THE

$2.50

AMERICAN ATHEIST
A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

(VoI.24, No. 12) December, 1982

Greetings
of the
Winter Solstice
Seasonl
Celibrate the Winter Solstice - Dec. 21, 11:39 PM EST

********************************************************************
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 lifeon 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 lifeasserting. 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 fulfillingcultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

**************~*******************************~***************~*****
AMERICAN ATHEISTS

. P.O.BOX 2117

AUSTIN, TX 78768-2117

Send $40 for one year's membership. You will receive our "Insider's Newsletter" monthly,
your membership certificate and card, and a one year subscription to this magazine.

(VoI.24. No. 12) December, 1982

ARTICLES
"Won" For Our Side
Xmas Before Christ - Joseph McCabe
The Family - Laurel Kintner
Maiming Of The Dillywhacker - Richard Morris
The Christian Credibility Gap: Part II, "The Coinage Connection"
-

Hiram Elfenbein

No, Virginia, There Is NO Santa Claus -

Robert A. Steiner

4
8
11
16
18
25

FEATURED COLUMNISTS

John Lennon Remembered - Jeff Frankel

A Christian Dogma That Was Borrowed From Mythology
-

Merrill Holste

29
33
34
35

'

To Be Or Not To Be - Gerald Tholen

A Superior Kind Of Worship - Ignatz Sahula-Dycke

REGULAR FEATURES
Editorial: "T'is The Solstice Season - Jon G. Murray
American Atheist Radio Series: "The Solstice Season"
Atheist Masters: "Christmas Trees And Tree Gods"
-

Chapman

Cohen

2
13

Solstice Wonderland - Gerald Tholen

The Night Before Solstice - Gerald Tholen

Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Managing Editor
Jon G. Murray

Poetry
Robin Murray O'Hair
Angeline Bennett
Gerald Tholen

Production Staff
Art Brenner
Bill Kight
Richard Smith
Gerald Tholen
Gloria Tholen

Non-Resident Staff
G. Stanley Brown
Jeff Frankel
Merrill Holste
Ignatz Sahula-Dycke
Fred Woodworth

Austin, Texas

The clear and blue of Autumn

sky
Descends to Winter gray
Now coat and glove and warming fire
Must greet this Solstice day
So fruitless now the barren tree
So quiet the frozen stream
And life must bide these dormant days
With Springtime yet a dream

23

POETRY

Editor-in-Chief

Solstice Wonderland

1
17

The American Atheist magazine is pub- .

lished monthly at the Gustav Broukal American Atheist Press, 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756, and 1982 by Society of
Separationists,
Inc., a non-profit, non-political, educational organization
dedicated to
the complete and absolute separation
of
state and church. Mailing address: P.O. Box
2117/Austin,
TX 78768-2117. A free subscription is provided as an incident of membership in the American Atheists organization. Subscriptions
are available at $25. for
one year terms only. Manuscripts submitted
must be typed, double-spaced
and accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed
envelope. The editors assume no responsibility
for unsolicited manuscripts:

Yet snow shall fall on hill and

field
And wonderlands appear
To fill with joy each youthful
heart
And calm our Winter's fear
Bid welcome then these restful
days
And slow life's rapid pace
For as we dream of sunlit
warmth
The cold shall pass with grace

gerald tholen
Winter Solstice:
December 21 st. 11 :39 EST

The American Atheist magazine

is indexed in

Monthly Periodical Index

ISSN: 0332-4310

December, 1982

Page 1

EDITORIAL

JON GARTH MURRA Y

T'IS THE SOLSTICE

The season has come round again, and it is once more
time for the christian community to go into their "heat
season" to ward off the cold. Each year, in December, we
hear about the birth of the alleged "jesus" echoing through
the halls of church after church. The commercial spirit is
rekindled by the merchants urging you to buy some useless
utensil for an ungrateful relative. What does all of this have
to do with humanity's well being? Nothing much anymore,
but at one time the Winter season was indeed a very special
time for people. In our primitive beginnings we were
frightened by almost everything, certainly almost everything that moved, especially at night. It was the fright
spawned by ignorance of those natural and often cyclical
things that went on around us.
So, when the days began to grow shorter and the nights
longer and the "great ball of fire" in the sky that warmed
things like our fire warmed our cave began to come around
less and less, we got frightened. Primitive man asked "would
it return." It did, and then it was time to rejoice. All of the
early cultures built festivals around this time of year with
various "sun gods" being herald for returning with light and
warmth. Horus to the Egyptians, mithra to the Persians,
dionysus to the Greeks, bacchus to the romans and jesus to
the christians. In the case of the christians the transition
from "sun" to "son" was a rather obvious one and easily
made. The traditions of ignorance played into the hands of
the newcomer of perpetuation systems for that "state of
bliss." If one "sun" could bring life and warmth back so
could a substitute "son," and so christianity was off and
running.
Other things caught primitive minds about the season of
the return of the sun. Certain things in the woods stayed
green or had berries or both while everything else died from
the lack of the sun. Mistletoe was held sacred by the ancient
druids, but they didn't kiss underneath it. Mistletoe, appropriately enough, is a parasitic shrub which fits it admirably
to a worship system. The Romans did use it for kissing,
though, and it played an important part in the Roman
saturnalia festival. In fact, slaves were even allowed to kiss
their masters on that feast day ifthey caught them under the
mistletoe. I'll leave the conifers, the other prevalent green
thing in the forest, for Chapman Cohen to expound on in an
article in this issue.
Human characters, besides the mythical jesus, got into it
rather late in history. Nicholas was an early christian bishop
in Asia Minor who was renowned for his generosity to
children. When Dutch seamen carried back stories of his
good deeds, December 6th was set aside in Holland as a day
on which children received presents. The Dutch transformed his name to "sinter klaas" as well as his appearance.
It was not until 1809 that Washington Irving portrayed the
American santa claus as a chubby, jolly, elf-like character.

Page 2

December, 1982

Winter was not the only seasonal change month that

primitive man noticed, and hence festivals sprang up
around other seasons and the natural events associated
with them as well. Eggs, for example, were regarded by
many cultures as a symbol of continuing life and resurrection. They were handed out as prizes by the Romans to the
fastest runners during their Spring festival. The Chinese
colored eggs, especially red, during the spring.
The Romans once celebrated the killing of wolves with a
festival to the triumphs of lupercus, a god who protected
farmers from roaming creatures. As a part of the rites,
maidens made up love missives and deposited them in large
urns to be drawn by the men of the village who then courted
them. When christianity took over the holiday, lupercalia,
was renamed Valentine's Day in honor of an alleged
christian martyr beheaded by emperor Claudius II in about
the year 270.
May day was another springtime celebration partaken of
by the Romans. This one honored flora, the goddess of
flowers. In medieval England the May day custom was for
everyone, regardless of social station, to go out on the first
day of May and to "fetch the flowers fresh."
From as long as 2,000 years ago harvest festivals have
been a part of every culture. Our halloween, or all-halloweve, has most of its customs brought over by the Irish in
their immigrations of the late 1800's. Our pumpkin replaced
their turnip for jack-o-Ianterns lit with candles to ward off
the witches, demons, hobglobins and evil spirits that were
supposedly allowed to roam the earth on that night. It was
also the Irish who initiated the "trick or treat" custom
hundreds of years before it came to America.
Over all, most cultures have celebrated natural events
associated with the changing seasons and what happens in
those months, particularly in agrarian times. Remember,
farming was the principal occupation of whole countries for
a lot longer than factories. The industrial revolution came
very late in human history. Essentially then, holidays have
been celebrations of natural events that all cultures and
localities share - that is, until christianity and other major
religions got a grip on the world. Now even the word
"holiday" means holy day.
Let's get back to the christian December 25th for a
moment. Even that date has been in some dispute through
out church history as the day of the miraculous birth of this
alleged savior. I mean ifthe christers are going to invade the
lawns of our city halls with nativity scenes every year, they
at least ought to be certain which day the "blessed event"
took place on.
Historical evidence is not at all accurate on this point, but
some historians think that the church in Alexandria, Egypt
began commemorating the baptism of jesus on January 6th
around about the year 200. That date on the Egyptian

The American Atheist

calendar marked the festivals for the sun god at the time of
the Winter Solstice. In later years that same date, January
6th, was known as epiphany on the calendars of the eastern
mediterranean church. Epiphany is from the Greek word
meaning "manifestation." It commemorated the birth, adoration of the magi (wise men) and baptism of jesus all
together. It was not until about 274 when the Roman
emperor Aurelian decreed that the birthday of the unconquered sun (not son) be celebrated at the Winter Solsticecalculated by the Romans on their julian calendar as
December 25th. Then at some time just before the year 336
the church at Rome established the commemoration of the
birth of jesus - the son - on that same day. The evidence
for that was found in a chronography (an almanac for the
use of early christians) which included an entry for December 25th in the year 354 as: "christ born in Bethlehem of
Judea."
In the year 381 in Constantinople (now Istanbul in
Turkey) pope gregory of Nazianzus gave an epiphany
sermon speaking of "christmas" or the "mass of christ" as
recently past. Remember, epiphany was on January 6th.
Then, in Antioch (a city in south Turkey - capital of ancient
Syria from 300-64bc) in about the year 386, in a sermon on
December 20th a bishop there spoke of an upcoming
festival from which all others come, the christmas celebration. The same sermon referred to the visit of the magi. Five
days later, on the 25th, the same bishop's sermon said that
the December 25th festival had been known among the
Antiochans for less than 10 years. But in his sermon of
January 6th, 387, he stated that the name epiphany should
not be applied to christmas, as some held, because jesus
became manifest to others and began his ministry after his
baptism.
The separation of the two dates, December 25th and
January 6th, was not achieved back in Egypt until at least
432. The opposition to christmas lasted until the 6th century
in Jerusalem when the nativity was separated from January
6th and celebrated on December 25th. There are still some
Armenian apostolic churches in the United States today
whose congregations commemorate both christ's birth and
baptism on January 6th. Most of the eastern orthodox
churches, especially in Slavic countries, observe christmas
on January 7th and epiphany twelve days later, because
they continue to use the julian calendar (established by
Julius Caesar in 46 b.c. and which fixed the length of the
year at 365 days with 366 days every four years), which is 13
days behind the gregorian calendar (named after pope
gregory XIII[1572-85] according to which the ordinary year
consists of 365 days and a leap year of 366 days occurs in
every year whose number is exactly divisible by four' except centenary years whose numbers are not exactly
divisible by four hundred, i.e. 1700, 1800, etc.) which we
now use. Trust a pope to make things more complicated.
You see, January 7th to us is December 25th (13 days back)
on the julian calendar for them.
The point of all of this history lesson is that some 400 plus
years after this "savior" was supposed to have been born
the early church decides to come down on a birth date for
the founder of their faith. It seems to me that a date of such
importance could have been nailed donw a lot earlier. How
convenient it was when they did decide to pick out

Austin, Texas

December 25th that every culture was celebrating some

kind of natural event around that time. Even the people in
the southern hemisphere have their Summer Solstice at
that time. All that had to be done was to rename the event.
That is why it is very important for us, as Atheists, to take
the mysticism surrounding holidays (holy days) away and
celebrate what is really worth celebrating, which is life.Just
being alive is wonderful. Celebrating the cycles of life has
intrinsic value to all humans and is something that goes far
beyond our specific cultures to give us something everyone
can be happy about. To do so, however, reaffirms that we
are part of the animal kingdom. The seasonal events that
mean something to the wild animals mean something to us
as well in a common way. The church will never allow that
because it denies their special creation stories.
I don't think that we, as Atheists, should be celebrating
the Winter Solstice in the same spirit as our very early
ancestors, either. They rejoiced out of ignorance. We can
rejoice too - but out of our knowledge of natural phenomena and the ever increasing part we play in the cycle of life
on our planet and not out of relief from fear of the unknown.
We should look around us at this time of year and say how
wonderful it is to be a part of the cycle of nature and how can
we make that cycle work better for us and all the other
organisms on the planet. Instead, the majority of the
population takes this season as an opportunity to reaffirm
their desire to be apart from the cycle of nature and to
isolate themselves to paddle their own little canoes to
"salvation" unconcerned about future generations or the
cycles that brought them this far up the evolutionary chain.
I don't plan to swap lifefor an escape from lifeinto fantasy
this Winter Solstice or any other. I do plan to put up my
conifer, decorate the house with pine cones and mistletoe,
drink too much, eat too much, sing and enjoy what life has
to offer with my fellow animals. I think that's a whole lot
healthier than pledging my mind to submission under a
my h in some dark hall, don't you?
'

December, 1982

Page 3

((WON)) FOR OUR SIDE!

UNITED STATES ,DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM and TERRY B,ECK, individually and on
behalf of their minor children; MARGARET CAPRON; and JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf
of his minor child,

v. ROBERT L. McELRATH, in his capacity as Commissioner of Education; the Governor,

and the
Attorney General of the State of Tennessee.

American Atheists is pleasantly surprised at the quality of the federal court decisions coming out of the deep
south, in respect to state/church separation issues. It becomes more and more apparent as time passes that
the sophisticated, suave, politicized northeast of the nation is more tradition-bound with religion than any
other part of the nation. When "silence" for meditation or for prayer was passed by the legislature of
Tennessee we waited with bated breath to see what the federal court would do there.
Read the decision which outlawed a moment of silence in the Tennessee public schools system and rejoice
with us that there is a federal judge in Tennessee who has both brains, heart and courage.
MEMORANDUM
In this civil action plaintiffs seek declaratory relief pursuant to 42 US Code Section 1983, the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article
I, Section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution. It is alleged that
an enactment by the General Assembly of Tennessee must
be declared unconstitutional.
I.
The challenged provision states:
"At the commencement of the first class of each day
in all grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge
of the room in which such class is held shall announce
that a period of silence not to exceed one minute of
duration shall be observed for meditation or prayer or
personal beliefs and during any such period,silence
shall be maintained."
1982 Tenn. Publ. Acts ch. 899, Section 1 (amending Tenn.
Code Ann. Section 49-1922). The basic question presented
in this lawsuit concerns whether the General Assembly
could enact this amendment in light of the Establishment
Clause.
As a preliminary matter, defendants point out that prayer
has never been prohibited in public schools, and that those
who generally state that prayer is prohibited do so incorrectly. This statement is obviously correct, for "the Free
Exercise Clause . . . recognizes the value of religious
training, teaching and observance and, more particularly,
the right of every person to freely choose his own course
with reference thereto, free of any compulsion from the
state." School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203, 222, 83 S.
Ct. 1560, 1571, 10 L. Ed. 2d 844 (1963). Defendants also
point out that the Constitution does not require an antireligious government. This statement is also clearly supported
by the above-quoted authority. Moreover, the Supreme
Court has expressly noted elsewhere that the First Amendment "requires the state to be neutral in its relations with

Page 4

December, 1982

groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not

require the state to be their adversary. State power is no
more to be used so as to handicap religions, than it is to
favor them." Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1, 18,
67 S, Ct. 504, 513, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947),
Identifying these concepts as constitutional realities,
defendants set out to fashion an argument in support of the
challenged statute. Such realities under the Free Exercise
Clause are not determinative of the issues in this case,
however. Defendants recognize, as does the court, that no
issue in this case touches upon alleged infringement of
rights secured under that clause. To the contrary, it is
claimed that the state has attempted to promote, rather
than inhibit, religious exercises in the public schools. The
Establishment Clause, as an interrelated and complementary provision, prohibits action by the state which ttanscends the bounds of neutrality on the opposite side of the
issue to which the identified realities address themselves. A
decision cannot be reached in this case without also looking
at the other side of the coin, so to speak, for "(w}hile the
Free Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state
action to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone, it has
never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the
State to practice its beliefs." Schempp, supra, 374 US at
226, 83 S. Ct. at 1573.
II.
The history of the First Amendment as it relates to
religious freedom has been detailed on numerous occasions. Most commonly recognized 'is the principle that the
framers of the Constitution sought to prevent the establishment of any single denomination as a state church, because
it is well known that "(a) large proportion of the early
settlers of this country came ~e from Europe to escape
the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and
attend government favored churches." Everson, supra, 330

