Sei sulla pagina 1di 44

=

-'"

C)

1ft

.:Ii

AMERICAN ATHEIST

January, 1984

A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

$2.50

****
AMERICAN ATHEISTS
is a non-profit, non-political, educational organization, dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of
state and church. We accept the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the "First Amendment"
to the
Constitution of the United States was meant to create a "wall of separation" between state and church.
American Atheists are organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning
religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices;
to collect and disseminate information, data and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough
understanding of them, their origins and histories;
to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human ethical system, stressing the mutual
sympathy, understanding
and interdependence
of all people and the corresponding
responsibility of each
individual in relation to society;
to develop and propagate a culture in which man is the central figure who alone must be the source of
strength, progress and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
to promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance,
perpetuation and enrichment of human (and other) life;
to engage in such social, educational, legal and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to
members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and
aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook verifiable by experience
and the scientific method,
independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own
inherent, immutable and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that man finding his resources within himself - can and must create his own destiny. Materialism restores to man his
dignity and his intellectual integrity. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve
it. It holds that man is capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism's "faith" is in
man and man's ability to transform the world culture by his own efforts. This is a commitment which is in very
essence life asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation and impossible without noble
ideas that inspire man to bold creative works. Materialism holds that humankind's potential for good and for an
outreach to more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited .

American Atheist Membership Categories


Life membership
Sustaining membership
Family/Couple membership
Individual membership
Senior Citizen/Unemployed*
Student membership*

membership

S500.00
S100.00/year
S50.00/year
S40.00/year
S20.00/year
S12.00/year

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

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

(VoI.26,

No.1)

January, 1984
On the Cover

REGULAR FEATURES
Letters to the Editor
Editorial
Convention News
News & Comments: "Someone is Lying"; "Open Letter
from Jerry Falwell"; "Water is Life";
American Atheist Radio Series
Dial-an-Atheist
Atheist Masters
Poetry

2
3
6
7
30
31
37
40

SPECIAL FEATURES
The Influence of the Religious Belief in an Afterlife on Homicide
- Jerry Bergman, Ph.D
17
Heroes - John Forest M. Samore
19
A Petition for State Secularization
29
Space Sneeze Causes Earth Colds - Jack Catran
33
This is Atheism - Paul Tirmenstein
34
Potpourri
35

FEATURED COLUMNISTS
The Right Stuff - Richard M. Smith
Ultimate Questions - Michael Battencour~
Recycling Old Souls - Margaret Bhatty .. '.
Editor's Forum - Jeff Frankel.
God's Scourges - Fred Woodworth
International "Planning Ahead" - Gerald Tholen
Editor
Robin Murray-O'Hair
Editor Emeritus
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Managing Editor
Jon G. Murray
Assistant Editor
Gerald Tholen
Poetry
Angeline Bennett
Gerald Tholen
Production Staff
Art Brenner
BillKight
Richard M. Smith
Gloria Tholen
Dan Flores

20
23
24
25
32
36

The American Atheist magazine is published monthly at the Gustav Broukal American Atheist Press, 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756, and e 1984 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 $25.00
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.
The American Atheist magazine
is indexed in
Monthly Periodical Index
ISSN: 0332-4310

Non-Resident Staff
G. Stanley Brown
Jeff Frankel
Merrill Holste
Margaret Bhatty
Fred Woodworth
Clayton Powers
Michael Battencourt

Cover Art
Clayton Powers

Compared to "Duke" Reagan, all


of history's gunslingers
are insignificant clods! We have all seen
Hollywood's
movie episodes
in
which various Rooster
Cogburn
types drilled the bad guys by the
dozen. And, who hasn't read gradeB western sagas wherein hoards of
Black Bart villains outdrew (or back
shot) scores of "innocent good guys"
in a similar manner.
No matter what the format for
"macho"
killing throughout
movie
history, there has never been a time
when a "shooter" with such threatening capabilities
freely stalked the
melodramatic stage of reality as does
our own dear relic from the wild west
- Ronald Reagan. The weapons
available to "our hero" were not
designed to "shoot" people - they
were designed to ERADICATE people - ALL people!
Added to Reagan's military destructive arsenal is his equally destructive psychological six-gun, religion. So, with his "ministry" filling
one holster
and the Pentagon's
bombs filling the other, the "Duke"
stands ready to face down the alluniversal "evil." Deeply rooted in his
convoluted
religio-military scheme
has been his plan to incorporate the
strong-arm tactics of fundamentalist
fanatics, * thereby enabling him to
actually become the ultimate definer
of "evil" and thus the "god" envisioned in his own warped imagination!
Here then is a truly dangerous
"hombre."
Dangerous in the sense
that he can refer to military occupational exercises as "missions,"
and horrifying nuclear weapons as
"peacekeepers"!
Accordingly, people might justify naming a twohundred pound killer guard-dog Fido!
But then, I suppose there is another story to phonetically view the
expression "peacekeeper."
After all,
we have been successful in "keeping
a piece" of Central and South America, a "piece" of Europe, a "piece" of
the Middle East, a "piece" of Japan, a
"piece" of Grenada, etc., etc.
But for chrissake
don't
anyone yell DRAW!
G. Tholen
*See page 7, "Someone

Austin, Texas

January, 1984

is Lying."

Page 1

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dear Mr. Murray:


In the October,
1983 American Atheist
magazine (page 4) you state that unitarianism is just another protestant
denomination. This is not so. Originally unitarians
believed in one god rather than the trinity,
but they have joined with the universalists
and have no dogma other than to seek after
the truth and to do good.
I attend the unitarian church in Harrisburg, Pa., and the one in Hagerstown, Md.,
occasionally. Our son, Alan, is active in the
first unitarian church of Wilmington, De.
Robert Doss, the minister there, defines
unitarians as "Atheists who are soft on god."
Alan sent me a cassette tape of a unitarian
sermon, the title of which is "Atheism,
Better Than Angry God Belief." I guarantee
that you will not hear a sermon like this in a
protestant church.
Sincerely yours,
J. Howard Sheeler
Pennsylvania

Dear J. Howard,
Some Atheists and pseudo-Atheists do
participate in local activities of the unitarianuniversalist church. Sometimes this is out of
fear from repercussions from other memo
bers of their community if they do not
attend some church. Sometimes it is out of
boredom.
But that does not change the national
stance of the unitarian universalist church.
Its corporate purposes state:
"To cherish and spread the universal
truths taught by the great prophets
and teachers of humanity in every
age and tradition, immemorially summarized in the Judeo-Christian heritage as love to God and love to man."
Editor

Dear Staff,
I make this suggestion.
I would like to
have some AA writer write an article on,
"What the state of the country would be like
if the likes of Jerry Falwell were allowed to
prevail." Here are some thoughts of mine on
the subject.
Jesse Helms would be president.
Rex
Humbard would be ambassador to Chad to
get him out of the way. Ernest Angley would
be appointed Surgeon-General,
and his first
Page 2

action would be to do away with disease


center in Atlanta. Phyllis Schlafly would be
secretary of HUD. Her first action would be
chastity belts for all unwed mothers, sponsored in the Senate by senator Denton. The
reason I make this request is that I am
writing a book. One chapter will be on
religion, and if the article is written, I shall
incorporate it in the book.
Ciao and thanks,
Stephen Kushner
North Carolina

Dear Dr. O'Hair:


Recently I wrote some protective covenants for some land I plan to sell and this
was a perfect opportunity for me to prohibit
churches
and their auxiliaries from ever
using this property.
Then I thought, why limit this restriction
just to land? Every property
- home,
commercial
or land - an Atheist owns
could have this deed restriction recorded
prior to the sale. (Every property I own will
have this deed restriction prior to sale.)
Just think of the number of real estate
transactions
the average person may have
in their lifetime and multiply that by our
membership.
Atheists could strike a blow
against religion and churches and continue
to do so even after death,
since the
covenants run with the land and are binding
on all parties and persons claiming under
them. State laws vary, but Atheists can
check out their own state to see how to
proceed.
Besides being a public protest against
churches,
the covenant
could be an effective tool in keeping churches and their
other activities out of many nice properties
and neighborhoods.
If Atheists, humanists
and other anti- religious groups could be
educated
to do this we could make a
difference in a few years. Maybe we could
stop some of their wheeling and dealing.
Sincerely,
Arlene Eaton
Colorado

