?
Now, in order to conclude my little story,
a few quotes from this profound little book,
A Christian Archipelago, the tragically
slanted piece of garbage that tries to mold
the historical mistreatment of a people into a
glorious enhancement of their "Christian"
culture.
It seems that by January, 1933, the U. S.
had already tired of "saving" the Filipinos
because it was in that month that the
Philippine Independence Bill was passed.
"The first draft of that Bill, however, proposed that the U. S. retain the right to
maintain military and naval bases and to
secure international neutralization of the
islands. Those proposals were opposed and
therefore withdrawn, and the amended Bill
allowed for a ten year period in which
relationship, especially economical,could
be adjusted between the two governments.
The speedy passage of the Independence
Bill has been attributed to the growing
feeling in the U. S., at that time, that the
Philippines had ceased to be either a political or an economic asset and had become,
instead, a menace to both American capital
and labor interests as well as a possible
national danger." In short, we had "drilled a
dry hole." It was now time to abandon our
role as "savior of the Philippines."
"One of the greatest objects of the American administration has been the advancement of education. This is free, secular
(emphasis added), and co-educational. Nevertheless, only one-third of the children of
school age are being provided for. ... Yet
the materialistic outlook of the schools
leaves the ultimate results undetermined,
and it is a question whether any effective
education can be founded on such a purely
secular (emphasis added) basis. . .. The
fundamental problem of the new State will
undoubtedly be how to save (emphasis
added) Filipino youth from the curse of a
soulless (sic) materialism (emphasis added) which has already wrought such havoc
in Europe and elsewhere .... "
"Among the middle classes, education
has done something to change this (widespread prevalence of ignorance and superstition), but education without the Gospel
only succeeds in making materialists and
Atheists ... "
" . . . in disregarding such restraints as
were imposed by Roman Catholicism they
are adrift without any moral principles at all.
From the beginning, therefore, the Protestant missions were faced with the problem
November, 1984

of evangelization of the two large unevangelized groups of nominal Christians, the

peasants and the middle classes, largely
superstitious and wholly ignorant of what
Christianity means. There was also to be
faced the problem of the evangelization of
1,000,000 pagans and Muslims." Note: The
early Spanish Catholic hierarchy did not
allow the distribution of Bibles to the people!
It was the priests' duty to interpret the Bible
to the 19th century Catholic converts. And,
as was mentioned earlier, the Filipinos desired a "secular government." Therefore the
average Filipino was never thoroughly familiarized with the Bible.
As you might suspect, I cannot recommend this book for your reading pleasure. It
represents what I can only regard as "negative" reading. But, inasmuch as Christians
and Muslims have either destroyed contemporary historical documentaries or otherwise prohibited the publication of essays
relating to the occurrences of actual events,
one can only review the garbage that is
available and add to this biased "information" one's own assessment of what probably did occur and hope to arrive at some
realistic conclusions. One thing is sure, you
will not find available on any library shelves
any historical writings by other than Christians or Muslims. if the information which
sho~ld be included is detrimental to Christian or Moslem "teachings." How do I
know? I have tried! I tried through the
Library of the University of Texas (one of
the largest in the U. S.), the library of
Congress (including the library exchange
references system in which all major library
inventories are computerized), and even
through various notable seminary libraries, .
to find a second book, the title of which is,
Development of Mindanao and The Future of The Non-Christians written by E. B.

Rodriguez (1938). It was "not available."

We here at the American Atheist Center
continuously and diligently try to impress
you with this fact: everything that is available to you in the area of comprehensive
information has been perverted to a point
that available material, whether in books,
newspapers, magazines, or in the electronic
media or any other source - whether
historical, "scientific," social, or even fictional, has been so adulterated and "edited"
that it represents an almost total lie!
Happy reading! ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The "common sense" man of Atheism,
Mr. Tholen is the product of the
Gulf Coast marshes of Texas.
When he's not slaving over the
American Atheist as its Assistant Editor,
he's writing poetry of which
the Atheist movement can be proud.