The American Atheist

US at 8, 67 S. Ct. at 508. The story behind the religion

clauses goes further, however. With Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison as leading proponents of complete individual freedom in matters concerning religion,
"(t)he people (in Virginia), as elsewhere, reached the
conviction that individual religious liberty could be
achieved best under a government which was
stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise
to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the
beliefs of any religious individual or group."
Id. at 11,67 S. Ct. at 509. Thus governments in this country
are not only powerless to establish an official church;
governments in this country are powerless to support,
assist, suppress, or hinder religious beliefs in any respect
whatsoever. The meaning of the Establishment Clause, in
particular, can therefore be stated as follows:
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set
up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one
religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over
another. Neither can force nor influence a person to
go to or to remain away from church against his willor
force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
No person can be punished for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs for church
attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount,
large or small, can be levied to support any religious
activities or institutions, whatever they may be called,
or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government
can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any
religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In
the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of
separation between Church and State."
Id. at 15-116,67 S. Ct. at 511-12 (citations omitted). Upon
this foundation, the test which generally confronts legislation alleged to contravene the Establishment Clause has
been stated as follows:
"(T)o pass muster under the Establishment Clause
the law in question first must reflect a clearly secular
legislative purpose, second, must have a primary
effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and,
third, must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion."
Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v.
Nyquist, 413 US 756, 774,93 S. Ct. 2955,2965,37 L. Ed. 2d
948 (1973).
A.
Defendants suggest that the statute merely provides for
enforcement of a moment of silence in public schools. This
approach begs the preeminent question, however. Plaintiffs
do not challenge simply a moment of silence here; they
challenge a moment of silence which, by legislative mandate
in Tennessee, "shall be observed for meditation or prayer or
personal beliefs." It may well be, as defendants contend,
that a moment of silence in and of itself is nondiscriminatory
and may serve a secular purpose in aid of the educative
function. Certainly a statutory enactment is unnecessary to
provide for a moment of silence. The court is unable to
agree, however, that the statute reflects such a clearly

Austin, Texas

secular purpose. In the abstract it is true that "meditation"

and "reflection upon personal beliefs" can be viewed as
carrying meanings that do not touch upon religion. Individual terms within a statute are not to be construed in a
purely abstract sense or in a vacuum, however. As all terms
in the statute are viewed together and accorded reasonable
meaning, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the
legislative purpose was advancement of religious exercises
in the classroom. Ordinary principles of statutory construction do not comprehend the straining that defendants
would urge upon the court.
At the very best, it might be said that the statute on its
face is ambiguous, and that the court should consider
underlying legislative history. If that is the case, the record
of debate upon this statute is devastating to defendants'
position. The overwhelming intent among legislators supporting the bill, including the sponsors, was to establish
prayer as a daily fixture in the public schoolrooms of
Tennessee. Even if much that was said can be passed off as
political rhetoric, it is rhetoric clearly inconsistent with
standards set in place by the Constitution, and therefore
reflects upon an inappropriate purpose. There were indications that certain legislators have concluded that prayer
should be a routine part of a school day because a majority
of their constituents support such a practice. But such
reliance, even upon the sentiments of a public majority
whose existence might be subject to judicial notice, takes
no account of the principle that:
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to
withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of
political controversy, to place them beyond the reach
of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal
principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to ..
. freedom of worship ... and other fundamental rights
may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the
outcome of no elections."
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624,
638,63 S. Ct. 1178, 1185,87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943). If this is not
correct, by leaving political favor and majority sentiment to
carry the day on all issues we have no need for a
Constitution at all, and we might determine our most basic
rights by consulting the latest Gallup Poll.
In support of their contention that the legislative purpose
was secular in nature, defendants partially quote the
comments of Senator Henry. It is instructive to note,
however, that Senator Henry was speaking in support" of an
amendment which would have deleted from the bill any
reference to prayer. Senator Henry argued to no avail his
conviction that "the prayer proposition I really don't think
we ought to legislate." Immediately following his comments
another senator rose in opposition to the same amendment
and opened his remarks by stating:
"If there is one thing the people of this state want, they
want prayer in public schools. The fact of the matter is
this is a vote on prayer in public schools. Now Senator
Henry ... just has a different point of view. But if you
want to get recorded as being against prayer in public
school, you vote for his amendment."
The amendment was defeated by a vote of 24 to 7, and thus
it is quite as likelyas not that the Senate intentionally turned
away from the secular objective supported by Senator

December, 1982

PageS

Henry. In any event, his remarks were hardly endorsed by .

the Senate and certainly do not support a finding of a
secular purpose.
.
Defendants also refer to statements by Senator Dunavant and Senator Davis, each of whom spoke in opposition
to Senator Henry's amendment. But Senator Dunavant's
remarks consisted for the most part of a defense for the bill
based upon the absence of coercion. Senator Davis agreed
with Senator Dunavant and echoed his sentiments, indicating that ~'(t)he kids can pray, which we hope that most of
them will, but they don't have to." The real import of their
remarks, in other words, appears to be that although the .
subject legislation would indeed serve to promote prayer in
schools, it would be constitutionally acceptable so long as
children were not forced to pray. Such reasoning, whether
defendants consciously adopt it or not, overlooks the'
distinction that "a violation of the Free Exercise Clause is
predicated on coercion while the Establishment Clause
violation need not be so attended." Schempp, supra, 374
US at 223,83 S. Ct. at 1572. See also Engle v. Vitale, 370 US
421,82 S. Ct. 1261,8 L. Ed. 2d601 (1962). Moreover, it does
nothing to dispel the appearance of a legislative purpose
directed almost solely toward the promotion of religion,
because:
"That a child is offered an alternative may reduce the
constraint; it does not eliminate the operation of
influence by the school in matters sacred to conscience and outside the school's domain. The law of
imitation operates, and nonconformity is not an
outstanding characteristic of children."
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 US 203, 227,68 S. Ct.
461,473,92 L. Ed. 649 (1948) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
Certain modifications in the statutory language were
approved, ostensibly in an effort to bring that language into
line with constitutional requirements. But a mere cursory
reading of the legislative history discloses that the purpose
for which the statute was enacted remained constant - the
legislature sought to set aside a time for daily religious
exercises in public schools. Certainly no other purpose is
apparent which substantially influenced the legislature as a
body, or which can be viewed as more than a "merely
adjunctive and supplemental" secular purpose. DeSpain v.
DeKalb County Community School District, 384 F.2d 836,
839 (7th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 US 906 88 S. Ct. 815,
19 L. Ed. d 873 (1968).
B.
The second factor to be considered under Nyquist
concerns the primary effect of legislation. Schools were not
in session when the hearing in this case was conducted, and
no evidence was produced. Nevertheless, the effect of this
statute should be examined. See, e.g., Nyquist, supra (case
resolved on basis of pleadings, without evidentiary hearing).
The natural effect must be determined from the face of the
statute, iffor no other reason because the legislature did not
provide any guidelines for implementing its requirements.
The court is convinced that the primary effect of this
statute must be the promotion of religious exercises. Stated
otherwise, it is presumed that the effect will be that which
was intended by the legislature. As a practical matter, the
statute's effect may well differ from one _classroom to

Page 6

December, 1982

another in the absence of implementing guidelines. For

example, some teachers might simply call for a moment of
silence; some might call for a moment of silence and instruct
students that they are to meditate, pray, or reflect upon
their personal beliefs; and some, in straightforward execution of the legislative intent, might instruct students that a
time is being provided for them to pray. If, for that matter,
teachers merely recite the statute to students and announce that its terms will be followed, the primary effect
would appear to be obvious. Unavoidably, students will
understand that they are being encouraged not only to be
silent, but also to engage in religious exercises. It cannot be
seriously argued, and certainly cannot be assured, that nice
distinctions concerning the potential meanings of "meditation" and "personal beliefs" willnaturally arise in the minds
of public schools students.

C.
In light of conclusions discussed above, a detailed
examination of potential administrative entanglements under the third prong of the Nyquist test is not necessary here ..
Suffice it to say that the bill not only leaves school officials
and teachers in the position of administering the law, but
also leaves them to interpret its requirements. As they
perform these tasks, "public funds, though small in amount,
are being used to promote a religious exercise. Through the
mechanism of the State, all of the people are being required
to finance a religious exercise that only some of the people
want and that violates the sensibilities of others." Schempp,
supra, 374 US at 229, 83 S. Ct. at 1575 (Douglas, J.,
concurring). Varying degrees of potential entanglement are
as difficult to enumerate as are the potential effects, and
appear to be no less problematical.
III.
It cannot be denied, as the Supreme Court has explicitly
recognized, "that religion has been closely identified with
our history and government," Schempp, supra, 374 US at
213,83 S. Ct. at 1566, that indeed "(t)he history of man is
inseparable from the history of religion." Engle, supra, 370
US at 434, 82 S. Ct. at 1268, that the founders of our country
"believed devotedly that there was a God and that the
inalienable rights of man were rooted in Him," Schempp,
supra, 374 US at 213, 83 S. Ct. at 1566, and that an
exceedingly large majority of people in this nation identify
themselves as holding religious beliefs, see id., 374 US at
213,83 S. Ct. at 1566. Religion has occupied, and continues
to occupy, a prominent role in this society. As a corollary,
and as no less an abiding principle, total religious freedom
has held an exalted position in this country. The founders of
our nation knew personally the dangers and the persecution that are set afoot when governments take a position
either for or against religious beliefs, and they recognized
very well that "freedom to worship was indispensable in a
country whose people came from the four quarters of the
earth and brought with them a diversity of religious
opinion." Schempp, supra, 374 US at214, 83 S. Ct. at 1567.
Bringing their convictions to bear, the framers of our
Constitution were determined that every individual must be
free to practice or not to practice religious beliefs in
accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and

The American Atheist

that the government must stay out of religious affairs

entirely. The issue here, then, concerns power - the power
of the legislature - and it is clear that on both sides of the
spectrum, the state lacks power either to handicap or to
favor religions, Everson, supra, 330 US at 18, 67 S. Ct. at
513. The absence of power under our Constitution to enact
legislation respecting religion is complete, however popular
a measure might be and whether it would favor or oppose a
particular religion or all religions. Justice Rutledge, dissenting in the Everson case, forcefully stated this principle,
as follows:
"Our constitutional policy ... does not deny the
value or the necessity for religious training, teaching
or observance. Rather is secures their free exercise.
But to that end it does deny that the state can
undertake or sustain them in any form or degree. For
this reason the sphere of religious activity, as distinguished from the secular intellectual liberties, has
been given the twofold protection and, as the state
.cannot forbid, neither can it perform or aid in performing the religious function. The dual prohibition
makes that function altogether private."
Everson, supra, 330 US at 52,67 S. Ct. at 529.
Even if all of the tests and what might be viewed as
technical requirements are to be set aside, the ultimate
question in a case such as this nevertheless concerns
whether the legislation at issue is neutral; whether it favors
religion, or whether it opposes religion. If it is not neutral, it
must be struck down:
"The wholesome "neutrality" of which (Supreme
Court) cases speak ... stems from a recognition of the
teachings of history that powerful sects or groups
might bring about a fusion of governmental and
religious functions or a concert of dependency of one
upon the other to the end that official support of the
State or Federal Government would be placed behind
the tenets of one or of all orthodoxies. This the
Establishment Clause prohibits. And a further reason
for neutrality is found in the Free Exercise Clause,
which recognizes the value of religious training,
teaching and observance, and, more particularly, the
right of every person to freely choose his own course
with reference thereto, free of any compulsion from
the state. This the Free Exercise Clause guarantees."
Schempp, supra, 374 US at 222, 83 S. Ct. at 1571. Under'
our Constitution, individuals can exercise their religious
beliefs or individuals can refuse to exercise religious beliefs,
and they may do so as groups, but Congress and state
legislatures cannot. The statute before the court was not
intended to be a neutral measure, and it cannot be viewed
as such. It is therefore violative of the Establishment Clause.
An appropriate order will be entered.
L. CLURE MORTON, CHIEF JUDGE

CHAPTERS OF AMERICAN A THEISTS

Tucson, Arizona

(602) 623-3861

Phoenix, Arizona

(602) 267-0777

Sacramento, California

(916) 989-3170

S. Francisco, California

(415) 974-1750

Denver, Colorado

(303) 692-9395

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

(305) 584-8923

Tampa Bay, Florida

(813) 577-7154

Atlanta, Georgia

(404) 577-7344

Chicago, Illinois

(312) 772-8822

Evansville, Indiana

(812) 425-1949

Lexington, Kentucky

(606) 278-8333

Boston, Massachusetts

(617) 969-2682

Detroit, Michigan

(313) 721-6630

Eastern Missouri

(314) 771-8894

Northern New Jersey

(201) 777-0766

Albuquerque, New Mexico

(505) 884-7630

Schenectady, New York

(518) 346-1479

Charlotte, North Carolina

(704) 568-5346

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

(405) 677-4141

Portland, Oregon

(503) 287-6461

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

(412) 734-0509

Houston, Texas

(713) 664-7678

Salt Lake City, Utah

(801) 364-4939

Lynchburg, Virginia

(804) 993-2525

Northern Virginia

(703) 370-5255

Virginia Beach, Virginia

(804) 428-0979

DIAL- TH E-ATH EIST

Madalyn Murray O'Hair
................

Austin, Texas

December, 1982

(512) 458-5731

Page 7

XMAS BEFORE CHRIST

Early christian cult leaders commandeered mankind's reverence for a
fact of nature - the life-giving sun's rejuvenation at the winter solstice
- so as to claim divine omnipotence over humanity. The world has
been suffering from this bastardization ever since.

by Joseph McCabe
written circa 1923
or a whole week, from December 17 to 24, no work is
done. The one law is good cheer, good nature. But the 25th
also is a solemn festival, for it is marked in large type in the
Roman calendar "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun."
Neither Romans nor christians understood these things.
The festival went back far into the mists of prehistoric times.
It had been earlier a one-day festival, the feast of saturn: a
very important magico-religious festival for insuring the
harvest of the next year, rejoicing that the year's work was
. over, and, no doubt, helping and propitiating the god of
fecundity by generous indulgence in wine and love. Dimly,
also, these people knew that the mysterious winter dying of
the sun was arrested. It was on the turn. But only an
accurate astronomy could decide which was the real day of
solstice, so they celebrated the 25th as the great day of the
sun's rebirth.
We can all understand the anxious debates of these early
christians about the birthday of the lord. Christ was the real
sun that had risen upon the world. Why not boldly take "the
birthday of the unconquered sun?" That would, incidentally, help to conciliate "the masses." But all this ribaldry and
license and fooling ... besides, there was another reason.
While the christians gathered dingily in their two little
back rooms on the vatican hill,there was another and more
prosperous Asiatic religion housed on the same hill.Mithraism, as it was called, gave the christians a very anxious time:
not merely because it was so strikingly like christianity.
Mithra was an old Aryan sun-god. The reform of the
Persian religion by zarathustra had put the ethical deity
ahura mazda so high above the old nature- gods that he was
practically the one god. But mithra stole upward, as gods
do, and Persian kings of the fifth century before caesar put
him on a level with ahura mazda.
Then the Persians conquered and blended with Babylon,
and mithra rose to the supreme position and became an
intensely ethical deity. He was, like aton, the sun of the
world in the same sense as christ. He was honored with the
sacrifice of the pleasures of life, and was himself credited
with no amours as zeus was. Drastic asceticism and purity
were demanded of his worshippers. They were baptized in
blood. They had a communion- supper of bread and wine.
They worshipped mithra in underground temples, or artifi-

Page 8

December, 1982

cial caves, which blazed with the light of candles and reeked
with incense.
And every year they celebrated the birthday of this god
who had come, they said, to take away the sins of the world;
and the day was December 25. As that day approached,
near midnight of the 24th, christians might see the stern
devotees of mithra going to their temple on the vatican, and
at midriight it would shine with joy and light. The savior of
the world was born. He had been born in a cave, like so
many other sun-gods: and some of the apocryphal gospels
As Ihave said, there is no clue in the gospels to the time of
the year when jesus is supposed to have been born: except,
indeed, that it cannot have been midwinter, for that is the
rainy season and shepherds would not be out in the night.
Even jewish mothers would cherish birthdays; but miriam of
Nazareth either forgot the date of that very wonderful day
or omitted to mention it in her communication, late in life, of
the remarkable story. Early christendom found itself in the
peculiar position of telling the world of the most tremendous
birth there ever was on this planet and being quite unable to
say when it happened. It was centuries before even the year
could be determined; and then it was determined wrongly.
Nobody now holds that jesus was born in the year 1 a.d.
The result was that for several hundred years the various
churches celebrated the birthday of the lord on different
dates. The eastern churches generally kept it on January 6,
which is now the epiphany. Other churches chose April 24
or 25, and some placed it in May. It was not until 354 years
after the alleged birth of christ that the church chose
December 25 as the anniversary of his birthday. Rome was
then the leading church; and why Rome hesitated so long,
and why in the middle of the fourth century (when it was,
with imperial aid, trying to bring in the whole Roman
empire) it had chosen December 25, we must now see.
In order to realize it, to see how the rise of christianity is a
very human part of human evolution, let us imagine
ourselves as members of the small and obscure group of
christians in Rome, say, in the fourth century. We have two
poor meeting places - one of them is a room above a small

The American Atheist

wineshop - in the despised quarter of Rome beyond the

river (the slope of the vatican hill) where criminals live and
the dead are buried.
Midwinter approached and Rome is lit up with joy. It is the
festival of the old vegetation-god saturn who (as a god) died,
or was displaced by jupiter, the sky-god. But he has a fine
temple on the Capitol, and his festival lasts seven days and
is the most joyous time of the joyous Roman year. For one
day slaves are free. They don the conical cap of the
freedman - as good christians continue at christmas to
don such caps of paper, and hilarious Americans don them
at festive dinners today - and sit at table while masters wait
on them.
Stalls laden with presents line the streets near the Forum;
and the great present of the season is a doll, of wax or terra
cotta. Hundreds of thousands of dolls lie on the stalls or in
the arms of passersby. Once, no doubt, human beings were
sacrificed to saturn, and, as man grew larger than his
religion, as he constantly does, the god (or his priests) had
to be content with effigiesof men or maids, or dolls. Crowds
fillthe streets and raise festive cries. It was a time of peace
on earth - for by Roman law no war could begin during the
saturnalia - and of good will toward all men.