Dear Arlene,
Local courts have overturned these
restrictive deed covenants in scores of
cases. Originally they were used to keep
Blacks and jews out, and those two groups
have been very successful in their court
tests. We can try, Arlene; but times are
changing
and all to the good of the
church.
Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Editor:
I became an American Atheist member
this last June. I was very happy to get my
first issue in June. The front cover in color
was beautiful. I patiently wait each month
for that white envelope
with the words
AMERICAN ATHEIST CENTER on the
return address. Keep that return address
big, black, and bold. It's good publicity, and
I'm not ashamed if anyone else finds out.
It's nice to see letters to the editor in our
American Atheist magazine. In that picture
on page 11 of "one nation under god" there
is a lot of truth. It's a perfect picture for the
Den.
The story and pictures on WAMIII were
great. It's nice to see some pictures in the
magazine.
I checked with our library if I could bring a
magazine
in each month. She said that
would be just fine. I was very happy about
that.
A sincere Atheist,
Jerome Bieniek
Minnesota

Dear Jerome,
It's always heartening to hear from
members like you, who have pride in their
Atheism, and who know how to cornpliment the editor.
Beginning with the issue that you have in
your hand, this magazine is being placed on
newsstands in all 3,079 counties of the
United States. Those issues (40,000+ are
being distributed), of course, will not be in
any wrappers at all.
Also, beginning this month we have a
"Sample" issue with some of the best of the
American Atheist in it. You can order these
samples to send to your relatives and
friends for a mere dollar each with the name
of the person to whom you want it sent. As
a marketing technique and so that you
won't get into difficulty, these are mailed out
in envelopes which carry the return of A. A.
Press. For all of you in the know this means
"American Atheist Press."
Editor

Notice
Letters to The Editor must be either
questions or comments of general con. cern to Atheists or Atheism. Submission should be typed. doublespaced.
brief and to the point. Space limitations
allow that each letter should be 200
words or (preferably) less. Please confine your letters to a single issue only.

Thank you.

January,

1984

The American

Atheist

THE FOURTH BRANCH


OF GOVERNMENT

Once upon a time, many many years ago, all of the power of
governing was in the hands of one tribal ruler. And, you can take that
idea and shove it - even ifyou do want the "tradition" of" once upon
a time." There have been eight or nine thousand years of recorded
history and all of that has been devoted to the common human's
struggle for "a piece of the action," a share of some small part of that
governing.
We all begin as children, and the name of the game has been to
keep us intellectually and psychologically powerless while someone
tells us how to lead our lives. At first, it is our mothers as they give us
birth and suckle us for those first precious months of life.The power is
vested, almost magically, first in the nuclear family situation in our
parents, then in the molding institutions of our cultures which are the
schools of our time, and later in our involuntary acceptance of the
politicized state in which we live. (Actually, our politics, our language,
our moral system and our religion are all accidents of time and place.)
As we look back over those thousands of tragic years, full of
murderous wars, hunger, poverty, unchecked disease, blighted by
the pall of ignorance cast over them, we can almost feel, again, the
tremendous human effort which was put into the microscopic steps of
advance. At first, the power was in single hands, then slowly wrested
therefrom (but only in part) by the first scientists - the astronomers.
Then there were both kings and priest-astronomers. Still, in that slow
creep across history there was a struggle which caused the power to
Austin, Texas

?e shared with a small - a very small - group of nobility, the


mterrelated progeny most probably of the first tribal leaders or what
came to be known as the priest- kings. But, with increase of human
population, as the education of life experiences, the lessons of the
hunt and the tillage of the soil broadened the living base of humankind
the tiny group which was forced to share power enlarged. That was
when the first priest-king "executive" branch of government faced off
with the first all-our-cousins "legislative" branch, the former wanting
to retain all power, the latter to gain what they could. The old
executive branch had to be the main power group closest to the
executive; the new legislative branch was composed of those who
were on the periphery. That gain could only be had by "demands,"
coupled with threats, i.e. potential "laws," or position statements to
which both the executive and legislative acceded. These, when finally
sanctioned by the executive, became "laws" or modes of the sharing
of power by the larger dichotomous group as the mass of people
continued to be controlled by the few. The most dramatic moments of
history are rife with these confrontations, but none more so than in
England when the Magna Carta was wrested from the "executive,"
the king. The base of government was thus slowly broadened. And, as
that base broadened, still faced off against the executive and trying to
balance its power pool against his individual power, it assumed its
formal name of a legislative body. Allit was actually empowered to do
at first was to suggest ideas to the ruler, to propose a rule, i.e. make a
law. But always that supreme head had the simple right to say "no," to
veto (The word "veto" is Latin and means "I forbid."). During the
interim period of the struggle, the priest-king function also split
asunder with the chores of secular administration in the king and the
religious duties in the separated priest. These two, however,
continued in close relationship, with the king finally emerging as the
most powerful of the two former component parts. When the bodies
in opposition to the single ruler became big enough, they came to be
called "assemblies," filled with aristocrats usually related to the king
by blood, recognized or appointed by him, with advice of the clergy
who were blood-related, often at least being cousins. The rule was
always by right of lineage, in the priesthood, the kingship or in what
came to be known as the royalty which in our English ancestral
government system was the House of Lords. But the gentry, gaining
some wealth in land or in the concept of production, being able to
produce more than they individually could use, selling it and
accumulating "wealth," also began to demand some protection for
their rights, and from this came the House of Commons. Always
there was a broadening of the base, face-offs, confrontations,
balancings, as they jockeyed for protection of one from the other. The
three branches were never really satisfied, so they came to another
idea: to have another body of government created which would
interpret the laws which the legislative made and which the executive
approved. This came to be the judiciary and again was formed from
the ruling class. In this scheme human rights were never those rights
protected; in the evolutionary process of government in 'the western
world only property rights had an import.
Basically, the common people were never considered except to be
rallied to one side or another as promises were made to them. They
rioted, marched, demanded representation, revolted, fought for the
franchise, struck and waged revolutions to no avail. People, the
common humans in the street, have never been anything but pawns
in the game. In the civilizing of humans everywhere, the game was
played only with those who had scrambled out of the mire of