The American Atheist

POETRY
Beware: Who's Kidding Who?
You go to church, you say a prayer
You do it thinking god is there
But is he really there inside
And if he is, where does he hide?
This god that no one ever sees
Answer me that, can you please?
A spirit can't be seen, you say
What is this spirit anyway?
A figment of the mind no doubt
This we know nothing about.
Except that he created man
The earth and all that's in it.
According to some divine plan
Of which there is no limit.
But is that really how it came
About, I'd want to know
For should we not kindly refrain
From that which cannot show
A reason, more than mere blind faith
Of that which we perceive
To be the truth of who we are
And what we should believe
Of this I'm glad we're free to choose
To voice our own opinion
To accept or to refuse
In this our own dominion.

WELL, FALL INTO CHANGE

We deal with minds afraid of change
their choice won't flip or flop
as truth within consumes itself,
and worship turns to plop.
Direct the self to realize
we build tomorrow now,
for we direct the changes made
with rights to howler how.
. Equality for All we cry,
tax land on which we dwell,
and tell the church, "Cough up your share,
or you may burn in hell."
My god must live, the churches say,
controlling changes now,
but truth slips out of fantasy
uniting world somehow.
Yuri Partov

Thomas J. Shaw

A Short Series of Rhyming Couplets

on The Topic of Love,
Purporting to Establish Once and for All,
The Existentially Valid Conclusion that
Atheists Have Feelings, Too.

A twIST to the tail of the religionIST

With this dawn a new day's begun

without even trying I picture the fun,
but more than having a breakfast in bed,
more than by a monarch asking to wed,
more than by the clean a shower gives,
more than an octogenarian' lives,
more than a perfectly fitting suit,
more than outfoxing a cantankerous old coot,
more than having my hair just right,
more than for sore eyes being a sight,
more than for getting into a shiny new car,
more than showing off at a neighborhood bar,
more than feeling in total controd,
more than accomplishing every goal,
more than being asked to lunch with the boss,
more than saving a portfolio from a serious loss,
more than clothes from New York Saks,
more than Nieman-Marcus threads on my back,
more than a diamond ring to wear,
more than running through a spring shower bare,
more than all the jewels on royalty heads,
more than a solid gold four poster bed,
more than all the riches in the deep sea blue,
I am so very happy just to be here with you.

Exquisite feeling it' s to find

The preacher's hokum isn't missed;
With freedom of hand and mind
I'm proud to be an Atheist!

EJK

Eric M. Frederick

Austin, Texas

I smile at all my ancient fears:

Imagined placement on a list When I step out and show the "dears"
I'm not a closet Atheist.
When no religion you profess,
No supreme bee-ing's rear is kissed,
And natur'ly you can't care less
If you are labelled Atheist.
Existence here on earh is eased,
- For it is here that we exist When phony gods need not be pleased,
And life's completely Atheist.
We lead the way with dignity:
Our rights the rights of all consists,
We stand without ambiguity
For freedom to be Atheists.

November, 1984

Page 41

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

My impressions or perceptions
and the
discernments
thereof are based on what I
read in the San F rancisco Chronicle and an
occasional Time magazine.
This is in reference to Cardinal Cody of
Chicago. Inquiry:
a) Is he really dead or was his "death" a
convenient removal?
b) Was she his mistress? (Dolan woman)
c) Was that Dolan man the cardinal's son,
or their son?
d) What happened to the money?
It is very easy to fool people on the story
of religion!!
Very truly yours,
F. Elliott
California

We are currently negotiating for still

another A vro Manhattan book which will
give you all the answers. Watch for the
notice of availability of the book.
The Editor