"... near midnight of the 24th (of December), christians might see the stern devotees
of mithra going to their temple on the vatican, and at midnight it would shine with joy
and light. The savior of the world was born. He had been born in a cave, like so many
other sun-gods: and some of the apocryphal gospels put the birth of christ in a,cave."
put the birth of christ in a cave. He had had no earthly
father. He was born to free men from sin, to redeem them.
F. Cumont, the great authority on mithra, has laboriously
collected for us all these details about the Persian religion,
and more than one of the christian fathers refers nervously
to the close parallel of the two religions. The savior mithra
was in possession, had been in possession for ages, of
December 25, as his birthday. He was the real "unconquered sun:" a sun-god transformed into a spiritual god,
with light as his emblem and purity his supreme command.
What could the christians do? Nothing, until they had the
ear of the emperors. Then they appropriated December 25,
and even bits of the mithraic ritual; and they so zealously
destroyed the traces of the mithraic religion that one has to
be a scholar to know anything about it.
The saturnalia and "the birthday of the unconquered
sun" and the birthday of mithra were not all. A Roman
writer of the fourth century, Macrobius, in a work called
Saturnalia, discusses the practice of representing the gods
in the temples as of different ages. He says:
"These differences of age refer to the sun, which
seems to be a babe at the winter solstice, as the
Egyptians represent him in their temples on a certain
day: that being the shortest day, he is then supposed
to be small and an infant."
And this is confirmed by, and receives very interesting
additions from, a christian writer, the author of the Paschal
Chronicle. He says:
"Jeremiah gave a sign to the Egyptian priests,
saying that their idols would be destroyed by a child-

Austin, Texas

savior, born of a virgin and lying in a manger.

Wherefore they still worship as a goddess a virgin
mother, and adore an infant in a manger. (Col. 385 in
the Migne edition, vol. XCII.)
The explanation is, of course, ludicrous. As I explain in an
earlier work on Egyptian religion, horus, the deity in
question, was a very old sun-god of the Egyptians. In the
adjustment of the rival Egyptian gods, when the tribes were
amalgamated in one kingdom, horus was made the son of
osiris and isis. The latter goddess was, as I said, the sister
and the spouse (or lover) of osiris; but whether we should
speak of her as "a virgin mother" is a matter of words. In one
Egyptian myth she was fecundated by osiris in their
mother's womb; in another and more popular, she was
miraculously impregnated by contact with the phallus of the
dead osiris. Virginity in goddesses is a relative matter.
Whatever we make of the original myth, however, isis
seems to have been originally a virgin (or, perhaps, sexless)
goddess, and in the later period of Egyptian religion she was
again considered a virgin goddess, demanding very strict
abstinence from her devotees. It is at this period, apparently, that the birthday of horus was annually celebrated, about
December 25, in the temples. As both Macrobius and the
christian writer say, a figure of horus as a baby was laid in a
manger, in a scenic reconstruction of a stable, and a statue
of isis was placed beside it. Horus was, in a sense, the savior
of mankind. He was their avenger against the powers of
darkness; he was the light of the world. His birth-festival was
a real christmas before christ.
In passing, we may recall that just such a spectacle is

December, 1982

Page 9

presented in every roman catholic church in the world on basket-cradle in the cave in which he was born. There is a
December 25. Catholics will tell you that Francis of Assisi good reason to think that mithra was figured in the same
invented this tender and touching method of bringing home way.
to men the humble birth of the redeemer. I know too much
We understand why the church so long hesitated to put
about Francis of Assisi to imagine that he had ever read the the birth of christ at the Winter Solstice, and why there was
obscure Paschal Chronicle, in which I discovered this. no scenic representation of the birth until the Middle Ages.
interesting passage some years ago. But certainly some From end to end of the Roman empire December 25 was
other christian writer had seen and reproduced it, and it had the birthday of the unconquered sun, of the savior mithra,
come to the knowledge of Francis. If a catholic prefers to and of the divine horus and they and the others I have
believe that Francis of Assisi did in reality conceive this mentioned, whose festivals were in other seasons, were
method of representing the birth of christ, he could not give represented almost exactly as the birth of christ was
us a better proof of the identity of the christian and the described in the gospels and is depicted in catholic churEgyptian belief!The catholic" crib" is an exact reproduction
ches today.
of the "show" exhibited in Egyptian temples centuries
. And we must not overlook the Teutonic element. Every
before christ; and the Egyptian legend itself is thousands of Roman was familiar from childhood with the great midyears older than jeremiah. On the analogy of the christian
winter festival; and in the earliest days of the christian era
practice we may infer that the Egyptian legend described
the religions of Persia and Egypt, with similar festivals,
isis as having given birth to her divine son in a stable. In spread over the empire. But the nations of the north also
Alexandria there was a similar Greek celebration on had their greatest festival of the year in midwinter. To these
December 25 of the birth of a divine son to kore (the northern barbarians, shuddering in the snow-laden forests
"virgin.")
beyond the Danube, the return of the sun was the most
And this is not the end. The Greeks had a similar desired event of the year; and they soon learned, appro xicelebration. The general idea of a divine son being born in a mately, the time - the Winter Solstice - when the "wheel"
cave was, as we shall see presently, common; or there were turned. The sun was figured as a fiery wheel; and as late as
actually several scenic representations of the birth of these
the 19th century there were parts of France where a straw
gods in their festivals. M.M. Robertson gives three in his wheel was set on fire and rolled down a hill,to give an augury
Christianity and Mythology (p. 330). Hermes, the logos (like of the next harvest.
jesus and john), the messenger of the gods, son of zeus and
Hence "yule" (from the same old Teutonic word hoel or
the virgin maia was born in a cave and he performed
wheel) was the outstanding festival of the ancestors of the
extraordinary prodigies a few hours after birth. He was French and Germans, the English and Scandinavians. The
represented as a "child wrapped in swaddling clothes and sun was born; and fires ("yule-logs," such as are burned in
lying in a manger." Dionysos (or bacchus) was similarly British homes at christmas today) flamed in the forestrepresented. The image of him as a babe was laid in a villages, the huts were decorated with holly and evergreen,
yule trees were laden with presents, and stores of solid
wood and strong drink were lavishly opened. This lasted
until "Twelfth Day," now the epiphany.
Thus almost the entire civilized world of more than two
thousand years ago "had its christmas before christ." "The
figure of christ,' says Kalthoff, "is drawn in all its chief
features before a line of the gospels was written." At least
the figure of jesus in what is deemed its most captivating
form was drawn in every feature long before it was
presented in the gospels. The first symbol of the christian
religion, the manger or basket-cradle of the divine child, the
supposed unique exhortation to humility, was one of the
most familiar religious emblems of the pagan world. Had it
been exhibited to a crowd in one of the cosmopolitan cities
of the empire, it would have been strange or new to very
few. One might pronounce it horus, another mithra,
another hermes, another dionysos; but all would have
shrugged their shoulders nonchalantly at the news that it
was just another divine child in the great family of gods. The
world flowed on. The names only were changed.

Page 10

December, 1982

The American Atheist

SOME THOUGHTS ON

The Family
WHAT IT'S BEEN,
AND WHERE IT'S GOING
by Laurel Kintner

Christians are unaware of the distance created between

.themselves by this constant superimposition of god into
~--':'-------~their
relationships. Furthermore, they are individually suppressed by the intrusion of a "spirit" who is aware of their
every move. A christian effectively isolates himself from
himself and from others, then calls upon his god to keep him
Throughout history the predominant function of human company.
The traditional christian family is an unnatural form of a
family relationships has been the nurturance of children.
Monogamy has been the most prevalent type of union basically viable unit. Even its procreative element, sex, has
established to fulfillthis purpose. Christians credit their god to be sanctioned for "the glory of god" through religious
ceremonies in marriage, and children resulting from this
with the creation of man, woman, and their procreative
function, and have throughout their history defended this union are born in "sin." The family is not the paradigm of
notion and the standard of monogamy and marriage which christian life, for christian life is a perversion of the family,
and subverts the family in the interests of religion. Monothey believe their god originated and decreed. The exact
origins of monogamy are unknown, but it is generally gamy itself does not cause sexual (neurotic) repression.
conceded that monogamous relationships have existed in That christians frequently endure this sad malady as a
various locales since primitive times. There is no reason to product of their indoctrination is well documented.
suppose that family and christianity are intrinsic to each
Atheist couples who have chosen exclusivism in sex, are
other, and any supposition of this nature is undue, objectionmotivated to do so for a variety of possible reasons, in the
able, and in the best interests of christianity only. Just as interests and the awareness of the emotional self, and
christians want you to believe that they are the purveyors of through logistical considerations. Repression does not
morality, and that this countrv.tas well as the Constitution,
coincide with conscious restraint. And "the kid in the candy
was founded on christian principles, etc., etc., so too do store" reaction to sexual urges is not a likely mode for
they desire you to identify christianity as being the origina- Atheists. Furthermore, Atheists acknowledge, to themtor and guardian of the family.
selves and to their mates, the natural healthy occurrence of
The family, however, does better without christianity, as attraction to others, and they seek to understand any
do all things in life. Christians feel that a personal relationinordinate attraction which may affect their mutuality.
ship with "god" is the cement for an enduring marriage, and
The authoritarian nature of the family may not have been
that without "him" their family structure would surely
fundamentally changed by recent improvements in the
crumble. They never learn how to rely exclusively on status of women, but the general low self-esteem of women
is a product of a patriarchal culture which supports the
themselves or each other in crisis situations, and they credit
all manner of fulfillment through family life to "him." They
biblical notion that women should remain subordinate to
have no adequate conception of healthy human interdepenmen, and a "fairly large percentage of women" don't
dency without god, believing, as they do, that human castles
subscribe to this notion (nor do their husbands), nor do
are made of sand, but god is the "solid rock" upon which they comply.
their marriages and families depend.
The efforts by christians to infiltrate all spheres of

Austin, Texas

December, 1982

Page 11

influence - notably that of the media, the schools, and

government - is formidable. It is no coincidence, furthermore, that at the time of the decline in numbers of the
nuclear family, christians seek to dramatically broaden their
sphere of influence, and thereby retain control over the
individual. Concurrent with this decline is the christian
media's furor in support of the "family." It is not difficult to
ascertain why this unremitting defense of the family occupies a sizable portion of christian broadcast and concern.
And it is not difficult to see that they want all of us family
members to identify with them and appreciate their "defense."
The christian religion may eschew variations in lifestyle
and denounce them as" degenerate," but more importantly;
the influence which parents have upon their children in
relating matters of religion is at stake. The family can do
nicely without christianity, and ours is a living example of
that fact, but christianity cannot maintain without control
over the family. However, the power of the individual
nuclear family to influence tender concepts of reality, while.
still unsurpassed in potential, has in practicality been
challenged on a variety of levels, most notably that of peer
groups, public school education and the media. Beloved
father, the authority in matters of religion, in whom children
place their trust and invest themselves emotionally, now
shares his stage with an array of others, including the
cathode-ray figures of slogan ridden propagandists without
as much of worth to say as Harpo Marx. Increasing
availability of educational material has helped put the
kibosh on father as the knower of all things, and through the
efforts of individuals and organizations who preserve the
rights of individuals to know the truth; Harpo Marx will
honk his horn only within the confines of those places
designated for such a performance. (With due respect to
the memory of Harpo Marx. Now therewas a real harpist!)
Individual freedom exists when there is an absence of
intervention in the expression of ideas, desires, and the
attainment of goals. Generally speaking, the more psychologicallyfree an individual is, the greater his options are, and
the more multifarious his considerations may, be when
determining the advantages of one option over another.
The greater the freedom, the greater the potential is for
awareness in the free exercise of thought.
Ideally, it is the individual's experience and act of
discernment which precede a choice of personal lifestyle.
Too often, little rational consideration is given to the
subject, and what is undertaken is thwarted by a lack of
experience and education, and compliance with custom.
Therefore, normative standards and concepts of monogamy and family endure, but fail to thrive under the
enormously complex conditions and changes within our
culture.
As an Atheist I support any lifestyle befitting the individual whose choice is based upon rudimentary social
considerations and rational thought processes. We are free
to choose blindly; however, the consequences of this type
of enactment can be far-reaching, and are nullifying to the
individual.
As an Atheist wife with an Atheist husband, I have gained
a greater sense of self through intense and honest interaction. I have witnessed the strength in love and commit-

Page 12

December, 1982

ment. I have realized my greatet comforts and the enhancement of my abilities through our mutual support. I have
never been submissive. (It would be unlikely that a submissive woman would interest an Atheist man.)
As an Atheist mother I'm happy, proud, and vitally
interested. My two children receive the full benefit of
reliable resources (including their parents) to enhance their
education and further their own interests. They are taught
to respect their own needs as well as the needs of others. I
view them as individuals who are growing into the actualization of their potential while making a prolonged and
rewarding visitation upon the lives of their parents.
They are not extensions of their parents, nor of any
religion. They are, we think, two representatives of a
healthy change from the "traditional" nuclear family to the
family who views each individual as an end, not a means.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Household and Family in Past Time, Cambridge University Press,
1972.
Francoeur,
Robert T., Eve's New Rib, Harcourt-BraceJovanovich, 1972.
Farber, Bernard, Guardians of Virtue, Basic Books, Inc., 1972.
Feucht, Oscar E., Family Relationships and The Church, Concordia Publishing House, 1970.
McLennan, John F., Primitive Marriage, The University of
Chicago Press, 1970.
Malinowski, Bronislaw, Sex, Culture, and Myth, Harcourt-BraceWorld, 1962.
Mead, Margaret, Family, The MacMillan Company, 1965.

Are you
Tortured
by
Tasteless
Twaddle.
T 0 rrn e n t ed'
b y
TitteringTatterdemalions?

Languish No Longerl
Sanity Is In Sightl
Let it be known to one and all
that subscriptions
are herewith
solicited throughout the land

FOR

THE MATCHI
The A':EX

of

'A NARCHISM
ATHEISTIC
A, ilable at the astonishingly
low price o(onlY..$6.~O per year.