January, 1984

Page 3

"common man." The rights "of all mankind" have never been meant
for other than the few, the elect. The judiciary balanced nicely, or so it
perceived, the rights of the legislative and the executive branches, as
both made demands on the mass of people to sustain them in their
positions of luxury.
It is with the "tradition" of these three branches of parasites that we
are, in the United States, stuck today. There is, however, a fourth
branch of power - the people themselves. And, it is this "great beast"
which now flexes its muscles, standing impatiently still outside of
power, when in its hands, in reality, is all of the power that there isand all for the taking. It trembles on the brink, waiting only for leaders
to stampede it over the artificial branches of power and into full rule:
people taking, in their own right, the power to govern themselves, not
through the artificial agencies of executive, legislative or judicial, but
in the fullrecognition of the rights of each individual to the outreach of
governance of him(her)self.
Back in 1776, what was to be our country was under the thumb
politically, economically and psychologically of England. Our colonies
were victims of international mercantilism, as our United States are
today victims of national mercantilism. England had begun to
industrialize in the late 18th century and the colonies were a good,
cheap, plentiful source of raw materials. And, England was the
greatest military and naval power in the world. It took a lot of both
courage and wisdom, as well as an ocean 5,000 miles wide for the
"founding fathers" to make their declaration for self governance of
our colonies. But, while our founders were very special men, they
were not "average colonists" of that period of time. They were well-todo, highly educated, most often progeny of royalty, white, free, male
and aristocratic. They were land owners, had large farms or
plantations, and often many of these were well stocked with slaves or
indentured servants. Many of these "fouriding fathers" had been
educated in the finest educational institutions of higher learning
available in Europe or the colonies at the time. They not alone stood in
stark contrast to the average colonist, but exploited them without
mercy. There was a greater disparity and rigidity between the classes
of colonial society than any American today can imagine. The rise of
the middle class had begun in Europe but was not really a reality in the
American colonies until the early 1800s. By the end of the colonial
period about 9/lOths of the population lived off the land. The few
thousand landlords throughout the colonies had grown rich off
tenant, indentured and slave labor and lived in luxury by the
standards of the time. The majority of free (as opposed to indentured)
whites, however, comprised families that owned, usually under a
mortgage, their own meager hand-worked farms or small shops.
Their existence was very hard, adequate at most. They were
distinguished in that their ways of lifewere better - even as slight as it
was - than the tenantry, feudalism and serfdom of Europe.
All of the "founding fathers" could read, write and philosophize.
But literacy was not common among the average colonists of the day.
Illiteracy statistics do not exist back into colonial times, but as late as
1870 20% of all Americans could not read or write. Those who could
did so minimally, or crudely. In the year 1870 there were only 531
institutions of higher learning in our nation and in that year only 9,372
persons received college degrees - out of a population of 17,000,000.
Only 57% of the population, ages 5 to 17, attended school at all and
then only for several seasons - usually when not needed on the
farms. All of these first statistics only reflect how bad the situation
must have been in the colonies. But, the "founding fathers" were men
of means who had the ability, freed from the necessities of daily
common labor, to sit and philosophize with their peers about
governmental concepts: how to keep the people under better control.
They could read of the most recent English Revolution of 16889 and
felt the pressures which would give birth to the famous French
Revolution of 1789. They were educated enough to read French,
Latin, Greek. They were greatly influenced by the classic Greek
"democracies," the idolatrous studies of which were a base of most of
the classic' courses of that day and age. Most important of all,
however, they lived in a world of those as fortunate as themselves and
therefore, with slaves or indentured servants in attendance upon
them; they never thought in terms of the participation of a common
Page 4

January, 1984

man in their philosophical debates or in the new government which


came out of their discussions. They envisaged the primary participants in their newly formed government to be persons of their
stature, social ranking, education and background. They thought in
terms of free, white, male, landowners as being the only persons
eligible to vote or participate directly or indirectly in "their" new
government. They conceived of the government primarily for
themselves and those of their ilk, not - by any means - as belonging
to or being for the benefit of "all the people." Allthe people were a part
of the animal stock which peopled the land, and even at that a slave
was counted only as 3/5ths of one of those animals.
Idealistically they may have debated the idea of a democratic form
of government in which the supreme power of government was
vested allegedly in the elite of the people - others like themselvesand was to be exercised by such persons or their elected agents by
means of a "free electoral system," but what they came up with,
realistically, was a republican type of government in which the
supreme power of government actually rested in only the body of
citizens entitled to vote - and there were few of them. The
government was to be exercised by representatives chosen directly
or indirectly by that small group.
These "founding fathers" did not have the review of a sweep of
history that an average high school student has in the United States
today. They did the best that they could with the information and
theory at hand, improving on what they saw as they could, in a way
that was limited by the political theory of the day. They looked
forward to what might be and they wrote in bold and ennobling
language. They would never have reached back 200 years ago to what
they saw in feudalism in Europe in the 1580s. However, they were
impaired by the heavy weight of tradition and could move from it only
slightly, bold as they might hope to be. They aspired to the future; but
while not intentionally shackling themselves to the past, they were
stuck with the best theory of their time, and that was of a tripartite
government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches.
Yet, in any contract between people, even a contract to govern,
there must be three contingencies: (1) an offer, (2) an acceptance,
and some (3) consideration to make the contract binding to those
who participated in it. The common man in the colonies was not
consulted. He formed no part of that contract. He could not vote to
accept the government he saw being erected. Your great grandparents were probably excluded from the vote, perhaps your
grandparents, as poll taxes, literacy tests, race, sex or whatever could
be used was used to keep the vote from "just anybody." Government
was fixed upon you without your advice or consent. You were never a
part of that contract, nor were your ancestors who were too vulgar
and common, too low to have been considered eligible to participate.
You have always been "the governed," never a part of "those who
govern." You are not a part of the "contract" of the government now.
One-fifth of one percent of the population, the "super-rich" own 60%
of the corporate wealth in this country. Approximately l.6% of the
population own 80%of allstock, 100%of all state and municipal bonds
and 88.5% of corporate bonds. There are just sixty (60) billionaire
families in the United States.
Going back to our "founding fathers," the Declaration of
Independence was signed in 1776 by these men of means and
elegance; but it was not until 1781, after the Revolutionary War, that
the colonies formed a loose league under the Articles of Confederation. Again, these were agreements between the "haves," not
the "have-riots." The people, then long conditioned to accept the idea
of government, uneducated, bound primarily to the toil of the land for
a livelihood, unable to use their leisure time discussing political
theory, were not part of the process. In 1787 it was obvious that the
Articles of Confederation was too weak to hold the thirteen colonies
together, and a constitutional convention was called, where the
Constitution was drafted. In turn the Constitution was not ratified by
the required 9 out of the original 13 states until 1788. The 13th state
(Rhode Island) did not ratify until 1790, a year after Washington was
inaugurated into office (April 30th, 1789.)
The Constitution could not have been read or understood by a
common man of the day. It was ratified by the Assemblies of the
The American Atheist

thirteen original colonies and not by popular uote as our citizens are
sometimes now led to believe. There were grants of power to the
Federal system and rules concerning relations between the national
government and the states. Other than that, the internal structure of
the new national government was constructed so that power would
be in the hands of a selected few. The states needed to be
subordinated to the national government and the judiciary was given
the power of exercising and interpreting function with respect to the
Constitution as a whole. Its only "power" was to declare laws made,
or acts done, invalid if they were inconsistent with the federal
Constitution or statutes passed by the federal government. The
judiciary was obligated to hold invalid any law at any level found to be
inconsistent with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The
tribunal actually had no inherent power of its own in the matter, the
Constitution by its enactment became the supreme law of the land
and any laws inconsistent with it, by virtue of that supreme law itself,
were void. At first, however, the federal judiciary interpreted that the
Amendments to the Constitution were not valid in the states. It was
not until 1868 when the 14th Amendment became law that the
principles of the body of the Constitution were applied in the states. It
was as late as 1925 when the first ten amendments (the Billof Rights)
were made applicable to the states.
Our founding fathers did not trust the people to elect the Senate.
Two representatives from each state were elected or appointed by
the state legislatures and not by the voters in each state. Those men
of wealth and position, who had friends in the state legislatures or who
were from powerful families in any given state, could get themselves
appointed to the U.S. Senate. The "people" nevenqot the right to vote
on who could represent them in the Senate until 1913, one hundred
and twenty years after the nation was founded, when the 17th
Amendment to the Constitution provided that the Senate be
"composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people
thereof."
George Washington, the first President, was chosen by "Electors"
appointed by the legislatures of the various states. These electors
cast secret ballots for their choice of president. There was no
"popular" vote. The method of getting those Electors changed slowly
over the years, and it was in 1868 that the last state, South Carolina,
finally agreed that the electors should themselves be elected by the
citizens who were entitled to vote - and that excluded Blacks,
women, poor white trash, non-landholders, those who could not pay
poll taxes, those who could not read English and anyone else who
could be kept away from the polls, even by terror.
It was as late as 1970 that certain states still restricted voting on
certain issues to those who owned land. The first seven presidents of
the United States were elected by this "aristocratic minority" through
the electoral process. In fact, in 1824 when the population of the
nation was 10,924,000 only 362,744 voted in the presidential election.
That's 3%.
The Electoral College still elects the President and the Vice
President. In each state, it is "winner take all" of the electoral votes,
when the margins are often in the 45-55% range. The United States
still has this antiquated presidential/vice presidential election by
states and not by a general popular vote. The loser, on a nationwide
basis, with often as high as 49.55% of the popular vote (as in the
Kennedy-Nixon 1960 election) has no representation in this "winner
take all scheme."
On March 6th, 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court found that Black
men were" ... so far inferior that they had no rights which the white
man was bound to respect." Because of that judgment it was not until
March, 1870 (13 years later) that the Universal Male Suffrage Act
made it possible for them to vote. (This was later made into the 15th
Amendment to the Constitution.) But, Black children were put into
separated schools and that was found to be acceptable in an 1896
decision of the United States Supreme Court. And, as late as 1927 the
Chinese were classified with the Blacks and sent to their schools.
Later the native-born Japanese residents of the western states were
summarily carted off to detention camps during World War II,
completely unprotected by any branch of our government. They
fought for years to win their freedom and it is only in this decade that
Austin, Texas