Muslims, they're all here. Actually, my encounters with these lost souls are a little
ironic. I honestly feel sympathy toward thse
unfortunates.
But then, they too (the ones who are not
outright hostile toward Atheism) feel syrnpathy towards me. Some claim to pray each
and every night for' my sin ridden soul. I'm
learning to deal with these people, however,
What I really find myself getting upset over
are the so- called "open minded" people.
I have a few friends here who claim to be
agnostic; yet when I offer them some Atheist
literature they shun away. I'm a member of
P.A.L.A. (Prison Atheist League of America), run by Mr. Arnold Via. I'd like to get a
chapter going here at Mid-State, but the sad
truth is I honestly believe I'm the only
Atheist here, out of more than 500 men.
O.K. I'm sure there are a few others, but
they won't come out of the closet.
I have about another year to do, and I find
myself becoming quite anxious to be able to
begin getting actively involved in American
Atheists.
In the meantime, I'll bide my time and look
forward to my next issue of American
Atheists.
All the best,
Ralph E. Drigger
New Jersey
P. S. Please feel free to publish my name and
address. Any mail from any Atheist would
be most appreciated.

Any mail addressed to you c/o The

American Atheist Center, will be forwarded to you. It is not our policy to publish
addresses in this column.
Editor

I just recently received my first two (2)

copies of American Atheist, plus a few
assorted
books, including Ingersoll The
Magnificent. Personally I feel that "magnificent" is an understatement!
Ingersoll's vow is the single most inspiring
paragraph
of words I have yet to come
across in my 28 years.
Though I could totally relate to Ingersoll
and his brilliant and kind philosophy, namely
"Atheism," I, unfortunately
can not totally
practice it. You see I'm incarcerated.
Without a doubt Atheism and the total
emancipation
one feels, like Ingersoll so
wonderfully describes is the single best thing
that has ever happened to me. However,
there are times when I feel as though I'm the
only Atheist in the world. Or at least in this
prison. Every time I turn around I'm running
into jesus-freaks,
born again Christians,
Page 42

It appears to me that all Atheists are

missing an opportunity
to express their
political feelings at this time. The front
persons of the Democratic Party, Mondale,
Hart and Jackson; all seem like politicians,
not thinkers, who thus far have not shown
any sympathy to our viewpoint. And President Reagan, the Republican,
has shown
himself to be entirely unacceptable
because
he seems to favor:
1. Year of the Bible.
2. Caters to Falwell, Oral Roberts and
many other religious "leaders."
3. Our mony stamped,
"In God We
Trust."
4. Pay for chaplains in our legislatures
and military.
5. His Supreme Court voting for religious
displays and creche scenes.
November,

1984

6. Softening school board acceptance of

the Biblical vs. the scientific .
. 7. Favoring prayer in public schools
8. General
tax support
for religious
schools, much to their delight.
9. Appointing
an ambassador
to the
Pope.
10. Favoring
prayer in tax-supported
schools.
11. Failure to favor that churches all be
incorporated
and taxed as are the rest of us.
12. He was in the army, all righi, but
mainly turning out flag- waving movies which
combat vet ems could have done better.
13. His failure to oppose requirement
of
"belief in God" of candidates
for public
offices in several states, and
14. Use of Bibles in federal oaths.
We should all individually sound our potential presidential candidates who are acceptable
to us. They don't have to be
politicians and Bible thumpers, or men.
Best wishes
Warren W. Patterson
California

American Atheist Press (A.A.P.} serves

thinking Americans as a factual data source
on Levantine religion and the christ-cult. In
contrast, mass media and educational insti- .
tutions simply will not deal honestly in this
field, nor dare they call to task the oily clerics
who prey on historical ignorance.
It is fashionable once again to banter
Flavius Josephus about in the media as an
historical witness to "christ." Our local
merchants of the absurd, having worn out
their Turin Shroud, now claim the Dead Sea
Scrolls make specific mention of the gospel
Jesus!
Although A.A.P. counters
many such
claims, many A.A.P. publications draw on
sources already decades old. A new effort is
needed in popular bookstores now to counter the contemporary
thrust of Christian
propaganda.
Is there ANYWHERE in the
offing an up-dated and definitive treatment
of the Jesus-question?
Thanks
John W. Baechler
Kentucky
Hitting below the Bible-belt

Yes,just such a new analysis is scheduled for publication in the spring of 1985.
Its debut will be at the 15th Annual
National Convention of American Atheists in Austin. Texas, on April 5, 6, 7,
1985.
The American