The American Atheist

THE AMERICAN ATHEIST RADI

THE SOLSTICE SEASON
In 1968, the first year of broadcasting for the American
Atheist Radio Series, we sent out, allover the United States
copies of what we called "The Solstice Season" program.
We printed it in our literature and distributed it in a small
broadside.
When The American Atheist magazine was issued later
(we could not afford to publish it in 1968), we reprinted the
article as the featured radio program script in December.
Since then, for a number of years it has been repeated
yearly in the magazine.
We are happy to do so again this year. We hope that our
new subscribers will come to love it as much as have our
old subscribers and the listeners who have requested a
. repeaL. i!JJl 0
eric
theist Radio Series.
~

Austin, Texas

This is Madalyn Murray O'Hair, American Atheist, back

to talk to you again.
Someone stole something from me. I don't like it. What
was stolen from me - and from you - was one of the most
beautiful holidays in the world. Robert G. Ingersoll (an
American Atheist hero of earlier days) was also angry about
this theft. Let me read to you what he had to say about it. .
He wrote a very famous "Christmas sermon." It was
printed in the Evening Telegram newspaper, New York
City, New York, on 19 December, 1891. The ministers of
the day attacked the newspaper and demanded a boycott of
it. The Telegram accepted the challenge and set off an issue
across the country. The paper printed the rev. Dr. J.M.
Buckley's attack, and Robert Ingersoll's answer. It developed into a real donnybrook.
Let's hear what Ingersoll had to say:
"The good part of christmas is not always christian,
it is generally pagan; that is to say, human and
natural.
"Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy,
but with a message of eternal grief. It came with the
threat of everlasting torture on its lips. It meant war
on earth and perdition thereafter.
"It taught some good things, the beauty of love and
kindness in man. But as a torch-bearer, as a bringer
of joy, it has been a failure. It has given infinite
consequeces to the acts of finite beings, crushing the
soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to
bear. It has billed the future with fear and flame, and
made god the keeper of an eternal penitentiary,
destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men.
Not satisfied with that, it has deprived god of the
pardoning power.
"And yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the pagan world the old festival we know as
christmas.
"Long before christ was born, the sun god triumphed over the powers of darkness. About the time
that we call christmas the days began perceptibly to
lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshippers
of the sun, and they ceiebraied his victory over the
hosts of night. Such a festival was natural and
beautiful. The most natural of all religions is the
worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this festival.
It borrowed from the pagans the best it has.
"I believe in christmas and in every day that has
been set apart for joy. We in America have too much
work and not enough play. We are too much like the
English.
"I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he

December, 1982

Page 13

MAIMING OF THE DILL YWHACKER

ANew Area of Liability for
Physicians,
Hospitals
and
Parents
by Richard W. Morris,
Attorneyaat-Law
Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a
human being of a member of his body, or disables,
disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or slits the tongue,
or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of
mayhem. So says the California Civil Code.
There are, of course, situations in which consent eliminates criminality from acts which would otherwise constitute assault, battery, or even mayhem, such as consent
given for a surgical procedure which is for the benefit of the
patient.
Such consent by the individual, let alone the parent,
would be invalid for the slitting of the tongue, nose, ear, or
lip if such act were not for the benefit of the patient.
Certainly ifthe patient were not in a position to consent, the
act would be mayhem at worst and battery at best. In any
case, a crime.
Can you imagine a doctor's defense to the charge of
mayhem by cutting a split in the nose of a new-born child
being that it would keep the nose cleaner? Or siicing the ear
to that Q-tips would fit better? No time would be lost in
suing the good doctor.
How, then, does the picture change when, a day or so
after birth a doctor takes the six pound bundle of humanity
into a dark room (where the baby's screams cannot be
heard by the parents), straps the little guy's legs and arms,
apart in a spread eagle position on a torture called
circumstraint, uses no anesthetic, picks up a scalpel and
begins the only out-and-out act of torture performed by
American physicians?
Let us review what is about to be unmercifully attacked.
The penis terminates (on the end not attached to the body)
in a conical fleshy substance called the glans. The skin
covering the penis is prolonged forward in a loose fold. This
covers the glans and has an inner liningof the character of a
mucous membrane. The prolonged portion of skin with its
lining is called the prepuce or foreskin. This is the target.
With the penis (pardon me for using that word; I meant to
say dillywhacker) in one hand and a scalpel in the other, the
Page 16

December, 1982

torturer - masquerading as physician - slits vertically

along the foreskin. The blade cuts; the blood spurts. The
tiny unconsenting victim screams in pain. The victim's
cortisone levels go up in response to the pain. The pain is so
intense that the sleep/wakeful patterns are altered for
several days. But the torture has only just begun. (The pain
is that which- you would feel from slitting the membrane
which connects your tongue to the floor of your mouth.)
The foreskin lies bleeding, cut in half.
The initial wound has been made to the previously
healthy and uninjured foreskin. A circular cap is then placed
tightly over the end of the penis, like a condom. This is to
protect the glans so a mistake will not cut "too much" and
allows a "clean" slice of the knife to remove the foreskin.
The cap is removed with the foreskin, leaving only the
mutilated stump. The mayhem is complete.
For the doctor it is quick, painless and profitable. And,
until now, safe from malpractice claims. Only the victim's
crying, a little blood and the unstrapping of the victim from
the rack remains to be done. But is the doctor still safe from
suit? Or is the hospital? Or even the parents who consented?
Older primitive tribes circumcised females. This was
done at puberty by cutting off the labia minora. How long
would Gloria Steinem stand for this? Or California Chief
Justice Rose Bird? How long would it take NOW to march
on Washington or file a class action suit against all doctors,
hospitals and parents?
Somehow what is horrible to do to a female is a matter of
course to do to a male. What is child abuse to a girl is the
"thing to do" to a boy. Why is there no uprising or march on
Washington? Could it be that men don't have the balls to
protect their cock? Every excuse for this barbaric practice
has been proven to be false. There is no valid medical
reason for circumcision. Only the US and Israel do this as a
matter of course. No other civilized nation in the world does
it without medical justification in specific cases. Ifit were not
an "unthinking habit," parents and doctors both would
The American Atheist

shrink in horror from circumcision. If there is no medical

reason for the procedure, it is mayhem.
Not only is there no medical justification, there is no
religious justification. As long ago as 1869, the father of
modern judaism in America, Isaac M. Wise, at the rabbinical
conference in Philadelphia, proposed the abolition of circumcision on the ground that it is "a measure of extreme
cruelty when performed upon adults." This proposal was
actually adopted by the reformed rabbis of America at the
New York conference in 1892.
If it is "extreme cruelty" for an adult, what sort of a
monster would inflict such torture on a helpless infant?
Circumcision is the survival of one of the insanities of
religion based upon the ignorance and superstition of
primitive man.
What is the liability today of a doctor who does a
circumcision? On the civil side (that is more than the
malpractice area) it would appear that each circumcisor
faces the threat of a lawsuit until one or two years after the
victim reaches the age of 18 years. What is the dollar
amount of that liability?Who knows. This is a case where an
attorney could present all of the details of taking the child to
the room (kidnapping), the restraint (false imprisonment),
the blood and gore of the operation (assault, battery, and
mayhem) and show it to be an intentional tort - not
professional negligence. These acts may well be outside the
scope of proper professional activity. If so, the $250,000
limitation of damages imposed by California Civil Code
Section 3333.2 may not apply and malpractice insurance
policies may not cover the liability. Intentional torts permit
punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish. (By the way, insurance policies do not cover punitive
damages.)
What are the actual damages? This tough question is
answered by the jury. Picture this, if you will:The attorney
says to the jury, "For a dollar you might permit somebody to
stick a pin in your thumb. For a thousand dollars you might
even let somebody cut you superficially with a knife? How
much, gentlemen of the jury, would you charge to have your

dillywhacker maimed?"
Once that question is answered with a dollar sign, the
next question is how many dollars will it take to teach that
doctor a lesson (punitive damages) so that the doctor
doesn't do it again?
"Keep in mind," the attorney says to the jury, "this doctor
and others have been making 50 million dollars each and
every year doing this unnecessary and cruel act Do not let
them profit by their wrong doing. Make them pay more than
they earn and they willstop. Teach them a lesson they will
never forget."
And who is most guilty? Those who know better but still
cut. Do you hear me, OBs? The one who bears the greatest
guilt of all is the one who urges parents not to circumcise,
and yet will do it for dollars. Mayhem for money.
Criminally, the circumcisor is guilty of assault, battery,
kidnapping, false imprisonment, mayhem and child abuse.
The District Attorney should as routinely prosecute these
cases as it does child beating.
What liability does the hospital incur for providing (for a
fee) the torture chamber, the rack and the knife? A lot.
Suffice it to say that the hospital should be included as a
party defendant when suing the doctor.
What liabilitydo the parents incur for consenting to this?
The parents are charged with the duty of protecting their
children. When they violate this duty, they may be sued.
(There is no longer a parent-child immunity.) If the parents
affirmatively request that someone practicing medicine with
the mentality of a savage maim the child, the child has an
additional target defendant: Mom and Dad.
As children come of age and become aware of this, we
should see many suits filed against those who took part in
this bit of butchery. Parents who consented based upon the
advice of their physician might now reconsider, have
themselves appointed as Guardian ad Litem, and seek to
recover for their sons the dollar value of the horror the
innocent children suffered. The doctors and hospitals just
might get financially circumcised.
"THE NIGHT BEFORE SOLSTICE"

WRITERS WANTED
Short stories, poems, articles. For further
information, please contact:
Hans-Jorgen Pederson,
5 Lupinvej.
DK 2670 Greve Strand,

Twas the night before Solstice

And all thru the land
Wise people held vigil
The winter's at hand
Their crops had been tended
And harvest was done
So toast now the day
Of the coming new sun

DENMARK

As visions of springtime
Now danced in their heads
They snuggled with comfort
In warm winter beds

or
jorqen g. rasmussen,
5 Forchhammersvej,
DK 1920 Copenhagen,

V.

And peace now descended

Like snow, clean and white
For all could be happy
This wonderful night

DENMARK

Gerald Tholen
Austin, Texas

December, 1982

Page 17

H
E
I

P
L

.~
E

THE CHRISTIAN CREDIBILITY GAPS

a new book by

Hiram Elfenbein

PART II:THE COINAGE CONNECTION

(Excerpted by Frank Zindler)
Christianity has a number of vulnerable sides upon which
devastating attacks can be launched against it. These
include the unfactual side (such as the two contradictory
lines of ancestry which plainly do not belong to jesus), the
illogical side (such as the failure of the scriptural jesus to
accomplish any of the many missions prescribed for him in .
the gospels), the unethical side (such as jesus promising to
gratify all sincere prayers), the impractical side (such as
jesus forgiving sins like robbery and murder without offering
restitution of property or restoration of life to the victims),
and the incredible side (such as the multitude of "miracles"
- none of which were elsewhere authentically verified, and
none of which won him any followers except the twelve
disciples or so).
Other chinks in its armor of legitimacy are the gross
inconsistencies both inside single gospels and between
separate gospels. More discrediting flaws are the biblical .
omissions of important relevant matter, such as the life of
jesus before he was 30 years old and what triggered his then

Page 18

December, 1982

sudden sayings, magic healings, and aimless hikes around

the holy land - all aimed at reforming the jews and not the
gentiles.
Additional deficiencies destroy even the likelihood of
jesus's past human existence (e.g., the utter absence of
reliable historical records outside the gospels about incidents narrated in them, such as writings about his trial,
crucifixion, and resurrection - which almost surely would
normally have been published and widely and authoritatively known and recognized soon after the alleged events
would have occurred). While we intend to cover all these
sides of christianity, the first fatal and futile feature of the
jesuit creed which we desire to approach analytically is the
mystery of how the documents ascribed to matthew, mark,
luke and john were created and later found or discovered,
and finally circulated. All of this would have been conspicuous information generally available in the natural course of
events if those four documents were accurate records of
the years which they purport to chronicle.

The American Atheist

Because of the unfounded but widespread belief nowadays that christianity sprang forth as if by spontaneous
combustion or flared up at jesus's ignition, this notion of its
origin calls for thought. Accordingly, I focus your attention
on the involved teamwork and the extensive propaganda
apparatus involved in founding the new creed_

renting or buying such special facilities.

The writer also needed help to obtain, inscribe and
combine the sheets of papyrus or parchment on which he
wrote. Long tables were necessary on which these rather
thick and hand-made sheets rested during the writing and
while they were being fastened together, page to page,

"Because of the unfounded but widespread belief nowadays that christianity

sprang forth as if by spontaneous combustion, or flared up at jesus's ignition, this
notion of its origin calls for thought. Accordingly, I focus your attention on the
involved teamwork and the extensive propaganda apparatus involved in founding
the new creed."
We need not be scholars who seek the truth in cloistered
archives to find the pertinent facts which are almost totally
ignored. Allthese details can be found in the new testament
itself by a reader who is attentive to what is written there.
None of this transcontinental organizational venture could
have succeeded without the meticulous calculations and
collaborations of many participants. The kind and size of
these missionary undertakings are shown by the documents themselves and by the names and the number of
writers mentioned in the new testament - as well as by the
data there given of the various places involved, and the
time- and distance-span between them and the several
writings.
Every step in founding the named churches and membership centers was carefully planned and executed, and
financed. Yet, despite the necessarily large quantity of
bulky, hand-written pamphlets and letters required for such
a hemispherical enterprise, only a few items - 27 in all from the vast literature of this enormous campaign have
been included in the small new testament to which I confine
myself for the data I rely on. Fortunately, this meager
assortment of documents reveals - though quite unintentionally - the nature, purpose, and initiation of this great
drive for popular expansion and support.

making a long, continuous scroll (now estimated to be as

much as 30 feet length for the gospels of matthew or luke or
for the acts).
Considering the mere physical labor , the making of such
a document could not have been a one-man or even a
two-man job. There had to be one who dictated, and at least
another who wrote, and probably a third who united the
separate sheets of papyrus or parchment into a manageable
scroll. For the ancient scrivener to make a second copyfor accurate reference or for a second reader - he needed
then to duplicate in full the time, work, and supplies
consumed in making the first copy - while all I need today
for that is carbon paper and extra pieces of paper.
It was impossible for one scribe to handle two scrolls
simultaneously. He could not write with one hand and have
his other hand mark the place he was copying in another
scroll. To do any writing conveniently or accurately, the
writer would need another person to read to him or to
dictate to him what he was writing. In view of all this, we
must realize that a single copy of a single book of the
christian bible probably took several weeks of the time and
labor of one person. Can you imagine how many books you
would be able to buy and read if today the cost of a book
amounted to a man's weekly wages?

"The clear evidence within these few pieces of sacred writings shows the basic aim
and trait of the founders of christianity and shows the firm intent to succeed even at
the cost of basic honesty and intelligence."
The clear evidence within these few pieces of sacred
But this is only one aspect of the extensive epistolary
writings shows the basic aim and trait of the founders of undertaking in 60 or 70 a.d. In addition - as paul's letters
christianity and shows the firm intent to succeed even at the
themselves reveal - some of the recipients of his letters
cost of basic honesty and intelligence. To begin with, from sent back to him answering letters of inquiry or comment.
the new testament we can form a safe minimum estimate of And this called for similar outlay of time, labor, material and
the time, labor and money involved in the original underscrip tori a for composing documents at the other end of the
taking. The cumbersome method of literary authorship in line of communication.
that era, with its arduous hand-writing (calling for special
But none of those records of return correspondence to
artisans - highly trained and very costly) and the essential
paul appear in the new testament.
equipment, material and working quarters, must have
Now there were no mailmen such as those who today
involved a steady drain and supply of finances from some
carry hundreds of messages - in our present, inexpensive
wealthy, willing sources - not from the penniless mendi- system - for hundreds of persons on the same daily
cants ordinarily suggested!
rounds. Quite otherwise, in 60 or 70 a.d., at least one
In the years 60 or 70 a.d. - when the gospels are usually . full-time special courier had to deliver each letter or
declared to have been composed - a writer required a document separately, travelling by sea or land for that
special large-sized building area. His workroom itself called
specific reason, on long trips taking weeks each way in most
for more space than the normally sized room in the average
cases. In fact, the epistles of paul name in all six carriers.
home today. The larger space naturally called for funds for And from Rome to Palestine was more than 1,500 miles by
Austin, Texas

December, 1982

Page 19

ship - a sea journey of probably 50 days in those times.

While it might be thought that all the "labor" or manpower involved in these errands and in composing these
. documents would have been donated gratis by volunteer
workers, it is manifest that other unavoidable and yet more
costly items were necessarily purchased from strangers
(e.g., papyrus, ink ingredients, scriptoria, transportation by
land or sea, and food and lodging while travelling). Therefore, this initial christianizing, which we can now glimpse
only dimly, must have been a full-grown, many-man undertaking which required large funds for materials - and even
services - from outsiders who did not "give" but sold their
time and commodities and equipment to paul's enterprise.
Such a venture, entailing such finances, could not have
been the sudden, part-time crusade of a small, devoted
company of volunteers. It called for practical, well-financed,
and ably manned operations - far beyond the meager
resources of an occasional or itinerant tentmaker such as

In passing, we should note that the generally-accepted

idea that christianity was introduced by paul and other
unpaid, self-sacrificing altruists probably grew out of the
gospel picture of a penniless jesus roaming the countryside,
mostly on foot, and preaching to hospitable fellow natives
who must have given him and his companions food and
lodging without charge.
But in the initial campaign of paul et alii in 60 or 70 a.d., in
crossing many strange lands, the unavoidable sea and land
voyages used almost entirely en route the services of
money-minded strangers who would be generally indifferent to their customers' holy mission. These strangers,
whether merchants or innkeepers, in the early days of
paul's efforts were not sympathetic donators strung out all
along these oft-repeated, thousand-mile journeys. It is
impossible to imagine one such trip without charge for a
messenger today - where every person to be met on the
way is an asserted christian! How much more difficult it is to
think of such a tour, cost-free, by a committee of three or

paul-saul.