some compensation was deemed to be pay.able to them for their


unjust incarceration, loss of businesses and homes. Women were not
fully permitted to vote until August, 1920 and any denial of suffrage to
all of our people was not struck down until Congress passed the
Voting Rights Act in 1965.
It was not until 1963 that the U.S. Supreme Court decreed that
defendants in a criminal action had to have an attorney even if the
state had to appoint one. Before that, poor people who came afoul of
the sacred property rights of our nation were considered just as
inferior as the Blacks, with no rights that the owning class was bound
to respect.
The Constitution of the United States formed a republic which the
aristocrats ruled as a private club and where "the people" had no
qualifications to be admitted into it. With three branches of
"government" defined as the executive, the legislative and the
judicial, that idea was perhaps good enough in the 1780s which were
two hundred years ago. Then we had an agricultural nation of
3,750,000 people, spread out on the thin edge of a wilderness. Most of
our ancestors were functionally illiterate in an age where the only
book of widespread distribution was the bible. It's the 1980s now and
we are a sophisticated industrial nation of 233,000,000 persons, and
any kid in the fifth grade today knows more about history, science and
life than George Washington knew when he was president.
There are no longer three branches of government: there are four.
The people of our nation, our finest natural resource, now need to be
taken into account. More than that, they need to seize the power to
govern themselves and to abandon the old ideas which are no longer
applicable. We should not look back, but forward to what ought to be.
Just as the "founding fathers" did not accept the ideas of 1580 when
they wrote in 1780 - we should not now accept the ideas of 1780 to
govern us in the 1980s and in the future.
The executive branch of government is busy screwing the
legislative branch and trying to get around decisions made by the
judiciary. The legislative branch of government is trying to outmaneuver the executive and usurp the judiciary power. The Senate
has been recaptured by the financial lords of the land, the
Republicans. It would dearly love to cut the financial ropes that the
House of Representatives still have. The House kills Senate bills as it
can and vice versa. The judiciary, composed mostly of men who were
young when Ford built his first "tin lizzy," is trying to usurp certain
legislative powers here and there. The people, who were never really
represented, can only stand back to see the idea of liberty being
dismantled.
What we need to do is take out those parts of the Constitution
which still have some meaning, the Bill of Rights in particular, and
chuck the rest. We need a revolution in America - but it has to be a
revolution between the ears. The American people have begun it, and
it is based on the sexual revolution, which is irreversible now. When
the power groups of our nation could make us all feel guilty and fullof
anxiety over sins and obscenity, they could control us. That control is
lost. When sexual ideas were liberated, we were on the way to change
political ideas. If we decide to take as a guide some part of the
Constitution, that in the 10th Amendment states: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the
people." And, an even more "venerable" document, the Declaration
of Independence, for those who want to rely in part on tradition, puts
it squarely to us all: "Governments are instituted among Men, ...
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends (life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness."
It is obvious, reviewing our nation now, that we have a complete
breakdown, a widely spread degeneration of the system. The judicial,
the legislative, the executive branches of government are everywhere
corrupt, at the national, the state, the county, the city, even the
borough level. There is a breakdown in education, not alone in the

January, 1984

Page 5

deteriorating educational facilities and the dispirited staff, but in the


entire concept of education. Violence in our families is endemic. We
have no hope of containing the cost of health care now far beyond
anyone's reach. In the prison systems there is only despair, brutality
and rioting. Our monetary system is in a state of collapse. We now
pay $223,371 per minute, for interest on the national debt. We have
rotting inner cities, decaying road and bridge systems, chemicalization of foods, continuing massive unemployment which is here to
stay; the current 15 millionpersons out of work willnever be returned
to the system. Our earth, sky and waters are contaminated. Hunger is
now massively in our own land.
On top of it all sits a president who is rather obviously senile,
ill-informed, irrational, perhaps even actively psychotic at times. He
has complete contempt on the domestic level for the ordinary citizen
and in international outreach he is willingto bring on a nuclear war to
kill everyone in the world if necessary to return to the "golden age of
the 1920s" when he was a young gay blade.

There is no solution in what has been. We must look for the "ought
to be" and we must try to get from here to there. Our people are so
disillusioned that they are ready to take over: I repeat, they are ready
to take over and form a new culture: one based on reason, one which
will benefit all - our dreamed-of "greatest good for the greatest
number."
There is a need for this change, for restructuring, for readjustment,
for emphasis other than on property rights in our culture. Our system
is a captive of the most reactionary minds of the nation. The United
States still belongs to the progeny of the rich men who started it all,
those who have been our economic owners for over 300 years. Greed
is a constant motivating factor; all relationships are based on
exploitation - even within the family. And, the only way we can
obtain our civil, human, political and equitable rights is to organize
together to take them back. We can do this deliberately, peacefully
and quickly. We simply must work, instead of despairing. It can be
done. ~

Charles Orr's Knock-knocks


Knock knock. Who's there?
Nixon. Nixon who?
Nixon prayer in public schools

Knock knock. Who's there?


Ohio. Ohio who?
Ohio why didn't gawd make the Medfly Gay?

Knock knock. Who's there?


Amen. Amen who?
Rev. Ike is Amen to get rich!

14TH ANNUAL
AMERICAN ATHEIST
CONVENTION
April 20th, 21st and 22nd, 1984
(Friday, Saturday & Sunday -

Easter weekend)

Radisson Plaza Hotel


Lexington, Kentucky
Featured Speakers:
Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Founder, American Atheists
Ms. Barbara Smoker
President
National Secular Society
London, England
Mr. Larry Flynt
Publisher

Hustler Magazine
MAKE YOUR PLANS TO ATTEND NOW!
WRITE:
Gloria Tholen
Convention Coordinator
Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117
Page 6

REGISTRA TION
$20.00
$35.00/ couple
$1O.00/student or 65 and over January, 1984

with J.D.