Atheist

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Why are Atheists constantly bombarded
with pleas to contact political "representatives" on religious issues? It is futile as well as
demeaning to continue begging for token
crumbs of justice from these detestable
hypocrites. A politician must necessarily
kowtow to the whims of ignorant sheep ifhe
is to remain in power.
I wholeheartedly agree with the American
Atheist decision to concede Washington,
Jefferson, Lincoln, etc. to the religious.
These slave-owning, war-mongering, meglomaniacal tyrants scarcely deserve the respect of any sane, ethical human being.
Their one "saving grace," freedom from god
superstitution, is conspicuously absent
from today's pack of criminals known as
congressmen and senators.
I believe American Atheists should concern themselves with public education
rather than politics. No change for the
better has ever come about by virtue of
governmental benevolence. They'll give in
only when enough people make enough
noise at the grass roots level, as seen by the
somewhat improved condition of Blacks,
women, Gays, etc.
I'll write to newspapers, argue with religionists and agnostices, and send donations
whenever I can. But please don't ask me to
recognize or legitimatize holders of political
office. It's sort of like asking Jerry Falwell to
believe Jesus was black.
Al Medwin
New Jersey

On p. 34 of the Aug. 1984 issue, Madalyn

Murray O'Hair says some things I don't
understand. In the 3rd and 4th paragraphs
from the end, she refers to "the ... concept
of 'god' " and to "god, as defined by the
religionists" and says "anyone who has
absolute proof there is no god is ... insane."
What concept and definition of god is she
referring to? I think it is not insane to say
that the nonexistence of god is proven by
the fact that religionists have not properly
defined "god." It's not as though god were
something that could be seen or hear or for
which we had some physical evidence, but
couldn't identify. God is a word made up out
of the blue by religionists and if they can't
define it (many of them say that god is
completely mysterious and unknowable)
then it doesn't exist as a concept and so
can't exist as a real thing.
Religionists say that god is the supreme
being, superior to and outside of the universe, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatuAustin, Texas

ral, perfectly good, the most perfect thing

conceivable, the greatest thing conceivable,
the most real of all things, the Absolute, the
ultimate reality and yet I wouldn't know god
ifI tripped over it. That definition defines the
word god perhaps, but not the thing god, i.e.
it would not enable me to recognize god if I
came across it. For example, I don't know
how to tell which of things is more real, let
alone which is the most real of all things.
"The most perfect being conceivable" is a
meaningless phrase because the word "perfect" is meaningless without at least a clue to
what areas of existence it refers to and the
criteria to be used to determine perfection.
If all you overheard of a conversation was
"that's perfect," you would have no idea of
what was meant. It could be part of a
conversation about the most evil thing conceivable. For example, it could be a conversation among Ku Klux Klanners one of
whom. has just suggested Martin Luther
King. Or the conversation could be a search
for a thing least likely to exist. Or it could be
about perfect flatness, roundness, transparency, opaqueness or anything else. Therefore "god is perfect" tells me nothing about
of god's characteristics.
The supernatural is something above or
beyond the natural. But what does "above
and beyond the natural" mean? Has anyone
given that phrase a rigorous definition?
People sometimes refer to unexplainable
events or things as supernatural but if
"supernatural" meant inherently unexplainable, god would say, every time he performed a miracle, "How the hell did that
happen?" and so couldn't be both supernatural and omniscient. So apparently, the
supernatural is something that does not
have a natural explanation but does have a
supernatural explanation. But since I don't
know what "supernatural" means, I am still
in the dark. I don't see what the difference
between a natural and a supernatural explanation could possibly be; either you understand something or you don't. I think the
entire meaning and function of the word
"supernatural" is as an intellectual cop-out
by people confronted by a mystery. If the
mystery is "supernatural" it doesn't have a
natural explanation so they don't have to
search for one, but it does have a supernatural exlanation so they don't have to face
the fact that something unexplainable may
exist. So "supernatural" has no definition
that makes sense and so doesn't help in
defining god.
"The supreme being" means that god is
superior to the universe and is outside of
space and time. Again, I don't know what
that means and doubt that anyone has given
"superior to the universe" a rigorous definition. This is related to the main argument for
god's existence: that god is the explanation
for the origin of the universe. A cause of
November, 1984