,'0

'=i...~I-i!E~-~-~--~:---~-~::~-~:j
~~
-'-1t&u.~.,J~/nl

"Religion is the intere:. of the church es

That sell in other worlds in this to purchase."
Samuel Butler

Page 20

The American Atheist

four (as paul's group usually numbered) among the alien

people of paul's era - who for the most part were unaware
of what christianity was, or ifthey knew, were most likely to
be very hostile!
The total price in money, however, must have been many
times larger than the 14 epistles of paul indicate; for there
must have been hundreds more of such letters which were
not included in the new testament (as suggested by luke
1:1). Even the indispensable transfer of funds, from the
recipients of paul's messages to paul, required high-priced
services of messengers - merely to remit the money
(which in that era must have been in coin.). Probably, to
avoid loss or theft either way, more than one custodian was
needed to carry the precious document and travel funds in
one direction and money in the opposite one. And the
epistles of paul do name some of the persons acting as such
joint carriers.
Consequently, the whole venture must be looked upon
as a vast, businesslike propaganda campaign. It is wrong to
think of it as a purely pious endeavor of one person, either
jesus or paul, or even of twelve disciples. It must be viewed
as a drive involving a large staff with the available precision
of a full-time project on a commercial basis. Only a very
wealthy contemporary of paul could spare the money for
one of the trips to deliver one of his letters. For such a
voyage to "payoff" for its trouble, it had to produce in net
proceeds many times more than the cost of one such roundtrip. In terms of American prices of the present a voyage
which cost $lOOO would not "pay" for its share of the total
upkeep of the total organizational effort unless it netted
$10,000 or $15,000 in return. It should be obvious that
money was a large and vital ingredient in this christian
campaign.

A twice-told report in the gospels lends credence to the

idea that financial support for this propaganda came from
the financiers of Palestine:
Matthew (9:9-13) tells us:
"And as jesus passed
forth thence, he saw a man,
named matthew, sitting at
the receipt of custom: and
he saith unto him, 'Follow
me.' And he arose, and followed him.
"And it came to pass, as
jesus sat at meat in the
house behold, many publicans and sinners came and
sat down with him and his
disciples.
"And when the pharisees
saw it.. they said unto his
disciples, 'Why eateth your
master with publicans and
sinners?'
"But when jesus heard
that, he said unto them,
'They that be whole need
not a physician, but they
that are sick. But go ye and
learn what that meaneth, I
will have mercy, and not
sacrifice: for I am not come
to call the righteous, but
sinners to repentance.' "

Mark (2:14-17) tells us:

"And as he passed by, he
saw levi, the son of alphaeus, sitting at the receipt of
custom, and said unto him,
'Follow me.' And he arose
and followed him.
"And it came to pass, that
as jesus sat at meat in his
house, many publicans and
sinners sat also together
with jesus and his disciples:
for there were many, and
they followed him.
"And when the scribes
and pharisees saw him eat
with publicans and sinners,
they said unto his disciples,
'How is it that he eateth and
drinketh with publicans and
sinners?'
"When jesus heard it, he
saith unto them, 'They that
are whole have no need of
the physician, but they that
are sick: I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners to
repentance.' "

"... Therefore, this initial christianizing, which we can now glimpse only dimly, must
have been a full-grown, many-man undertaking which required large funds for
materials - and even services - from outsiders who did not "give" but sold their time
and commodities and equipment to paul's enterprise."

Realizing the complicated nature of this endeavor, we

must wonder suspiciously why so few records (only 27) are
given to us in the new testament, and why the few that have
survived are so slipshod, incomplete, reckless and erratic in
content.
The epistles were generally issued by paul and his
confreres; and though they mention prior letters from the
recipients to paul, none of these letters received by paul et
al appears in the new testament. Thus, we are given a
group of purportedly historical documents which - without so much as a comment or an excuse - ignores and
omits the other-way writings by the first receivers of the new
testament documents.
This one-sidedness unavoidably arouses the thought in
many of us, as neutral and fair-minded observers, that
something dubious or undesirable existed in the lost,
concealed, or overlooked side of this literary dialogue.

Austin, Texas

If there is any truth at all in these assertions, the lone

credible statement in these two similar accounts is that the
wealthy "publicans" were largely backing the christianizing
campaign of jesus. But just who were these "publicans"?
According to W. Warde Fowler (Social Life at Rome in
the Age of Cicero, by W. Warde Fowler, MacMillan, 1909,
1933, pp. 26, 69-74.), the "publicani" were "contractors for
the raising of taxes and many other purposes ... A public
undertaking was called 'publicum,' and the men who
undertook it 'publicani.' . . The 'publicani' were always
organized in joint-stock companies.":
"... As the Roman state became involved in ... the
acquisition of dominions beyond sea ... taxes had to
be collected both in Italy and in the provinces as these
were severally acquired. . . Every five years the
censors let the various works by auction to contracting companies, who engaged to carry them out for

December, 1982

Page 21

Maureen Hammond

fixed sums, and make what profit theycould out of the

business ...
"The collection of these revenues could be made a
very paying concern, seeing that it was not necessary
to be too squeamish about the rights and claims of the
provincials. And, indeed, by the time of the Gracchi all
these joint-stock companies
had become the one
favorite investment in which everyone who had any
capital, however small, placed it without hesitation ...
"These 'societates' were managed by the great men
of business, as our joint -stock companies are directed
by men of capital and consequence."
It must be obvious that the entertaining of one publican in
the company of "many" others (those bankers who paid
Caesar for the privilege of collecting and keeping for
themselves the Roman taxes) could be achieved only at a
testimonial dinner - as part of a christian campaign which
met with the financiers' enthusiastic approval.
This carefully duplicated report, which from its almost
verbatim repetition must have been copied from some third
document, is suspiciously "unfinished," since neither account indicates why jesus, his twelve disciples and numerous publicans conspicuously and intentionally dined together. While both evangelists show that jesus ordered matthew
and/or levi to "follow" him (if each story is considered
without reference to the other story), it is not clear whether
they followed him to the house of the named publican or to
the house of jesus. In either case, it is unlikely that the
"house" would be ready to serve such a large-scale banquet
on a moment's notice! Also, if it were jesus's "house" to
which jesus so unceremoniously
commandeered
the
crowd, it must have been one of very large rooms to
accomodate
the "many" diners mentioned - and it required a standing staff of servants to cook and serve the
"meat."

Page 22

December,

1982

Likewise, in both instances, somebody had much money

to spend on the lavish repast itself (of which, strangely, both
authors totally neglected to mention the ultimate purpose).
(See also luke 5:27-29, which tells us "levi made him a great
feast in his own house," thus tripling the story as a whole
without stating its objective.) Yet such a banquet is
incompatible with levi meeting jesus unexpectedly
at levi's
place of business, where he was then "sitting at the receipt
of custom," whereat levi "left all, rose up, and followed"
jesus.
Did gentle jesus have the bold-faced audacity to initiate
and execute this unimaginable event? Did he know levi
intimately before this apparently sudden and casual meeting at his money-collecting office? If so, was the "great feast"
previously planned? If so, why didn't levi expect jesus and
greet him at levi's home, instead of in his place of collecting
taxes?
Thus we have a carefully repeated story that has no
ostensible ending, no clear reason for its recording, no
ultimate accomplishment
of its happening. Three pious
"biographers"
relate this lavish entertaining of jesus by a
large group of bankers - whose motive for placating this
humble carpenter's stepson is prudently unmentioned.
The most probable explanation for how such an aimless
episode came to be included in three separately written
documents - almost in identical words - is that this trio of
reports was inserted into the three gospels by the same
group of sponsors who were bent on flattering or appeasing
the financiers that provided the funds for the christianizing
campaign of paul. Such an obviously extraneous
incident
would not have occurred to a single authentic writer of an
actual event - let alone to three independent
ones. The
multiplying of this unreasoned,
inconsistent,
and improbable anecdote arouses major doubts about the genuineness
of the gospels as historical records.
Intelligently examined, the new testament is conclusive
evidence that some wealthy Roman "publicani" were responsible for organizing early christianity, though the reason
why they sought to do so does not appear in that christian
bible. Naturally!
**********

EDITOR'S POSTSCRIPT
The preceding article is a drastically shortened version of
a chapter in Elfenbein's book. Although it should be obvious
from the excerpt above that the world of dollars and cents
was no less central for "st. paul" than it is for Billy Graham
or Oral Roberts, it should be noted that much of Elfenbein's
evidence had to be edited out due to spatial constraints.
So far as I am aware, no one heretofore has ever pointed
out the fiscal foundations of early christianity. Although
Elfenbein offers no hypothesis as to what the money-men
hoped to gain from their pauline investments,
it is now
clear that there had to have been some rather high-level
political-economic chicanery afoot. Now that Atheist scholars know what to look for, we may expect rapid progress in
achieving an understanding of the real reasons for the rapid
spread of primitive pauline christianity.
-

Frank Zindler

The American Atheist

Chapman Cohen
The other day a newspaper writer referred to our ancient
English christmas customs, and amongst these, the use of
the christmas tree. One does not look for strict accuracy
from the ordinary journalist, but in this instance he would
doubtless reflect the general opinion on the matter. And this
opinion may be taken as an illustration of the way in which
knowledge of the origin of a custom - once the custom is
established - dies out, and an altogether false belief
develops. As a matter of fact, the use of the christmas tree in
England was practically unknown before it was introduced
from Germany by the prince Consort. Nor, as a christmas
tree, does it appear to be very ancient in Germany; although
the practice of decorating trees at that time of year is a very
old one. During the nineteenth century its growth, all over
the world, has been very rapid, but I fancy it is now'
undergoing a decline.
Other customs connected with christmas have a more
widespread antiquity, although there is nothing specifically
christian about them. Or, to put the same thing in a more
correct form, they are christian in the same sense that they
are heathen, in the sense that heathenism and christianity
are parts of a worldwide mythology, no one part of which'
has a greater claim to truth than any other part. Indeed, in
some respects, christianity is further from the truth than
many other creeds, for, while one can see plainly their
meaning and their modes of origin, christianity has been so
overlaid with gloss and interpretation that, in its present
form, it resembles an elaborated falsehood of so complex a .
character that its original nucleus is only discernible with,
considerable difficulty.
It is not, however, seriously questioned today that most, if
not all, of the customs associated with christmas, including
the date at which they are carried out, are of pre-christian
origin. The use of mistletoe is a direct heritage from the
druids, who placed it, at the time of the winter solstice, on
the altar as representing the spirit of the tree. The decoration of the house with evergreen was also intended to
provide a resort for wood spirits, so that they might, as one
writer puts it, "remain unnipped with frost and winds, until a
milder season had renewed the foliage of their darling .
abodes." The feeding and merrymaking are perpetuations
of customs that ancient peoples possessed long before
christianity, as such, was heard of. The burning of the yule
log is a practice that has descended from the hearth fire
associated with ancestor worship, and which was rekindled
once a year from the everburning village fire. And the date
of the birth of the god jesus - not fixed until some five
hundred years after the alleged event - was also the

Austin, Texas

birthdate for bacchus, mithra, horus, and numerous otherdeities, and for exactly the same reasons.
All this, however, is by the way. The persistence of the
tree in christmas and christian religious festivities points to a
much wider and deeper truth than that of their obvious
affinity with pre-christian beliefs. The whole structure of
christianity connects it with the worldwide belief in vegetation gods and solar gods, the two being, naturally very
closely related. The festivals of christmas and easter have
no other reasonable origin, except their connection with the
death and rebirth of vegetation. Both are, in the truest sense
of the expression, nature festivals. And Frazer has proven
to demonstrate - to all whose minds are open to proof that the sacrifice of jesus is, not as orthodox christianity has
represented it, the sacrifice of one god to placate another,
but the creation of a god by the act of killing,for the purpose
of renewing vegetative life.
Why is this so? Before answering that question it is
essential to recognize how widespread is the worship of
vegetation gods and tree gods, the two being closely
associated. So far as I am aware, there does not exist a
people anywhere who have not a belief in vegetation gods of
some kind or other; which gods are credited with a very
profound influence on human affairs. It is needless to give a
large number of specific examples; but those who desire to
see how widespread is this belief may consult an exceedingly well-balanced essay by Mrs. J.H. Philpot, The Sacred
Tree, where a good store of well-chosen examples of tree
worship, in all its forms, is presented within a small
compass. The folklore of Europe is fullof references to tree
deities, while with primitive peoples there often goes the
custom of addressing an elaborate apology to the spirit of a
tree before cutting it down. Grimm says, indeed, that in
Teutonic mythology "Temple means also wood. What we figure to ourselves as a built and walled house resolves itself, the
further back we go, into a holy place, untouched by
human hand, embowered and shut in by self-grown
trees. There dwells the deity, veiling his form in the
rustling foliage of the boughs." (Teutonic Mythology,
i.9.)

And Robertson Smith says, quite accurately, that the tree is

not merely the symbol of the god, but his embodiment "The god inhabits the tree or raised stone, not in the
sense in which man inhabits a house, but in the sense
in which his soul inhabits his body. In short, the whole
conception belongs, in its origin, to a state of thought
in which there was no more difficulty in ascribing living

December, 1982

Page 23

powers and personality to a stone, tree, or animal,

than to a mere being of human or superhuman build."
(Religion of the Semites. p.85)
Finally there is reason to believe that many of the ful1y
developed deities, such as bacchus, osiris, etc., were
originally vegetation gods.
But how did men ever come to worship trees? That is a
question the complete answering of which would take us
right back to the origin of religion. And, theory which
adequately accounts for the origin of gods is the one that is
so brilliantly sketched by Spencer in the first volume of his
Principles of Sociology. It is not necessary to state this
theory in full;it is enough for my present purpose to say that
the idea of god owes its origin to the belief in a ghost or
double, suggested by dreams and enforced by other
experiences. By a gradual elaboration the ghost becomes
the god, and the powers that .it Possessed as a ghost are
continued by it as deity. I do notmean by this all gods were
originally ghosts; but that, unless people had acquired the
notion of gods in the manner suggested by Spencer, they
would never have created gods by other means. For the
gods are obvious copies of men, and no other theory has yet '
been presented which fits so well with the facts, and which
is, by analogy, so probable. For god-making is not one of the
lost arts. Among many people it is still in active operation,
and the various stages of the craft can be easily discerned.
If we refer to primitive peoples we find that all the
operations of nature are credited to the activities of spirits
- and spirits mean to them simply ghosts. The spirits are
the ghosts of the dead. If the crops are plentiful or scarce, it
is because the tribal ghosts are pleased or angry. The same
service is paid to the host of the dead that is afterwards paid
to the god, and exactly the same services are expected of it
in return. It is presented with offerings, it is praised, it is
asked to do things, and its good or ill-willis-divined, as its
devotees realise their desires or not.
.
Taking this point as established - and the proofs that the.
gods come from ghosts are ample - we can take the next

,- _._ _-_._._
..

....

__ ..__ __

..

._.

.. ..

,
!