The American Atheist

NEWS & COMMENTS / January, 1984

SOMEONE IS LYING
Someone is lying.
During the year of 1983 a rather bizarre game plan was unfolded,
the players in which were Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell. The
cover of this issue of the American Atheist magazine epitomizes that
aspect in which Reagan was the chief dramatist.
In early 1983, Jerry was in trouble with delinquent real estate taxes
on a shopping center which his Old-Time Gospel Hour owned. City
officials sued to collect taxes and penalties nearing a total of $300,000.
And, although "lips that touch liquor shall never touch mine" is a
theme song of Falwell, the shopping center, of course, included a bar.
No real estate taxes had been paid on the property since 1979,
presumably at the time of assumption of ownership by Falwell. His
attorneys, appearing in the tax court, argued vigorously that the
shopping center should be tax-exempt because the rental income is
put to religious use. However, churches across the land have not
been able, recently, to sustain this argument against the tax collector
as more and more communities seek much needed money. As you all
know well, the ad valorem, or real estate, tax is the main support of
the public school system in our country, now much in financial need
as demonstrated by teachers' striking across the land for increased
wages. Not just the shopping center is involved. Falwell's Liberty
Baptist College is located on some of the land. Falwell's own $190,000
home is on another parcel. Vacant lots and several houses used as
church offices, houses occupied by church and college employees
and houses available for rent are all on the other parcels of land.
Virginia's laws are quite specific: "No man shall be compelled ... to
support any religious worship" (Constitution of Virginia, Art. VI, see.
58). And, of course, the increase in everyone else's taxes in order that
Falwell's land be exempt is a compulsion of property owners to
support evangelical christian worship, particularly since the appearance of Falwell's attorneys in court was to claim that the money
saved by non-payment of taxes went to the support of the Falwellian
religious establishment. The only exemptions Virginia gives (Constitution of Virginia, Sec. 183) is for property, not used or held for
profit, owned by a church or churches, wholly and exclusively used
for religious worship, for the residence of the minister and not used or
held for profit. Virginia also expressly forbids the giving of any tax
money for the support of any sectarian (i.e. religious) school(s)
(Constitution of Virginia, Art. 141). Unlike other states, Virginia relies
on state constitutional provisions rather than on statutory law in this
area.
When Falwell's tax delinquency became known generally, he
stated to the media that he would pay the delinquent taxes even if he
did not need to do so. He was going to wait for the decision of the
court and "We'll then come back to the court and say we feel ethically
that we want to pay whatever their fair real estate tax is." He argued
that this statement he made did not conflict with his attorneys'
appearances in court attempting to get him out of the tax payment
(Washington Post newspaper, 2/12/83).
Just one week later, Falwell was agitated about the "freeze-niks"
who were planning a massive demonstration and lobbying effort in
our nation's capital to, according to Falwell, "railroad the suicidal
nuclear freeze resolution" through the House of Representatives. In
hysterical language he resolved, "our children are at stake." He was
looking for a "battle plan" to present to the press and zeroed in on the
expression "freez-niks" (sic) over and over again.
It is difficult to find out what media coverage Falwell had for this
event which occurred on March 7th and 8th. However, on March 7th
a full-page advertisement appeared on page A26 of the Washington
Post newspaper. This ad, reproduced on the next page (p.8) of this
magazine, currently costs $23,000. There was no mention of Moral
Austin, Texas

Majority Inc. in the ad proper although in small print under it the


statement "Paid for by the Moral Majority" appears. Jerry Falwell's
name and face were featured with the Reagan slogan of "Peace
through Strength." In a turnabout unusual for him, Falwell did not ask
for any money. He did however use the Moral Majority corporate
address in Washington, DC as his own for personal contact.
On the next day, March 8th, Ronald Reagan gave a speech at the
41st Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals,
in Orlando, Florida (see American Atheist magazine, Vol. 25, No.5,
May, 1983, pp. 4-8 for the full text) - a speech which was rabidly
religious and which drew to him more criticism than any other speech
he had ever given. Cartoons and editorials, columnists and articles
alike chastised him for what they saw as a commingling of state and
church and an hysterical call to religion to solve the problems of the
world.
Subsequently on March 14th in a column which ran in U.S.A.
Today newspaper, under the title of "Also ... " it was noted "Moral
Majority leader the rev. Jerry Falwell says he'll spend much of 1983
trying to combat the nuclear freeze movement."
Later on March 28th, 1983 another fullpage ad appeared in the Los
Angeles Times, the current cost of which is $20,000. The American
Atheist Center received information that similar ads were appearing
in other large city newspapers, but only the Washington Post and the
Los Angeles Times ads were sent to the Center by members of the
organization.
On May 18th, acopy of Vol. 9, No.9 of The Washington Spectator,
edited by Tristram Coffin, out of Washington, DC was received in the
American Atheist Center. In an article titled, "The Cause of Speaking
and Writing Truth," the following paragraph appeared in a subsection titled, "The Chief Statesman:"
"Reagan personally recruited Jerry Falwell for his antinuclear freeze campaign in a 70-minute interview in the White
House, and arranged for him to get National Security Council
briefings."
Upon receipt of this information The American Atheist Center
telephoned the Washington Spectator, but employees there refused
to identify themselves or to verify the statement in any manner.
American Atheists were directed to send a mail inquiry, which it did.
The National Security Council office of William Clark was then called
and inquiries were made as to the veracity of the statement. It was
directed to make a written inquiry of Robert C. McFarlane of that
office, which was sent out the same day. The promised return
information.has never been received.
At this point Madalyn Murray O'Hair herself made inquiry of the
Scheduling Office of the White House. The Scheduling Office
referred her to the Press Office. The Press Office referred her to the
Public Affairs Office, where a "Florence" advised her to contact Fred
Fielding, the White House attorney. "Karen," in Mr. Fielding's office
advised that the proper person to contact was Mr. Kimmett, attorney
for the National Security Council. There is no way to explain the
mystery that surrounded all of these calls. Often Dr. O'Hair was put
on "hold" for as long as 20 minutes. Several times she was
disconnected. No one would freely give a name. Several demanded to
know why their names were necessary. Everyone to whom she spoke
was hostile, suspicious and desired to remain anonymous. Yet, the
only queries which were being made were:
1) "Did president Reagan formally meet with Jerry Falwell
recently, at the White House, and if so, when?"
2) "Were arrangements made to give Jerry Falwell National
Security Council briefings?"
Dr. O'Hair finally got to the office of major Robert Kimmet. A "Ms.

January, 1984

Page 7

A26

M,,,,,/ ,,Il~,r/o

Tilt: WASHINGTON POST

,",/'llt/

Reverend Jerry Falwell

An open letter
from Jerry Falwell
on the nuclear freeze

Fellow Americans:
War in any form is abominable.
We
all know that. But there is sornerhing ar
least as abominable,
and that is life
without liberty-life
without the freedom to write and speak and pray.
I don't want the American people,
especially our children, to he cremated
in a nuclear explosion.
What I do want for them is to have
the chance to love life and truth and

1. Is the Soviet

2.

3.

Do you hclil't'l' our NATO j)lII'tner,~


sholiid be olltnumbl'fi.'" ill "(hccul')'''
(illlenllediatl'nmgl') nlldetlrl.l ..
(/fl(m.~!

Y.so

p
I
I
I
I
I
I

NoD

2. The SItt'ielS un: built/inn new scmttxic


homlxn ami SUhUWl"IIl<."S.
cuul li.~tin
. ncn- mi,~.'ill.'s, A1l1l'<." hem..' in ImK/ucriml is thl' nerv Tridcnt .''1thmarllll',

3. Till' SU1'il'L~/t(ll'(' a tlminuwide

If our President said no, it could


mean that mort.' than half our people
would be incinerated -in
nuclear attack. If he said yes, the l.Jnited States
w ould no'longer
be the land of the free
and horne of the braver
'But right now-at
this very momentit is not too late to rebuild our defenses.
What is needed 1~ a loud and dear
call from the American people.
Now, I can predict what will happen
when this letter goes out. The "anti's"
and the "ultra's" will start screaming.
"There goes that warmonger again. He
won't be satisfied
~ntil we have a
nuclear showdown."
I've endured
that kind of abuse
before. And I will now.
It is incredible, but those of us who
believe in peace with freedom,
who
believe that peace can best be insured
through strength-s-which
means moral
as well as military strength-have
to

(/i.'fi.'IlS<l>rl.lgruHI In 1>)Utl'l't rht'ir


(I

ma'i..~il\'

hOIllI"ll:I

defl'llSl..'

l'it,if

f}f.!u/,ll'.

lll'lU'Ot"k,

wltl 1IlHihtlllisric mi.~siles [u I.".ot.:('[


MU.'\(II1I'. \Vc hem: nil cil"il thfell.o;c pre
,I.."'um tll fIJ"Oh'lt[he Ami.'rinm
l'JI.:ul'le, u '
tiny lfir-(Il'fl'n~' IIt'[t('f'Tk, und no missile tltfen.sc HC all,

4.

In cmlVt'nciontlI1uCa/)(ms, the Sooit.'tS


have [our times s many ronks and
twice us many
turn in unifunn ready fCJr 1mr.

urri!lt" ,)iect..~and

1)\1(')'

3. Ddayed the Triil..'Tlt ",,<wam.

4. Cancelled

the

ori!(inal 8-1 program.

5. SIX'"' years debatin,l{ the best U'U"V m


protect MX Mi.~~iles, 4uhiLe huildi~
none.