something must be outside of and before the

thing it causes. So the problem of the cause
of the universe is: how can something exist
before time and outside of space, what is
that thing, how does it work, and what's the
evidence? The religionist answer is that god
is the solution because god is outside of
space and time. But that is circular reasoning and not an answer to the question. The
answer to the question of how something
can be outside of space and time (let alone
what that thing is) is not the unsupported
assertion that there is such a thing. The
religionist answer, god, is actually a restatement of the problem labeled a solution. It is,
like the supernatural, merely an irrational
way to avoid facing the fact that a mystery
exists.
So, there is no meaningful definition of the
word "god" which religionists invented out
of the blue with no evidence. So, god doesn't
exist. Please tell me in what ways this
argument for the nonexistence of god is
insane.
Sincerely
Stanley Becker
New York

The definition of "insane" is for a

person to be "out of touch with reality."
Anyone who wants to play with the god
idea, ether pro or con is simply out of
touch with reality. Toplay that game, one
must play in the theists' ball park. An
Atheist's response to "give me proof
either way" should really be, "Don't
waste my time with word and 'beyond
nature' games. Living life is what is
important to me. " While the theists and
the agnostics play scrabble with what is
unreal, unknowable, supernatural, and
biblical you and I can be eating spaghetti
and sipping chianti ... which is a prime
example of "neture!" or what life is all
about.
Hence, I deal constantly in quips as
answers to theists.
Madalyn O'Hsir

NOTICE
Letters to the Editor must be either
questions or comments of general
concern to Atheists or Atheism.
Submissions should be brief and
to the point. Space limitations allow
that each letter should be 200 words, or
preferably less. Please confine
your letters to a single issue only.
Mail them to:
American Atheists.
P. O. Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117
Thank you.
Page 43

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENT
Organizationa

Businesses
American Atheist Addiction Recovery

Keep control at the end

To receive free copies of a

LIving Will
Durable Power of
Attorney for Health Care
Send self-addressed, stamped, legal-size (No.
10) envelope. (2Oc stamp for one set, 37c
stamp for 2.)
The Hemlock Society
P.O. Box 66211 Los Angeles, CA 90066

Groups Inc.
AMERICA's ONLY ALTERNATIVE to GOV.
BACKED AA, FAlTH HEALING (Killing)
Publishers of world's only
monthly newsletter for
alcoholics & other addicts;
their families and friends
Mem/Sub: 12 issues/$25
Sample 25 cents
AAARG, 2136 S. Birch St.
Denver, CO 80222
24-hr "warm line" (303) 758-6686

AMERIC,AN

J911871

GAY

ATHEISTS

P.O. Box 66711, Houston, TX 77266

P.O. Box 8644, Austin, TX 78712
P.O. Box 248, Vlg. Sta., NYC, NY 10014
AGA's membership is restricted to Atheists and
ONLY Atheists. Membership rate set at $10/yr.
by the Board of Dir's.
DiaJ-a-Gay-Atheist

(713) 527-9255

For membership & newsletter

information write:
Gay Atheist League of America
P.O. Box 14142
San Francisco, CA 94114

Prison Atheist Iague

01 Amarica

in DeQueen, Arkansas
(on Hwy 70 in Southwest Arkansas)

AMERICAN ATHEIST
INFINITE CEMETARY
For information write:
Arnold Via - Owner
Rt. 1, Box 580
Grottoes, Virginia 24441

Visit the
AMERICAN ATHEIST MUSEUM
For information write:
Lloyd & Pam Thoren
PO Box 55
Petersburg, Indiana 47567

For info write:

P.AL.A.
Rt. I, Box 580
Grottoes, VA 24441

READER SERVICE
SEND A GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONI

To send a special gift subscription" of American

Atheist magazine, enter the name and address of the
recipient here:
Name __ (Pie
~~~------------------------ Print)
Address"--

City

State

(40 milfll East of Dallas on Hwy 35)

DAIRY DeQUEEN RESTAURANT

GALA

A .''onProfit CorpolTl"on
IWI

For fine foods prepared by a fine Atheist

visit: WES-T RESTAURANT
in west Tawakoni, Texaa

..LZip

-By taking advantage of this special gift subscription

offer, you save $5_00_You may send the American Atheist
magazine to anyone in the U.S. for $20_00 for a one year
period (for orders outside of the U.S. add $5.00 for postage).

TO SUBSeR/BETO AMERICAN
ATHEIST MAGAZINE OR TO RENEW'
YOUR PRESENT SUBSCRIPTIONI

TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE

AMERICAN ATHEIST ORGANIZATION.
Membership categories are (check appropriate category):

o Individual; $40/yr
o 65+/unemployed-; $20/yr
o Student": $12/yr
o Info packet only; free

Couple--;

$50/yr

0 Sustaining; $100/yr
0 lifetime; $500
"Send photocopy of 1.0_, etc.
--Include

partners' name

Membership includes the American Atheist (monthly)

Newsletter
and subscription
to the American Atheist
magazine - plus a/l regular additional mailings that are
made by the organization.

Enter your name and address (or attach your old

magazine address label) here:
Name __ ~~~--------------~------(Please Print)
Spouse/Partner
Addres5.s

Name

(Ple e Print)

City

Enter your name and address (or attach your old

magazine address label) here:

State

Name __ (Pie
~~~--------------------------- Print)
Addresl>-$

I enclose check or money order, or authorize a

charge (VISA or MASTERCARD only), for the above
orders in the amount of $
_

City
Zip

1 year subscription - $25.00 (outside U.S. add $5.00)

Texas state residents please add 5Va% sales tax.

Page 44

_
MC/VISA

State

..LZip

November, 1984

Bank Code
Signature

_
Exp. Dat
tL

Date

The American Atheist

OUR FOUNDERS'
REAL THOUGHTS
One ofthe manythingsthat Atheistspokespersons are confronted with by the media and
by the public at media events is the statement "This country was founded on christian principles by god-fearing men."
The implication follows then that Atheism
is an inappropriate thing for Americans if
the nation indeed had a christian founding.
The general public, gullible as it is, has
swallowed this line of thinking for many
generations. In actuality, nothing could be
further from the truth.
OUR CONSTITUTION-THE
WAY IT
WAS is a collection of scripts of the American Atheist Radio Series dealing with this
question in an effort to clear up the many
strongly held public misconceptions about
the founding of our nation. All of the scripts,
as well as the entire American Atheist Radio
Series, are authored by Dr. Madalyn Murray
O'Hair, Founder and President of American
Atheists.
These short selections will quickly bring
you up to date on the true sentiments of our
"founding fathers" with respect to organized religion. This is a booklet not alone for
the adult but is excellent to be shared with
your children as a part of their learning
experience about early America.

OUR
CONSTITUTION
u[}{]~

W&W

W&@

ou

from the
AMERICAN ATHEISr
Radio Series

by
Dr. Madalyn

O'Hair

OUR CONSTITUTION-THE
Order your copy today

Our Constitution-

WAY IT WAS

$2.50 plus 50 postage and handling

The Way It Was

TOTAL $

Texas State Residents please add 5% sales tax

Make checks/money

orders payable to: AMERICAN ATHEISTS. PO Box 2117. Austin. TX 78768

Name

Or charge to my:

Address
City

[ ] VISA or [ ] MASTERCHARGE
Number

State
Signature

Zip

Expiration date
Bank no./code letters,

_
_
_

AM EN DM ENT I

CONGRESS

SHALL MAKE NO LA W RESPECTING

"Religion and politics are necessarily

related."
- Ronald Reagan

.~

ir:
ir:
~
~

O-c
~

:r:
f--;
.ro ~O

'uoasas .ro

WOagg~d

sru

ONIOaI~S:V 110