\\
\

i
!
-- ----,

"... The festivals of christmas and easter have no other reasonable origin, except
their connection with the death and rebirth of vegetation."
step in searching for the origin of tree worship in the . primitive graves, we have a clear object lesson in the truth of
what has been said. Using the same mode of reasoning,
company of Mr. Grant Allen. In an essay on The Attis of
primitive man does not, then, attribute the better growth on
Catullus, that extremely suggestive writer put forward a
the grave to the better-fed soil; it is due entirely to the ghost.
very probable reason why the ghosts, or gods, should have
It is the life of the ghost manifesting itself in vegetation. If a
become peculiarly identified with vegetation. In the first
tree springs up and flourishes, it is the abode of the ghost;
place, the tumulus over a dead body is freshly-turned earth,
and surface earth that has been collected from round about. . and this at once gives a simple explanation of the existence
of sacred trees and of tree worship allover the world.
Next, food is scattered over the grave to feed the ghost.
This leads to one more step that brings us in peculiarly
Animals are killed on the grave, and their blood soaks into
close connection with the christian myth. From the belief
the grave. These', with other circumstances, give obvious
that the fertility of crops depends upon the activity of the
reasons why vegetation should grow more richly on the
ghost or god, to the practice of creating a ghost or god for
grave in its neighborhood than elsewhere. For example, it is
the express purpose of caring for the crops is an easy and
still a custom in some of the Hebrides for milkmaids to pour
natural step. And there is no doubt whatever that gods have
a little of their milk, morning and evening, on the fairy
been made for precisely such a purpose. The argument is
mounds. Naturally, these mounds are of a richer verdure
that if plants grow best where the man is buried, to bury a
than elsewhere. But the verdure is not attributed to the
milk, but to the fairies. And when we note that these fairy -rnan where a good crop is desired promises success. Mr.
mounds are, when examined, nearly always found to be . Frazer will supply anyone who consults his works with

Page 24

December, 1982

The American Atheist

abundant instances of the custom of annually killing a

victim, and either burying him or her whole in the center of a
field, or sharing the flesh out and burying a portion in each
.field belonging to the village. In these cases man is simply
creating a god by the fact of killing the creature. And when
we bear in mind that, as Frazer has also shown, the
primitive king is a direct descendant of the ancestral ghost,
and is thus already divine, there is given the reason why the
selected victim is crowned with royal honors and treated for
the time being as a royal personage - as In the case of the
new testament jesus.:
For this story brings us into direct touch with the
christian myth. It is a later version - mixed up with a great
many other details, as is naturally the case with late versions
- of the primitive practice of creating a god for the special
purpose of looking after the people's welfare in this or that
direction. The importance of Mr. Frazer's researches lies in
connecting
the jewish myth, not merely the myths of
comparatively developed peoples, with the actual practice
of savages. The true key to religion lies in anthropology. It is
in the practice of the most primitive of our ancestors, and in
that of the most primitive of our contemporary
races, that it
is possible to find an adequate explanation of the most
advanced form of religious belief.

No

t~

~VIRGINIA,TH

No

RE I~SANTA CLAUS

by Robert A. Steiner'

C1

When we consider whether to perpetuate the santa claus

. myth, we are examining two fundamental philosophical
concepts:
1) Is is wise to lie to children?
2) Is it in their best interests to deny reality to them,
and to raise them in a mystical, unknowable environment?
These concepts are distinct, in that there can be a lie
without resort to mysticism, and there can be mysticism
without a lie. A lie must include the intent to lie. If a parent
truly believes in anything (santa claus, astrology, god,
creationism, etc.), the education of the child in the parent's
honestly perceived truth is not a lie.
The two concepts come together in the santa claus myth.
Adults, with full knowledge that it is not true, explain this

Austin, Texas

December, 1982

Page 25

story to children as ifit were true. It is fully the intent of the

adult to deceive the child into believing in santa claus. Our
question is, is this a good idea?
The classic reply to a child's question was an editorial by
Francis Pharcellus Church, published in The New York
Sun on 21 September 1897. This editorial has been reo
printed every year, probably more than any other newspaper article ever written.
Here is the complete editorial:

IS THERE A SANTA CLAUS?

We take pleasure in answering at once and thus
prominently the communication below, expressing at
the same time our great gratification that its faithful
author is numbered among the friends of The Sun:
"Dear Editor,
"I am eight years old. Some of my little friends say
there is no santa claus. Papa says 'If you see it in the
Sun it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth, is there a santa claus?
"Virginia O'Hanlon
115 W. 95th St."
Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have
been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age.
They do not believe except they see. They think that
nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their
little minds. Allminds, Virginia, whether they be men's
or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours
man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as
compared with the boundless world about him, as
measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the
whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, Virginia, there is a santa claus. He exists as
certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist,
and you know that they abound and give to your lifeits
highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the
world if there were no santa claus! It would be as
dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be
no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make
tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with
which childhood fillsthe world would be extinguished.
Not believe in santa claus! You might as well not
believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men
to watch in all the chimneys on christmas eve to catch
santa claus, but even if they did not see santa claus
coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees
santa claus, but that is no sign that there is no santa .
claus:The most real things in the world are those that
neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see
fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's
no proof that they are not there. Nobody can-conceive
or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and
unseeable in the world.
You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes
the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen
world which not the strongest man, nor even. the
united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived,

Page 26

December, 1982

could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love,

romance, can push aside that curtain and view and
picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all
real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else
real and abiding.
No santa claus! Thank god he lives, and he lives
forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten
times then thousand years from now, he willcontinue
to make glad the heart of childhood.

First, foremost, and overwhelmingly important in our

analysis is our interpretation of Mr. Church's knowledge
and intent:
A) Did Mr. Church truly believe that there is a santa
claus? i.e., did he tell Virginia O'Hanlon the truth, as
he saw it?
OR
B-1) Did Mr. Church know that there is not a santa
claus? i.e., did he knowingly, intentionally, and willfully
lie to this eight -year old child?
B-2) Ifso, was it his sincere, mature opinion that the
lie was in the best interest of this little girl? Did he
honestly believe that a lie would help her, while a
truthful answer to her searching question would do
her harm?
Based upon some research, and based primarily upon my
analysis and interpretation, I come up with the following
answers to the above question:
A) Mr. Church was an intelligent person, and very
aware of the world around him; I conclude that he did
not, at that adult stage in his life, truly believe that
there .is a santa claus.
B-1) In light of the answer to question A, we must
conclude, and I do conclude, that Mr. Church did
indeed knowingly, intentionally, and willfully lie to
eight-year old Virginia O'Hanlon.
B-2) From all I have read about Francis Pharcellus
Church, it is my considered opinion that he was a
warm, intelligent, compassionate, intellectually curious, gentle human being.
I conclude that, without a shred of malice, Mr. Church
honestly believed that this obviously inteJligent eight-year
old girl who went to great lengths to seek out the truth
would be most helped with a lie.
This little child sought out a person who was, to her, the
highest authority in the whole wide world on this topic. Her
letter stated: "Papa says 'If you see it in The Sun it's so.' "
Then, with the total trust and innocence of which all
children and few adults are capable, she implored: "Please
tell me the truth, is there a santa claus?"
And Mr. Church lied to her!
Based upon some conversations I've had on the subject
(not enough to qualify as a sufficiently large random sample,
in order to present a table of statistics), I perceive that many
persons will be uncomfortable with the word "lie" used in
this context. Before attacking the word, some selfexamination may be in order. Is the discomfort caused by
the belief that the word "lie" is inaccurate? Or does the
uneasy feeling spring from the recognition that the word

The American Atheist

to infer logical conclusions from them, for the rules keep

changing. Each new perception cannot be tested against
known facts and past experiences; after all, ifyou don't see
fairies and they are there, and if you don't see lions in your
closet and they are not there, what happens when you don't
see little lambs? Are little lambs governed by the stated rules
of fairies, or by the stated rules of lions in the closet, or by
some other set of rules which have not yet been disclosed?
Logic and thinking are of no value; the only way to know
anything is to be told by some higher authority who
"knows."
Next topic: the gifts. It is deemed beneficial to introduce a
santa claus who is never seen (or is seen on every corner,
depending upon how the adults handle the many contradictions in the myth), and who judges the worth of the child.
every day of the year, and who gives or withholds presents
in accordance with the child's behavior.
It seems almost too obvious to mention that the child
would be delighted to know that his mother, father, aunt,
uncle, grandma, grandpa, etc., love and care enough to give
a present. How much more beautiful for any child to know
that a person really cares, and to be allowed to bask and
dwell in that love' and caring! Why deny the child that

"No, Virginia, there is no santa claus. The gifts and joy and love in your home are
caused by the people in the home."
"lie" is indeed correct in this context? Reference to any
dictionary or book on logic will reveal that the santa claus
myth has all the elements of a lie.
Consequently, we need dwell no further on whether this
is a lie. Our analysis willconcern itself with the question of
whether the perpetuation of this lie is a wise idea.
As with all mysticism and falsehoods which are sent forth
masquerading as the truth, the santa claus myth demands
of the believer unthinking faith, denial of reality, denial of the
value of self, and the suspension of logic and reason.
Based upon the reverential awe with which Mr. Church's
editorial is viewed, Ithink it is fair to view it as the best or one
of the best defenses of the santa claus myth.
Here was an obviously intelligent, bubbling, alert child
who went on an extensive search to learn the truth. And Mr.
Church compared her intellect to that of an ant. Why did he
not praise her for her intellectual curiosity?
He told her that, although she never saw fairies dancing
on the lawn, that's no proof that they are not there. Using
that logic, how do you handle the little child who wakes up
from a nightmare at 1:30 a.m., and expresses fear that there
are lions in the closet?
Normally, a parent would assure the child that there were
no lions, and would boldly and bravely open the closet door
and say: "See, there are no lions in there!" And then, of
course, a little cuddling would be in order. But, applying the
santa claus-type logic, the fact that the child does not see
the lions does not prove they are not there. To follow
through, the parent must now set forth one set of rules for
fairies, and another for lions.
Then life becomes confusing for the child, governed by
irrational and contradictory rules. No longer are the senses
to be trusted. There is no way to assemble known facts and

Austin, Texas

wonderful experience?
An honest, sincere "I love you" or "I care about you" from
even one person has to mean more to a child than a million
santa clauses. If you care about a little child, don't hide it!
Say it! Show it!
Consider the example of a very nice little child who has
complete faith in the santa claus myth. She has been a
model child all year long, not out of fear of santa claus, but
just because she is a very nice person. "Santa claus" brings
her very modest presents, because her parents are quite
poor.
This child has an obnoxious, spoiled cousin who lies to
her parents all the time. And yet, this obnoxious cousin
comes from wealthy parents, and "santa claus" brings her
wall-to-wall toys and games, as well as luxurious clothes.
How is it possible for the poor child to reconcile the gifts
with the concept of a just santa claus? What rationalizations

December, 1982

Page 27

Now we come to the concept of "the lie." When a child

grows older and realizes that the beloved parents have lied,
this disillusioned child is led inescapably to one of two
conclusions:
1) My parents lied to me, and they were wrong to do
so.
2) My parents lied to me, but it is proper for adults to
lie to children. They did it because they love me.
Take your choice. But then, of course, the choice is not
yours. The choice and judgment belong to the child alone. If
you are consulted, you may find yourself in that tangled web
which makes a distinction between proper and improper
lies, just and unjust lies.
All right, what should Mr. Church have done? Many
children who had been fed the santa claus myth for many
years would hear of the column. Many parents who told the
myth to their children did so with the best of intentions, and
in the sincere belief that it was in the best interests of the .
children.
Upon Mr. Church would have been the obligation to be
truthful, tactful, and gentle. The following is my idea of how
Mr. Church might have handled the reply:
Thank you for writing, Virginia. I compliment you
on your interest, and admire the fact that you did not
give up in looking for an answer. It is a pleasure to
number you among the friends of The Sun. I also
appreciate your papa's confidence in us. By ~ncouraging you to follow through on your search for the
truth, your papa has guided you along the path to use
your mind and to learn more. This is one of the finest
qualities a parent can help a child to develop. Virginia,
you are lucky to have a papa who takes this interest in
you.

No, Virginia, there is no santa claus. The gifts and

joy and love in your home are caused by the people in
the home. It is possible to explain the happiness in
your lifein terms of reality; that is, using only facts and
nature and things as they really are. Look up your
chimney, Virginia. Could a santa claus fit down there?
Or maybe you don't have a chimney. Or maybe you
do, and you have a friend who does not.
I believe that it is not good for people to believe in
impossible things. Presents come from people, and
presents usually cost money. It would be unfair to tell
a child whose parents cannot afford gifts that there is a
santa claus. That child could not possibly understand

Page

28

December, 1982

why santa claus would not give him or her gifts. If the
truth were gently told to the child, certainly it could be
accepted. Children, as well as adults, can be very
understanding when they are told the truth. On the
other hand, if they are told impossible stories, it is not
possible for them to make sense out of what happens.
Now there are parents who tell their children that
there is a santa claus. These parents love their
children, and believe that they are doing the correct
thing for their children. Virginia, people have differences in opinion. While I accept that these parents mean
well, it is my opinion that they and their children would
be better off if the truth were told.
How much better for a child (and for an adult) to see
the world for what it is! Won't you be much happier
knowing how things really come about, and realizing
that a great portion of what happens to you in life can
be directly caused by you? No fairies, no monsters, no
santa clauses, no evil ghosts.
Once you know the truth about these things, then
your mind is free to pursue further knowledge. And
your imagination can wander for more fanciful joys.
Surely you have played games with your friends in
which you pretended bunches of things. These games
are fun because you all know they are games.
Suppose you played a monster game with your
friends, and one of your friends truly believed that this
game could turn one of you into a monster. That
would be terrible!
No, Virginia, there is no santa claus. But with your
alert mind and your curiosity, there can be fun,
imagination, romance, warmth, love, and happiness.
There are people in this world, children and adults,
who believe in impossible things. They are always
looking around for a santa claus to magically solve all
problems. Truth in your life will bring you peace and
joy which cannot ever be imagined by these people.
Thank you for writing, Virginia. You have done a
favor for me, in that you
elped me sort out some
of my own thinking.

The American Atheist

The Angry Young Atheist

Jeff Frankel

JOHN LENNON REMEMBERED

It has now been two years since we lost one of the most
talented and outspoken figures in the history of popular
music. Of course, I am referring to John Lennon, who was
murdered in New York City in December, '80. Lennon was,
and is, a popular figure among many Atheists because of his
many public statements and song lyrics which struck out at
organized religion. Because of that, many have assumed
Lennon was an Atheist. Being that this month marks the
second anniversary of Lennon's death, it is a good time to
look back on the lifeof a man who was so much more than a
musician, and clear up any misconceptions which may exist
about Lennon's personal philosophy.
John Lennon first came to prominence as a member of
the Beatles, the British rock group which set the music
world on its collective ear in the sixties. What followed the
arrival of the Beatles in the United States was a cultural
revolution the likes of which may never occur again.
Everything from hairstyles to clothing was influenced by
Lennon's group. And make no mistake about it, the Beatles
were Lennon's group. He was the one who organized the
band. He was the one who named it, changing the spelling of
"beetles" as a pun on the word "beat." Although he tried to
downplay his role, Lennon was, as his songwriting partner
Paul McCartney put it, "our leader. He's the chief Beatie."
Despite his leadership role, John did not elicit the
screams from the band's fanatical female followers that
McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr did during
the early days of Beatlemania. This was partly because he
was "the married Beatie." but another reason was Lennon's
biting cynicism and brutal honesty, which were a bit scary to
the young teenagers who comprised the majority of the
band's following at that time. Not content to give the
prototypical plastic pop star answers to the inane questions
of reporters, Lennon would often reply with sarcastic
zingers which would leave his questioner speechless. All
four Beatles were prone to speak their minds, although
none more so than Lennon, and they reflected a brand of
honesty which society wasn't quite ready for at the time.
The immense popularity of the Beatles prompted several
attacks from religious leaders. Billy GraHAM dismissed
them as a passing fad. Reverend David Noebel, a right wing
christian crusader of that period, went as far as to call
. Beatlemania a communist plot "to make a generation of
American youth mentally unstable" and "prepare them for
future submission to subversive control." (Noebel's accusations were merely a rewording of charges made a decade
earlier by white bigots who claimed rock 'n' roll music was
part of a plot by Blacks to "corrupt white southern youth.")
Even though the religious community was keeping a wary
eye on the Beatles, the religious satire of "In His Own
Write," a book of poetry and prose written by Lennon and