So, if you fear for the safety of voue


children
and your friends, cast your
ballot
today
for Peace
Throu.e&
Strength.
All of us must rally at this criti~t
time and make our voice heard.
We have a President
who wants tA
build up our military strength. But he is
catching it from all'sides, The "freeze'nlks," "ultra Iibs," and "unilateral
dtsarrners" arc after him.
He and the loyal members of Coneress need to know that you arc with
~~em..
..
Do send in your ballot right away.
This lett~r' is being printed in major:
newspapers
and mailed to millions
Americans.
We will tubulare
your ballot and
thousands of others and send the result. .
[0 President
Reagan and the Members
of Congress,
It is time for pamonc.God-feartng'
AmeriCans
to' speak up and let the
nation's leaders know where you stand
on the critical issues of national defense.
No matter how vou look at it, 'the
peace of. the future
is going to be
d~cided by strength.
Is it going to be
American strength or Soviet strength!
Vote
now for Peace
Through
Strength. I promise you, your voice will
be heard.

of

While the Soviets have been building: up during the last decade, we have:

Sincerely,

1. Cut mer Navy in half.

2. umcdled
the production
Ilwn missiles.

of MinuteReverend

Peace through Strength Ballot

Jerry Falwell

11II

Please cast your vote on each of these questions:

.Dear Jerry,

I. Are you willing to trust the survival of America ta a nuclear freeze


agreement with the Soviet Unic,,", a nation which rejeCts on-site
inspectionof militaryfacilitiesto insurecompliance?

Here is where I stand on the critical issues af national


defense. Please carry the results of this balloting to
our national leaders:

0 Yes

0 No

Name

2. Are you for stopping those U.S. strategic weapans pragrams


at restaring nuclear parity with the Soviet Union?
DYes

aimed

Address

0 No

City

3. Do you believe our NATO pa..tners should be outnumbered


"theater" (intermediate range) nuclear weapons?
DYes
0 Na

in

State

Zip

Mail Ta: Jerry Falwell


499 South Capitol Street, Suite 101
Washington, D.C. 20003

I
I
I
I

I
I

~------------------~
n">(Ki"..Hd

Page 8

1. The Sovit'l~ hat .almost a two-to-one


{I(I1't:m[ugl' in nudetlr u't.'cl/l(ntS. And
Iy/"l' fur Iy/"l'. thi.'il'Sare hi~cr titan our .
and ncuer.

,I

:"'ou for sroN>in~ those


srr.
[l'gic well/)om /JrO,l..'TWlIS lliflll'cI (/[ 1'1..',~toring Hue/ellr pmit)' 'with the S01.'il't
Union?

NoD

\Vhat 1(1(1uldhtlf>pm if Moscow (Hul


Peking f'c/Ct.'hed ill' chl'ir qUlIrrel!

And, ytW might also ask yourself


\\ hat would happen if the President of
the United Stares received a (0111 on the
"i1odinc"
some day, and the Soviet
Preside-nt said: "Give up or he de:.tfllyld ...

1. Arc :V0IIwillin,l{!U trusr rhc ~lIn'it'(l1 of


Anll'finl
to If Iludcar frcc:::clI,1..'Tl'CnlCnr
with rhcS01.'tcr Union, (lllario!lwhich
rl'jel'rs on-site insjJCctioli of military
f(/l"iliric,~ [0 insure wm/>liwKt:!
Yes 0
NoD

Y.so

/)(.,"nit

3. What Ulould be the effect on che


nau,:kar hc:dallce if tl'C (Cmtdled the
M X ud the B-1 ,m'J..'l"mn,~ while the
,\'m'il'r.~~t't'nt uhaltl with ,heir Inn,I.."mn s to huiltl fur ttt'f) IIl'W ICBMs
und tlm hcllt:v hcm~ht.'fS!

And that is why I'm writing you this


letter today, I feel that I must speak out
,10 our
alarming national defense situation.
This mesr s age is for every American
who wants to make sure our country
has the military strength to prevent war
;lIld kcc p us tree.
\V" cannot afford h) l)t number two
in defense! But, sadly enough, that's
where we arc rodav. Number two.
And faJin~!
So. I urgl' you to cast vour h"ilot
today tor Peace Through Strength and
to preserve freedom.
I promise you I will publish the
results of this pull all over America.
llcrc arc the questions:

u.s.

[0

KGB?

OUT
national
task and challenge.
therefore. is both to prevent a nuclear
war and to insure peace with freedom.
I (dT one refuse to sit back and wait
for the Soviets to enslave us or to destroy us in a rain of nuclear warheads.

Arc

re,l,rime likely

freedmn Ilf thouR'ht and religion uncilT


Uri Andropov, the jenner head II{ the

God.

2.

put up with this kind of abuse. So be it.


Let's review the basic points: war in
any form is abominable.
.
The lesson of history is that weak
nations cannot "buy" peace with treaties. "Deals" with tyrants don't work,
There is only one sure formula for
peace with freedom and that is through
strength.
Therefore,
unless the leaders of this
country have military strength at least
equal to that available to-the Kremlin
tvranrs, we can in time expect either an
attack or nuclear blackmail.
Do we have such strength! These are
the facts:

There they are: three burning issues.


Three straightforward,
uncomplicated
questions.
Here are three additional
issues you
might think about:

'0<10(,',1"",1

M<~<)<". ~>(. ~oo,,,I() S, Co,Iw""

January, 1984

t.O"(ul, ,

v","

p""" ""

The American Atheist

NEWS & COMMENTS / January, 1984


Newman" in his office directed her to Robert Sims, of Press Liaison.
She was there advised by an anonymous female that the "Presidential
Papers" issued each week have a weekly index and that this index
lists all formal - as distinguished from informal - appointments of
the president. The White House did not have a copy. However, Dr.
O'Hair went to the Texas State Library and Archives in Austin, which
is a repository for federal papers. After researching the documents
indicated for the period of January 1st through April 24th, the state
researcher found one formal meeting with Jerry Falwell on March
15th, 1983, lasting one hour and ten minutes.
At this point, a suit was being prepared at the American Atheist
Center asking for an injunction against the National Security Council
so that classified information could not be passed on to Jerry Falwell.
The proposed complaint read, in part,
"The National Security Council has violated and may be
continuing in a violation of the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution by willfully
and deliberately providing to a primitive religious hysteric of
unknown psychological stability information of a classified
defense and military nature which establishes a fanatical
religious group, the Moral Majority, Inc., as an arm of
government with discretionary power to utilize that classified
information in conjunction with and in behalf of its religious
hysteric leader, Jerry Falwell, to the detriment of the national
security of the people of the United States, thus abridging the
right of the Plaintiffs to be free from such religious establishment, and other rights protected and secured to them by
the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First
Amendment."
The suit also contemplated requesting a psychiatric examination of
Ronald Reagan for this extraordinary, unpredictable, bizarre and
dangerous conduct in giving National Security Council briefings to
Falwell.
Meanwhile, the American Atheist Center continued to try to pin
down information through whatever resources it could find. The
following events were finally put into order. It was found that Haynes
Johnson, a prestigious columnist of the Washington Post newspaper,
in his article of April3rd, 1983, titled "A Preacher for 'Peace Through
Strength' or, Maybe, the Bomb," had discussed this presidential
meeting with Falwell. In this five-column, full-width-of-paper spread,
1200 word article, Johnson stated:
"Slightly more than two weeks ago, on March 14th, Falwell
met with Ronald Reagan for an hour and 10 minutes in the
White House. A key Falwell aide tells me they discussed the
nuclear freeze movement and the politics of the situation facing
the president.
"Reagan, according to this account, remarked that Falwell
was the only major conservative minister speaking out in
opposition to the nuclear freeze. He mused aloud why it was so
difficult for him to get his peace-through-strength (emphasis
added - ed.) message across the country. Falwell replied that
one of the problems was the extremely complicated nature of
the subject; the president's case hadn't been boiled down into'
language the average citizen, the farmers and laborers of
America, could understand. If the president could supply him
with such language, and the official facts and figures to back
them up, he, Falwell, would be proud to carry the case to the
public.
"The president then called in an aide and instructed that
such material be prepared for Falwell.
"Several days later, Falwell returned to Washington. He was
given a briefing by National Security Council aides, accompanied by charts and graphs, and written material making
the president's case in 'laymen's language' about the Soviet
military threat and America's presumed fading military
strength.
"Since then, Falwell has been off and running. His orAustin, Texas