Austin, Texas

accepted for publication prior to the start of Beatlernania,

was basically ignored. Going totally unnoticed was a subtle
jab by Lennon at the christian concept of being tortured to
attain heaven in the song "Girl." The lyrics went "Did she
understand it when they said that a man must break his
back to earn his day of leisure? Will she still believe it when
he's dead?"
In March, '66, Lennon made a statement on religion in an
interview for London's Evening Standard which would
eventually cause much controversy in the United States.
Lennon said, "Christianity willgo. It willvanish and shrink. I
needn't argue about that. I'm right and willbe proved right.
We're more popular than jesus now. I don't know which will
go first - rock 'n' roll or christianity. Jesus was alright, but
his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it
that ruins it for me." Lennon's comments caused no fuss in
England but when they were presented, out of context, in
Datebook, an American teenage magazine, the public
response was swift and vicious. Religious leaders were
outraged. Thirty five radio stations banned Beatie music.
Record burnings occurred throughout the south. The ku
klux klan burned records on crosses and staged a demonstration outside of a Beatles concert in Memphis, Tennessee.
Philip Norman, in his book Shout, gave this view of the
varied reactions to Lennon's commentary:
"The outrage was not universal. Some newspapers
- even some clergymen - admitted that, in terms of
audience pulling power, the Beatles were more successful than a personage whose last public appearance had been almost 2000 years earlier, and who, in a
straw poll conducted at the time, had run second in
popularity to a robber named barrabas. What no one
questioned was the power of a twenty-six year old pop
musician to goad the entire christian world to furious
zealotry; to produce official censure from the governments of South Africa and Spain; to elicit even a papal
response, via the vatican newspaper L'osservatore
Romano, that 'some subjects must not be dealt with
profanely, even in the world of beatniks.' "
In the days before Beatlemania, John was a primitive
Atheist. But after his sudden rise to fame and fortune, he felt
a need for a steadying influence. He turned toward religion
and found it to be lacking. In an interview given shortly after
he'd retracted his statement, Lennon gave the impression
that he believed along the lines of a pantheist. "I don't go
along with organized religion and the way it has come about.
I believe in god, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the
sky. I believe that what people call god is something in all of
us." Lennon showed great sensitivity in issuing a retraction,

December, 1982

Page 29

even though he felt the gist of what he said was right. His leaving, the maharishi asked why. Lennon's response was
"Well, ifyou're so cosmic, you'll know why." Flabbergasted
reasoning was "I couldn't go away knowing that I'd created
and intimidated by Lennon's brash reply, the maharishi's
another little piece of hate in the world."
John's remarks actually helped further his education on actions soon exposed him as the phony he was. In the '71
organized religion. In 1968 he told author Hunter Davies, Rolling Stone Interviews, Lennon admitted that his Beatles'
"When I made the jesus remark, lots of people sent me composition "Sexy Sadie," with the lyrics "What have you
books about jesus. I read a lot of them and found out things. done? You've made a fool of everyone," was a jab at the
I've found out, for example, thatthe church of England isn't maharishi. He did not use the maharishi's name because, as
very religious. There's too much politics. You can't be both. Lennon put it, "I copped out."
You can't be powerful and pure. Perhaps I'llfind out that the
A turning point in the life of John Lennon, and ultimately
gurus are like that as well, fullof politics. I don't know. All I . in the saga of the Beatles, came in '69 when avante-garde
artist Yoko Ono became Lennon's second wife. Knowing
that whatever they did on their honeymoon would draw the
attention of the press, John and Yoko decided to use the
occasion as a commercial for the peace movement. Thus
came the famous bed-in for peace, where the newlyweds
spent ten days speaking to reporters from a bed in the
presidential suite of the Amsterdam Hilton on the subject of
peace. "We are both artists. Peace is our art," said the man
who made "All You Need Is Love" the anthem of a
generation. "We b~lieve that be~ause of everyt-hi-rig-Iwas as
a Beatie and everything that we are now, we stand a chance
of influencing other young people. And it is they who will
rule the world tomorrow." Another bed-in was held in
Montreal two months later and also generated much
publicity.
Lennon's use of the word "was" in reference to his being a
Beatie was a sign of things to come. His relationship with
Yoko, a very independent and intellectual woman, was
taking his life in a new direction. This prompted much.
animosity from the other Beatles. With many other internal
conflicts tearing the band apart and each member pursuing
individual projects, the partnership known as the Beatles
came to an end in '70. That ending was a new beginning for
Lennon, who would continue to grow both as a musician
and a person.
The bed-ins were just one part of John and Yoko's
campaign for the cause of peace, which they waged full
scale throughout '69 and early '70. Lennon gave as many
interviews as he could, using them as a forum to promote
the cause. "Give Peace A Chance," a rousing song with a
simple but significant message was released on record and
became a hit. As a protest against Britain's involvement in
the war in Biafra and support of America's involvement in
Vietnam, Lennon returned the Member of the British----- ...
Empire award he received, as did the other Beatles, in '65. In
December, '69, he and Yoko launched their "War Is Over
- If You Want It" campaign, which saw posters and
billboards proclaiming the message going up all over the
world.
As a part of the peace campaign, Lennon wrote a letter to
famed Atheist Bertrand Russell, pleading for Russell's
. know is that I am being made more aware by it all. Ijust want support of the movement. Lennon told Russell that he
didn't think peace was fashionable any more and that he
to be told more."
In his search to learn more, John joined the other Beatles and Yoko could change that, especially with Russell's
in studying transcendental meditation under one of "the assistance. Lennon received a letter of praise from Russell,
gurus," maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a man regarded as a deity who was very pleased with John's strong condemnation of
by his followers. While they were in India with the maharishi the British government for their role in Biafra and Vietnam.
in early 1968, John, Paul, George, and Ringo began to see In that letter Russell stated "Whatever abuse you have
through the phoniness of the maharishi's "all-knowing" suffered in the press as a result of this, I am confident that
personage. When Lennon informed him that they were your remarks will cause a very large number of people to
-I

Page 30

December, 1982

The American Atheist

think again about these wars."

The returning of the M.B.E. medal drew an abundance of,
criticism from the media, especially because of Lennon's
facetious comment that his song "Cold Turkey" slipping
down the record charts was one of the reasons for returning
the award. "When we thought of that we were screaming
with laughter," said Lennon, "and so a few snobs and
hypocrites got very upset about mentioning "Cold Turkey"
with the problem of Biafra and Vietnam, but that saved it
from being too serious and being another colonel protesting. You have to try and do everything with humour and
keep smiling."
Following the breakup of the Beatles, John and Yoko
went through primal therapy under the instruction of
psychologist Arthur Janov, author of The Primal Scream.
This was another attempt by Lennon to become better
acquainted with himself, but it didn't turn out to his liking
and he eventually denounced Janov as he had the maharishi. An important part of Lennon's "primal period" was his
first post-Beatles solo release John Lennon/Plastic Ono
Band. On this album, Lennon bared his feelings on a variety

As a rebel looking for a cause, John got caught up in the

radical movement during the early seventies and became
involved with "crazies like Jerry Rubin and Abbie-my-boyHoffman" as he Galledthem. This was a period of his lifethat
Lennon would live to regret, and it would later cause him
much trouble with US Immigration authorities.
In John Lennon; One Day at a Time, Anthony Fawcett
related this tale of the response Lennon's involvement with
the radical movement prompted from the US government.
"A secret, hysterical White House report lay behind
John's dispute with the US Immigration authorities.
Former president Nixon personally ordered government officials' to harass him and 'kick him out of
America.' John had no idea what he was getting
himself into when he became involved almost overnight with Rubin and Hoffman. Within a few months
after he began appearing publicly at radical events and
benefits everywhere he went. The thought of a Beatle
political activist was more than the Nixon police state
could stand."
With the likes of John Mitchell and senator Strom

of very personal subjects. Religion was one subject which

was under full scale attack. In "I Found Out" Lennon
proclaimed, in very dubious grammar, "There ain't no jesus
going to come from the sky," and also put the knock on
"hare krishna," "gurus" and "pie in the sky." "Working
Class Hero," a very strong commentary on society's
strangulation of the individual's mind, featured the verse
"(They) keep you doped on religion and sex and TV; And
you think you're so clever and classless and free; But you're'
still ... peasants as far as I can see." The classic cut,
however, was "God," in which Lennon declared "God is a
concept by which we measure our pain." In this song
Lennon recited a long list of things in which he no longer
believed, from magic to tarot, from the bible to jesus, from
Hitler to Kennedy. "But Beatles was the finalthing," Lennon
related, showing he didn't take the band's inflated reputation seriously, "because I no longer believe in myth and
Beatles is another myth." "I just believe in me," the song
continued, "Yoko and me; And that's reality." The fact that
BillyPreston, a man who fillshis own albums with songs like
"That's The Way God Planned It" and "Turn On To Jesus"
played piano on "God" speaks well of the respect Lennon
generated among his fellow musicians.
The follow-up release to Plastic Ono Band was Imagine,
which produced the classic hit which is used as the theme
song for the American Atheists' television program. The
hauntingly beautiful lyrics of "Imagine," though not written
from a completely Atheist viewpoint, certainly expresses
sentiments close to those of most Atheists.
"Imagine there's no heaven; It's easy if you try,
No hell below us; Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people, living for today,
Imagine there's no country; It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for; And no religion, too,
Imagine all the people, living life in peace."

Thurmond working in the background on Nixon's behalf, .

the Immigration and Naturalization Service moved to.
revoke John's visa because of a '68 drug arrest in England.'
This began a lengthy effort by our government - financed
by our tax dollars, of course - to deport Lennon. This
battle raged on until '76 when, with Nixon safely out of the
picture, Lennon's application to remain in this country as a
permanent resident was approved and he finally received
his green card.
Fawcett had this to say about Lennon's search to find
himself and the rocky road it took him on. "On his journey
to self discovery John has progressed through many
changes and has been led in many wrong directions. Here'
was this man who had everything, adored by a vast army of
youth, and yet he would 'give everything I've got for a little
. peace of mind.' He never wanted to be a leader, although
others tried to place him in that role and tried to use his
name and image. I saw him talked into being the star
attraction for the Toronto Peace Festival, and he was later
seduced into waving the flag on behalf of Rubin and
Hoffman. John had somehow felt responsible to produce
peace, felt an obligation to write songs that people would
. sing in the pub or on demonstrations. But time and again, he
would come back to the philosophy that it's in yourhead
and the answers are within yourself."
Following the climax of the immigration hassle, John
went into virtual seclusion. He turned over the handling of
the family business interests to Yoko and took on the duties
of a "house husband," cleaning house, baking bread, and.
caring for Sean, the son he and Yoko had tried so hard for
so long to have. This role reversal was very rewarding to
John and, by all indications, helped him to find inner peace
he had strived long to attain. For a long time he was content
to stay out of the public eye, but the lure of the recording
studio became too great. So he and Yoko recorded Double
Fantasy, which was released in '80. It was Lennon's first
recording in five years and it hailed what was certain to be

Austin, Texas

December, 1982

Page 31

the beginning of a new era. That was because there was a

new John Lennon. Much of his bitter cynicism of the past
was gone, replaced with a hopefulness for a better tomorrow. He was optimistic that, since we had survived the
tribulations of Vietnam and Watergate, we could make
something good out of this crazy world after all.
After returning to the public eye, John and Yoko granted
an exclusive interview to Playboy magazine. In that interview, Lennon's statements ranged from the reflective to the
profound to the ironic. The following are excerpts from that
interview.
"... the whole religion business does suffer from the
'onward christian soldiers' bit. There's too much talk
about soldiers and marching and converting. . . we
don't need the imagery and the 'thou must worship
like me or die.' People got the image that I was antichrist or anti-religion. I'm not at all. I'm a most religious
fellow. I'm religious in the sense of (admitting there is)
more than meets the eye. I'm certainly not an Atheist.
There is more than we still could know. I think this
magic is just a way of saying science we don't know yet
or haven't explored yet.
"Produce your own dream. If you want to save
Peru, go save Peru. It's quite possible to do anything,
but not if you put it on the leaders and the parking
meters. Don't expect Carter or Reagan or John
Lennon or Yoko Ono or Bob Dylan or jesus christ to
come and do it for you. You have to do it yourself.
"Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King are
great examples of fantastic non-violents who died
violently. I can never work that out. We're pacifists,
but I'm not sure what it means when you're such a
pacifist that you get shot. I can never understand
that."
For John Lennon, lifewas better than ever. He was elated
at his fans making "(Just Like) Starting Over" the #1 record
in the nation, and he was looking to a better future. On
December 7, '80, the day after the Playboy interview hit the
newsstands, Yoko called interviewer David Sheff to tell him
how pleased she and John were with how it turned out.
Within twenty-four hours of that call John Lennon, pacifist,
hero of a generation, died a violent death.
REFERENCES
Davies, Hunter, The Beatles. McGraw-Hill. 1968 (revised 1978)
Fast, Julian, The Beatles, The Real Story. Putnam. 1968
Fawcett, Jann Wenner, Lennon Remembers; The Rolling Stone
Interviews. 1971.
Fawcett, Anthony, John Lennon; One Day at a Time. Grove
Press. 1976 (Revised 1981)
Norman, Phillip, Shout! The Beatles In Their Generation. Simon
& Shuster. 1981
'
Quick, Miles, John Lennon in his Own Words. Fox. 1981
Sheff, David, The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon & Yoko
Ono. Playboy Press. 1981

Page 32

(Note: Mr. Lennon is an example of how far our culture has

, to go. He failed to understand that his "god" which he
imagined to be "within" everyone does not exist. Thus, a
crazed christian, thinking he had his own god within him,
became Lennon's assassin. If there ever could be a case
made for "following" leaders, he certainly did his best to
destroy himself as an example of such a leader. While he
broke much ground as a musician in publicly rejecting
conventional religion, he would still bumble after unconventional religious nuts like maharishis and Yoko ana and he
would grope for ways to "discover himself," thinking that it
was possible for him to "do anything." While he used his
influence well to promote peace during the Vietnam war,
he failed to continue to use it by working to end the
possibility of nuclear destruction. Instead he eventually
came to promote irrational thought which in the long run
makes poverty and war more possible. This is why he felt
so guilty that he felt it important to tell people to not "follow
him" ((as if the people who listened to him were mindless
robots)). It is certainly sound advice not to "follow"
anybody, but this does not excuse Mr. Lennon for his
supporting irrationality and not doing more to end the
militarism with which the "leaders, "whom few people ever
really wanted, can destroy us all.
Still, he did more for peace than most "celebrities." He
was also successful in getting across a couple of Atheist
principles to a large number of people, who had never
before heard anyone sing such songs as "Imagine." We are
still waiting, however, for fully solid, consistent and welleducated Atheist musicians to come to the fore. Some
groups now show some promise. ((A group called the Dead
Kennedys has an album out called In God We Trust, Inc.
with no-holds-barred atheistic lyrics)) But can they follow
through? They will have to get the education that American
Atheists is providing.)

December, 1982

The American Atheist

Merrill Holste

A CHRISTIAN DOGMA
THAT WAS
BORROWED FROM MYTHOLOGY
A long, long time ago, at least 4,000 years b.c., the
Egyptians used a calendar of 12 months of 30 days each.
Such a calendar did not fitthe year, so the seasons migrated
completely through the calendar in a period of a little over
seventy-three years. In order to rectify the calendar another
month was inserted from time to time. Since this remedy did
not prove entirely satisfactory, another plan was adopted,
that of inserting five days each year between the last day of
one year and the first day of the next.
In due time, the true reason for the five days was
forgotten and, as usual with primitive people, they invented
a myth to account for the five days. The story they told went
like this: In the long, long ago, nut, goddess of heaven, had
been "stepping out" on her husband, ra, the sun-god. As a
result of her intrigue with keb, the earth-god, nut got in a
family way. In time ra, the sun-god and husband of nut,
discovered the infidelity, cursed his wife roundly and ruled
that she should not be able to give birth in any month or day
of the year. But nut had another lover, thoth - god of
writing, measurement, science and art - who engaged the
moon-god in a game of draughts and won a seventy-second
part of every day. Thoth added together these fractional
parts to make five whole days which he inserted into the
calendar between the last day of the old year and the first
day of the new, thereby enabling his paramour to evade the
curse of ra.

birthday of osiris in Egypt, from whom christmas was taken

over intact by the christians and the mithraic sunworshippers of Asia. The personality of the good osiris the son of god who died and rose again from the dead to
become the judge of souls on judgment day - was
borrowed from the Egyptians and grafted onto the legend of
christ many years after the supposed time of christ. Nut, the
sky-goddess, became the "virgin mary." Keb, the earth-god,
is the holy ghost. Ra, the sun-god, cuckold and husband of
nut, is joseph. And that is how Egyptian mythology served
as the junkyard where the christians scrounged for their
trinity, their doctrine of judgment day and many other
peices of ancient theological rubbish. The myth of the extramarital infidelity resulting in the birth of osiris, gross and
sordid as it was, was taken over by the christians who
polished a little here, took a little away there and "sanctified" the whole mess by calling it "immaculate conception"
and "virgin birth."
As usual with strangers in a strange land, when things get
too unpleasant for them in their adopted land, they are
pretty apt to retreat to the land of their origin till times get
better again. And so it was with joseph, mary and their little
osiris. When things got too hot for them in Hebrew-land,
they skedaddled back to Egypt, the land of their origin. To
early christians, familiar with Egyptian mysths, the reason
for the "journey to Egypt" would have been obvious. All

". . . The personality of the good osiris

. was borrowed from the Egyptians and
grafted onto the legend of christ many years after the supposed time of christ."
It was on these days, then, that nut gave birth one by one
to her illegitimate brood. On the first day osiris was born, on
the second horus the elder, on the third set (the egyptian
satan and the "adversary" of osiris), on the fourth isis, and
on the fifth day nephthys. This is the sequence of births as
given by J.G. Frazer in his The Golden Bough. Osiris was
looked upon by the Egyptians as their "savior," the lord of
eternity and judge of the quick and the dead. They
celebrated his birthday with appropriate joy, singing and
gladness. Set's birthday, on the other hand, was mirthless,
somber and full of gloom. The other days of the five were
celebrated with their own appropriate ceremonies.
It is remarkable that our christmas falls almost thesame
number of days before the new year's day as did the

Austin, Texas

these elements of myth were added to the jesus story long

after the time when jesus was supposed to have lived, added
one by one as people forgot the original myths.
We remember how recently it was that the catholics have
declared the "assumption of mary" to be dogma which
every catholic is bound to believe; and, further, it is
necessary that every catholic believe that mary herself was
"immaculately" conceived. That is a logical addition to
make to the christian jesus story because the original rnary,
the Egyptian nut, was, and remained, the sky-goddess and
always was divine in character. It was only a question of time
tillthe catholics, motivated by their love of pagan trappings,
would add this further paganism to the christian christ
myth.

December, 1982

Page 33

NATURE'S WAY
GERALD THOLEN

"TO BE - OR NOT TO BE"

"To be - or not to be." Those were great words from
Shakespeare's Hamlet. Yet, have any of us considered
some of the hidden misunderstandings held within such
rhetorical writing. "To be or not to be" indeed! Who, or
what, has ever had any choice in the matter? People "come
to be" at the sexual whim of their parents. Unless they
commit suicide, they have about the same knowledge and
choice as to the date they willcome to "not be."
This fact was vividly refreshed in my memory during my
recent bout with heart failure and by-pass surgery. I could
have very easily died without my consent! And, as I implied
above, birth comes as a total surprise to every living thing.
Everyone would be much better off if they could simply
understand that words like "to be," "not to be" and
"lifespan" represent nothing more than a simple game of
chance. I think this is probably why so many people have
psychological problems, why some waste years of their lives
looking for their "real selves." No living thing comes with a
set of instructions or values. In fact, no living thing has any
presupposed purpose at all. Being alive is its own purpose
and any subsequent "plan" must be established by the
individual.

thousands of years away. There remains, of course, the

possibility that such a shangri-la species may never develop
or that perhaps we might suffer catastrophic annihilation
before such a society could evolve.
One fact concerning the development of human intelligence that I have realized is that it has produced at least one
serious side effect. Unlike the rest of the animal world, man
has become aware of his own inevitable death. It was during
the Neanderthal period that we began to be able to retain
fear within our minds. Other animals were fearful only when
they were in peril of immediate danger. Man became
paranoid because of his own awareness of inevitable
termination. This fear caused him to develop the perverted
attitudes we now call religion. Yet today the perversion is
virtually as widespread as ever before. Our mixture of
limited intelligence and religious fear has even caused many
to mentally block out this fear and become euphoricallyoriented robots who view their existence as "normal" or
even serene. Such people are totally incapable of realizing
that there are other people, not motivated by psychiatrically
repressed fear, who are capable of livingrealistic lives. This
is precisely why most religionists cannot "believe" that

"... No living thing comes with a set of instructions or values. In fact, no living thing has
any presupposed purpose at all. Being alive is its own purpose and any subsequent 'plan'
must be established by the individuaL"
Atheists actually exist.
This is what makes the religious point of view so utterly
It is also very obvious that in this unrealistic world there is
absurd. By imagining they were endowed with a "divine
a continuing tendency to create stereotypes. When we
purpose" they cannot help but drift away from the natural
mention the word "ignorant," most people immediately
course of self-development. Legitimate self-development
envision some unattractive, low-income buffoon. We seem
must include accurate and adequate understanding of the
not to realize that there exists a condition of "socially
world around us and all important things pertaining to
existence. Positive information is not simply accepted . sophisticated ignorance." It is within this category that I
place the vast majority of non-Atheists that I meet. They can
through "belief" - it is known for certain. Of course, things
be from low-, medium-, or high-income classes, from any
not known for certain must be left for future investigation.
race, and from any level of academic education. These are
Years ago, a very important fact came into my mind;
people you pass on the street any day of the year. Their
evolution, like education, is a never-ending process. The
ignorance lies solely in their inability to distinguish between
greatest misconception ever held by humanity is that we
reality and fantasy. This is why I continually refer to religion
represent some sort of intelligent "finished product." Noas a degree of insanity - a mental inability to distinguish
thing could be further from the truth. This can easily be
verified by considering just the past few thousand years of between fiction and fact. How else can one account for the
Ronald Reagan's of society?
recorded history. The mental and even the physical characMore recently I have become aware of another situation
teristics of the human species have been altered by
that I find very disturbing. It is disturbing because it exists
circumstances considerably. How could we then dare to
among some Atheists I know. These Atheists agree with
presume that all of the tomorrows willbe any different? How
everything I have stated thus far. The problem is that some
also could we dare to presume that an "intelligent finished
of them then develop a negative attitude and say, "What do I
product" would tolerate the present human conditions and
care what happens to the world after I'm dead?" Today's
world situation such as we have. Apparently, the desired
Atheism - an adequate understanding of science and
development of a truly intelligent species may yet be
Page 34

December, 1982

The American Atheist

reality - offers the only faint light of desirable evolutionary

development for society. If the Atheists, who should step
forward as society's teachers, continue to be shy or
negatively inclined when confronting society, a sense of
what reality is will be lost. If so, the idea of a world
community wherein pure intellect is the standard willnever
occur. In part, I am forced to admit that what happens 1000
or even 100 years from now will certainly be of little
significance to anyone who has long since been dead. That's
not the point. The point is that it should matter to us now! If
anyone is to have a "purposeful" or "meaningful" life, they
have only a short period of time in which to be creative and
inspirational for the benefit of their species. I'm not talking
about helping "little old people" across the street! Ignorant
sophisticates can do that. I'm talking about altering the

evolution of humanity - making it finally something better

than Neanderthal!
With all the important issues facing society today, some
real intelligence must be displayed by someone. History has
proven that the masses are always wrong in making
decisions on anything. Intelligent and important decisions
are always the product of an individual or a small 'group of
really intelligent and concerned people.
What I am trying to point out is that, as a species, we are
far from intelligent. Ifwe are all content to simply accept our
lot today as anything resembling "intellectually normal," we
have already answered Shakespeare's question - "To be,
or not to be." Living things on this planet don't have a
chance for survival.

ON OUR WAY
Ignatz Sahula-Dycke

A SUPERIOR KIND OF WORSHIP

There's one extremely important thing that most people
don't realize; namely, the enormity of the contrast that
exists between the life-oftoday and that of yesteryear. This
is due first of all to the Western people's swing away from
much of the religious pishposh that had been at the job of
paralyzing human minds for thousands of years, and,
secondly, to the radical realignment of the world's nations
whose sympathies at the present time have turned either to
the political outlook of self-government which in 1776 our
nation's founders had initiated and demonstrated as ideally
practical - or, to the unilateral, and actually defunct
outlook which some people call Marxism. In my opinion,
were Marx living today and noting into what his theorizing
has here and there during the past sixty years been
contorted, he'd loudly proclaim it despicable. Marx, of
course, wrote as he did out of sympathy for all those who in
his day were treated and exploited inhumanely by the
majority of Europe's rulers and capitalists.

Harvard sided with hypocritically religious capitalists who

by endowment and in sundry other ways still show signs
that they'd love to carryon as in Marx's heyday, and who for
that reason support any religio-educational effort that could
bring back "the good old days" when labor was almost
totally bullied and dispirited. Those days will surely return
should we permit biblical religion to take a leading advisory
part in our endeavors to correct the-political and economic
problems perennially besetting us.
We should make every effort that will reveal religion as a
superstitiously effective narcotic for those who shut their
eyes to the cryptic quality of life. Now, there's in judeochristianism nothing that a dose of Atheism wouldn't begin
to cure as soon as administered, and nothing about
American Atheism that religiosity could improve. Atheism
of any variety is conducive to a sane and reasonable outlook
on existence. It helps us to understand and fulfill the
demands of our id, and this way fully enjoy our life. In most

"... Now, there's in judeo-christianism nothing that a dose of Atheism wouldn't begin
to cure as soon as administered, and nothing about American Atheism that religiosity
could improve."
As a direct result, unionism at long last won for the West's
laboring masses the respectful treatment that Marx felt all
honest labor deserved. It is largely Western capitalists who,
stilldue to money-lust, derogate what he thus accomplished
_for the benefit of all mankind. We Americans have since
then by a distinct margin outdone Marx in recognizing and
establishing recompense for honest work and labor as a
necessity for abiding happiness. Toward this end Colonial
Atheists have played a significant part both before and after
1776. Only a minor part was in this process taken by our
educational institutions which ever since the day of John
Austin, Texas

such cases Atheism transforms god-conscripts into loyally

braw Americans. Atheists aren't beaten down by superstitious lore of the kind that made cringing victims out of those
who at churchtime gather to listen to the buncombe being
oralized by equally as bunkstruck, ifsincere, clerics. Clerics
aren't particularly gifted intellectually, but sharply trained to
take advantage of people even less informed than themselves.
Whilst in today's judeology the hook is baited with the
promised appearance of their messiah in an ever-abeyant
future, and in cristology by his avowed earth-sojourn and

December, 1982

Page 35

cruel death, the two religions are almost identical. Each of

them induces its adherents to believe in soul-survival and
lifeafter death. But, nowadays, even devout believers take
those promises with tongue in cheek, master-physicists
having made them skeptical and mindful of enjoying life to
its fullest extent while alive and leaving theistic riddles to the
clerics who preach redemption and salvation. So, no matter
how large the percentage of the people who believe and
worship, they in everyday liferesemble the nonconformists
whom the church a few centuries ago was blithely torturing
and ceremoniously burning at the stake.

word "religion" is in most dictionaries defined as a system of

worship of a supreme being called god. To me, however,
and ever since my early boyhood, that particular word
meant: not worship based on mere faith in some wraith or
ghost that most people take for a fact, but as an inveterate
respect for everything whatsoever that caused us to evolve
from an invisible blob pulsating in the earth's oceans into the
living and somewhat intelligent creatures we presently are.
This lifelong outlook of mine culminated from an abiding
doubt about the existence of any god or gods because, try
as I might, I failed to find the slightest evidence that any such

"... Clerics aren't particularly gifted intellectually, but sharply trained to take
advantage of people even less informed than themselves."
For those who, when speculating pro and con, say
there'd be nothing left for them to have faith in if they
rejected theism, American Atheism is the perfect gap-filler:
a doctrine of qualities far superior to the superstitious
concept of creationism that had previously confused them.
Atheists don't blindly grope for answers; they stand on solid
ground; unlike messianic believers, they don't try to impose
their concepts on those of other beliefs. Atheists are
outraged only when self-serving godists try to relegate them
to second or third place as renegade citizens, this way
depriving them of the privileges that our Constitution
promises to everyone of its citizens, rich or poor, religious
or not.
American Atheists are loyally wide-awake, largely free of
prejudice and bigotry. They're doctrinally aware of the liveand-let-live dictum. Nor are they anarchistically radical:
they. respect laws by observing them. Guilty of anarchistic
tendencies are only those who override the law without due
process.
During the past 2000 years our Western civilization has
become so permeated with biblical mythology that even
lexicographers have been unable to resist its effects and,
consequently, ascribe narrow religious meanings to words
that actually cover a much wider range. For example, the

.,

'MIIIIIII IIII 1M1"'1

HtNtM

I"MttM

ItlIt"
II"I"IIIIIH""III"~

IF YOU ARE GAY AND ATHEIST

PLEASE CONTACT:

Gay Atheist League of America

GALA
P.O. Box 14142
San Francisco. CA 94114
Membership: $20/year
($10.00/yr. for students and senior citizens)
Send to the same address for subscriptions to the
GALA Review. Subscriptions $1O.OO/yr; $11 .50/
yr in Canada and PUAS; elsewhere $12.50/yr.

Page 36

1111,.11111111

111.' 1111.'1111

...

............................ "
I! REGISTER NOW!
$20.00
Ii

I The 13th Annual National

i!i

I~

Convention of
American Atheists

In

San Francisco, California

April 1-2-3, 1983

i
i

-I

entity could possibly have materialized. Nor could Ithen

uncover - nor am Iable now to uncover - the slightest
reason why anything called god would (even if the god
existed) trouble itself to create the global planet called
earth, together with everything on and in it that the bible
tells us the god was pleased to see when its creating was
done and over with.
As a result of my outlook in a world harboring millions of
superstitious people - I think it perfectly natural on their
part to call me an infidel and a god-hater, neither of which I
see myself to be. Irespect, and in my way only worship the
complex of Nature, even though it probably came into being
accidentally, and confess to an irrevocable respect for
minds such as those of the Founding Fathers of our
country, whose rationally humane outlook vitalizes our
Constitution and Billof Rights. Ithink their legacy is worth
cherishing and worshipping above anything else of which I
know.
So, after all, in American Constitutionalism there exists a
highly moral doctrine far worthier of exalted worship than
the superstitiously conceived religion devoted to the ghostgods of yore. Such is the awareness of reality that abides
within me, and doubtless will until Iblow away.

i
~
"'""*
.1
December, 1982

P.o. Box 2117

Austin, Texas 78768

********
The American Atheist

What I Want For

Christmas
by Robtrt G. In8tr5011
If I had the power to produce exactly what I want for next
Christmas, I would have all the kings and emperors resign and allow the people to govern themselves.
I would have all the nobility drop their titles and give their
lands back to the people. I would have the pope throwaway his
tiara, take off his sacred vestments, and admit that he is not acting
for God-is not infallible-but
is just an ordinary Italian. I would
have all the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests and clergymen
admit that they know nothing about theology, nothing about hell
or heaven, nothing about the destiny of the human race, nothing
about devils or ghosts, gods or angels. I would have them tell all
their 'flocks' to think for themselves, to be manly men and womanly women, and to do all in their power to increase the sum of
human happiness.
I would have all the professors in colleges, all the teachers in
schools of every kind, including those in Sunday schools, agree
they would teach only what they know, that they would not palm
off guessesas demonstrated truths.
I would like to see all the politicians changed to statesmen-to
men who long to make their country great and free=to men who
care more for public good than private gain-men who long to be
of use.
I would like to see all editors of papers and magazines agree to
print the truth and noth ing but the truth, to avoid all slander and
misrepresentation, and to let the private affairs of the people
alone.
I would like to seedrunkenness and prohibition both abolished.
I would like to see corporal punishment done away with in
every home, every school, in every asylum, reformatory, and prison. Cruelty hardens and degrades, kindness reforms and ennobles.
I would like to see the millionaires unite and form a trust for
the public good.
I would like to see a fair division of profits between capital and
labor, so that the toiler could save enough to mingle a little June
with the December of his life.
I would like to see an international court established in which
to settle disputes between nations, so that armies could be disbanded and the great navies allowed to rust and rot in perfect
peace.
. I would like to see the whole world free-free from injusticefree from superstition.
This will do for next Christmas. The following Christmas, I may
want more. (1897)

AMENDMENTI

CONGRESS

SHALL MAKE NO LA W RESPECTING

SOLSTICE GREETINGS
from

BOARD OF DIRECTORS of AMERICAN ATHEISTS

Standing (left to right) .

Henry Schmuck - Richard O'Hair - Shirley Nelson

Harold Church - Jon Murray - Lloyd Thoren
Seated (left to right)

Minerva Massen - Madalyn Murray O'Hair - Mary Bobone

Gerald
Tholen

Not Pictured

Patricia Voswinke/-

Christopher Drew - Mary Anderson