ganization has reproduced the president's written material in


even more simplified language. It is being distributed to
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Americans. His
full-page ads running in papers nationally ... "
At this point Haynes Johnson repeats some of the text which had
appeared in the full page ad of the Washington Post reproduced in
this article. Turn to it and take a look, for it sports a date eight days
prior to the Reagan/Falwell meeting.
However, Johnson then goes on to say:
"His (Falwell's) electronic audiences hear him describe what
the president 'told me' and how the National Security Council
'briefed me.' "
Johnson, relying on his undisclosed informant, the "key Falwell aide,"
but in the penultimate paragraph casually changing this to "Falwell's
aides," closed with the comment,
"Falwell's aides say they are being 'overwhelmed' by the
favorable public response to his appearances. They believe he
is having 'a very significant effect' in transforming public
opinion from a pro-freeze stance into one backing the president's views."
On April 5th, a slightly reduced, somewhat censored, repeat of
Johnson's article appeared in the St. Petersburg Times, page 19A,
now titled, "Falwell - the busy 'Friar Tuck of the Right.' " This
reiterated the "briefing" given by the National Security Council aides.
A Herb Block cartoon appeared side-by-side with the article so that
one reading it would presume that the" charts and graphs" mentioned
were of this type of humor.

'Now, BS you can see on this chart.

January, 1984

,
Page 9

NEWS & COMMENTS / January, 1984


On the same day Falwell sent out millions of appeals letters asking
for $25.00 - or more - from each recipient and basing it all on his
imperative to speak out against the freezeniks (this time he spelled it
correctly) who were destroying the country. His words are compelling:
"According to the President and members of the National
Security Council, the Soviets have a clear advantage over the
United States in both nuclear and conventional weaponry.
"And I honestly do not believe America will survive if the
nuclear freezeniks are successful.
"I cannot bear the thought of our children and future
generations growing up like slaves of Marxist Leninism.
"I would rather die than see this happen .... I would rather be
'Dead than Red.' "
It was a Ronald Reagan quotation all over again. In the president's
remarks to the 41st Annual Convention of the National Association of
Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida, on March 8th, 1983, he had
recounted with relish the story of a father saying that "I would rather
see my little girls die now, still believing in god, than have them grow
up under communism and one day die no longer believing in god."
The money appeal letter ended with Falwell promising that if the
monetary return to him were good, he pledged:
"I} To travel relentlessly for the next 18 months - and speak
to as many Americans and Christians (note the distinction! ed.) as possible, to warn them about the dangers of backing a
nuclear freeze.
"2} To speak to 100,000 pastors in person (that's a neat trick!
it adds up to 5,500 a month, 183 a day! - ed.) and explain to
them what the freezeniks are doing - and what they can do to
prevent us from losing our religious freedoms.
"3} To purchase full-page newspaper ads to inform Arnericans that what they are seeing on television is false propaganda
being spread by the freezeniks.
"4} To go into prime- time television with the true story about
a nuclear freeze and what effect it will have upon our nation and
our freedoms."
Early in 1983, persons of considerable repute in the United States
began to appear for lectures at Falwell's Liberty Baptist College - a
fundamentalist
school of an alleged 5,000 students,
operating
primarily from quonset huts. Also at the school is a 230 member
chapter of the (resurrected) Y.AF. (Young Americans for Freedom),
a nee-fascist organization which had begun its life under William P.
Buckley in the early 1960s. The first of these was Senator Jesse
Helms, on January 31st. His act was followed by that of James Watt,
Secretary of the Interior, who did his usual foaming at the mouth
routine. Vice president George Bush (former head of the CIA) then
made his appearances,
characterized
Falwell as a hero, and
compared him to the American Revolutionary War patriot, Samuel
Adams. Adding insult to the injury of the prestige of the American
people, vice president Bush appeared sporting a blue necktie bearing
the insignia of the Liberty Baptist College. And, by late April, it was
the turn of Terrel H. Bell, Secretary of Education. Neither Harvard,
Yale, Columbia, Brown, Princeton, nor Stanford could get such an
array of important political figures to talk to the ivy league schools of
which they are the most prestigious.

"Adding insult to injury of the prestige of the


American people, vice president Bush appeared sporting a blue necktie bearing the
insignia of the Liberty Baptist College."
On April 22nd, Falwell gave to the world his one-hour TV special on
"Nuclear War and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ." The
advertisements,
again in the Washington Post, made it appear as if
Jesus were coming in the mushroom clouds.
Page 10

January,

1984

WTTG-TV

11:30

Channel 5 Friday

On May 20th, 1983 Tristram Coffin, of The Washington Spectator


finally came back with an answer to the American Atheists' query
stating that he had relied entirely upon the Washington Post article
concerned
with Reagan ordering the National Security Council to
brief Falwell, In respect to the suit American Atheists had contemplated, he replied, "P.S. No thanks for joining your suit."
On May 24th, Dr. O'Hair was in Washington, DC to appear on the
Cable Network News national show "Cross Fire" which features Pat
Buchanan
and Tom Braden. In a national radio broadcast
with
Braden on the same day, she announced that the American Atheist
Center was prepared to file a suit to enjoin the National Security
Council from giving any further briefings to Falwell, She also talked in
terms of the need of a psychiatric evaluation of the president because
of his dangerous conduct. Also, being in the city she called Haynes
Johnson at the Washington Post newspaper. He refused to give any
information concerned
with his private source or to identify the
"Falwell aide(s}." He said that it was absolutely certain that the
president called in an aide from the National Security Council and in
Falwell's presence
ordered that Falwell be briefed. However, he
would resist a subpoena of his notes if American Atheists sued to
restrain the National Security Council. He pointed out that Jerry
Falwell had made open and notorious statements to the media about
being briefed by the National
Security
Council,
including an
appearance
on the Phil Donahue Show where this information was
made a matter of public record.
On June 3rd, Dr. O'Hair then wrote to the National Security
Council, at the White House, under a "Freedom
of Information
Request." The inquiry, addressed to William P. Clark, Jr., its head,
stated:
"On March 15th, 1983, President Ronald Reagan held a
70minute conference with Jerry Falwell. During the course of
this conversation
a representative
of the National Security
Council was called to the office and your agency was ordered
The American

Atheist

NEWS & COMMENTS / January, 1984


by the President to give 'briefings concerned with our national
security to Mr. Falwell.'
"This is a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION request for a
copy of those briefings.
"If your reply should be that the briefings are classified
information then I want to know what classification they were,
their length in pages, the general subject matter thereof, the
number of such briefings which have been made or are
contemplated to be made. I desire to know the identity of the
representative to whom Mr. Reagan gave this order and the
exact nature of the order.
"If your reply should be that the briefings are classified
information then I also want to know when, where, how and by
what agency Jerry Falwell was cleared for the receipt of such
briefings.
"My own personal security clearance dates from World War
II,when I was a commissioned officer in the Signal Corps of the
AUS, the WAAC, and the WAC. My security clearance was
then, and is still, for classified material up through "Eyes Only."
Therefore, ifthe briefings afforded to Jerry Falwell were on any
level from "Restricted" through "Eyes Only," I request that the
same briefings be given to me in my capacity as leader of
national and international Atheist groups which are also
concerned with the defense of our nation."
This was signed, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, President, American
Atheists.
At the same time, Jerry Falwell was again sending out another
appeal for funds.
u(OM

THE DESK OF

=5

Nelson

l!R KELSON -STATX

JERRY FALWELL

nm

OF TOTAL

OLD TIIIB GOSPIIL HOUR IS GOD/G IHTO

RETREAT!

u. ar-e now very deep 1n d.ebt IUld on


the verge or financia.l collapse unl.
h."e
& .llQ......mi..'1 i gn mi rac)!It
'>y Thursday.
June 30th - the .;1098 ot our f 18.:&1 y...r.

w.

l!R NIILSON -- I An PRAYING YOU YIli. NOY COlli! TO TIlE AIll


OF TIlE OLD TIl!l! GOSPEL HOUR FIIW<CIAu. Y - - TO HIILP SAVl!
THIS nIHISTRY!
Please
letter

rea.d every word of lIlY .nclo.~


carefully.
Read about what hu

happened

h.ere.

Rea.d what

&!!I

&Skins

you to do.
HR JrOtlSON - - IN TIm KHCLOSED l.E'I"I'ER
I TALI ABOUT AN -"ULTlllATE GUT' AND YHATEVERAMOUKTTHIS IS FOR YOU. I
URGE

YOU TO ACT TODAY.

\IX ARB BELIEVING - AND UORXING - TOR It. 110 HILLION.


MIRACLE BY THURSDAY. JUNE 30TH.
YON'T YOU BE . PART
OF IT?

The six page letter which accompanied this mailing stated that only
a $10 million miracle would save the following:
1) All construction would need to be stopped on Liberty
Mountain, where 34 buildings had been built in the last six
years. (He claimed that on May 22nd "we" began a 24-hour,
round-the-clock, unbroken prayer vigil on Liberty Mountain.
"Hundreds are praying. It ... will continue for 40 days and 40
Austin, Texas

nights, until our fiscal year ends on June 30th.")


2) As of June 1st, the Old Time Gospel Hour owed $6 million
to radio and television stations and the program would go off
the air.
3) His "Missions program" which kept hundreds of young
people working in the inner cities of our nation and in foreign
lands would need to be cut back immediately.
4) The outreach and counselling programs, his telephone
ministry, would need to be drastically cut back.
5) He would need to cut back or eliminate the prime time
television specials.
6) An unspecified, very vague, threat lurked around Liberty
Baptist College and schools where 5,300 young people were
now studying.
However, "right now we are on the verge of financial
collapse. As I write this letter to you the sad fact of the matter is
that we have approximately $10 million in unpaid bills." This
was despite the fact that 150,000 new families joined him in
May, 1983.
Falwell therefore concluded "Only a miracle will save this
ministry now. And I am praying that you - with your 'ultimate
gift' of $100 - will be an important part of it."
If one uses simple arithmetic, one sees that he was hoping that
100,000 persons, or families, would each send in $100. The odds were
with him, given the magnitude of his mailing list. However, this "failure
and bankruptcy" letter was not even cold in the hands of those who
received it when Falwell sent out another letter, this time captioned "I
have campaigned for peace through strength." This two-pager
started out, "I believe our religious freedom is as (sic) stake -" He
offered a free booklet titled "Special Briefing Opposing an Immediate
Nuclear Freeze." In a friendly warrp way, he goes on to explain why he
is offering it:
"Can I tell you how I came to publish this special briefing?
"Obviously the President's schedule could never permit him
to give a personal briefing to every citizen. And the National
Security Council has the same logistical problem.
"However, I was able to meet with President Reagan
recently .... Iwas then, several days later, given a non-classified
briefing by expert members of the National Security Council."
(A little red mark was made beside the sentence, on the border
of the letter. This was the first time that the "briefing" was.
characterized as "non-classified." - ed.)
"I was also provided the very charts and graphs the President
used in his nationally televised speech on defense last January." (The persons addressed, who could obtain this booklet,
were asked "three favors" - ed.):
"1) Read carefully every word with an open mind.
"2) Get personally involved in opposing the nuclear freeze
movement which now threatens America's freedom.
"3) Please send me - at the Moral Majority Foundation the largest and most sacrificial (emphasis added - ed.) gift you
can. "
He further noted that "The full-page newspaper ads we have been
running against the nuclear freeze, and my prime time TV specials on
this subject, have been very costly. Also I want to put this 'Special
Briefing' in the hands of hundreds of thousands of Americans so that
we can stop once and forever the freez-niks (here he reverted to his
prior incorrect spelling) who are endangering our national freedom."
"Because this gift is to the Moral Majority Foundation - it is
tax deductible."
The enclosed flyer describing the "Special Briefing" reemphasized:
"Send you reply and gift to me today, and I'll send you a free
copy of this shocking report - your personal copy."
Obviously his tax-free foundation is into politics up to the proverbial
ears since the issue of "freeze" or "no freeze" is partisan politics par
excellence.
Well, naturally American Atheists requested a copy without

January, 1984

Page 11

NEWS & COMMENTS / January, 1984


sending a gift and received back a slick 18-page, full-color, "Special
Briefing Opposing An Immediate Nuclear Freeze." In special red print
across the face of it, almost as an afterthought, the words appeared
"Unclassified Material."

SPECIAL BRIEFING

2) production of selected weapons, 1974-82,


3) shares of the budget of Soviet "Entitlements" vs. U.S.
"Defense."
4) comparison of U.S. defense outlays added since the
Carter budget.
The 8-1 bomber,
as proposed, woukS Ii:> mud'! to improve this ~ of the defensive Triad.
But produdoo of the B-1 has been staUed, tile victim of de1ense budget cutbacks
Wrthout the B-1, U.S. fcw"ces face a rapidly deteriorating strategic bomber force that will
soon haYe outlived
usefulness
A nudear freeze would kx:k this deterioratoo into permanence.

ns

INVENTORY WARHEADS
BY AVERAGE AGE OF LAUNCHER

OPPOSING AN
IMMEDIATE

lEI

I ftAIIS OLD

NUCLEAR FREEZE

<Ii

I.

Inside on the cover was a statement:


"The information in this booklet is based on briefing materials
supplied by Reagan Administration staff members to Dr- Jerry
Falwell at a White House briefing on March 22, 1983, and
information obtained from the American Security Council, a
private think tank of defense specialists in Boston, Virginia."
The American Security Council is in Boston, Culpepper County,
Virginia, and its telephone number is (703) 547-1750ifyou want to give
it a buzz and find out what it is all about. This was, of course, the first
mention of any private "think tank" being involved.
The booklet gives a diagrammatic
1) comparison of average annual Soviet production and U.S.
FY 1984.
The OYer-ail impact of a freeze wou'd be to serious!)'
reduce U.S. chances to survive and
retaliate to a nOOear first strike by the Soviets. This undermines the deterrent factor that
has kept the Soviet Union at bay in the past and in turn increases the risk of war.

A COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ANNUAL SOVIET


PRODUC11ON AND FY ,.
U.S. REQUESTS

SOVIET UNION

MAJOR SURFACE
WARSHIPS

ARMORED
VEHIClS

ATTACK
SUIlMARINU

AJmURY AND
ROCKET LAUNCHERS

TAcnCAL COMBAT
AIRCRAFT

SANs

THEATER HUCIi

My U.S. negotiations with the Soviet Union over real reductions in nudear weapons
would be seriously hampered by a nudear freeze. A freeze woukj remove Iny Soviet incantito negotiate for lower and equalleveis of weapons systems.

Page 12

US
USSR

110
AvtRAGE
_

YEARS

Y(ARS

2I).:ZS

1016
1Ii-2I)
AGE Of LAUNCHER (YEARSI

ICBM

SLBM

BOMBER

It adds simplistic statements on:


1) A Nuclear Freeze is Phony Arms Control,
2) A Nuclear Freeze Diminishes U.S. Role as a NATO
leader,
3) Why a Nuclear Freeze Would Not Be Completely
Verifiable,
4) A Nuclear Freeze Means Obsolescence for U.S. Strategic
Forces
5) The Sea-based Leg - the Effect on Poseidon Submarines,
6) The Land-based Leg - the Aging Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles
7) The Air-based Leg - B-52s in Need of Replacement
All three legs of the U.S. defensiYe Triad will soon be affected byobsolesce.nce. If a nuclear
freeze is adopted, it will prohibit any modernization of any of these defensive legs and national security will falter.

!fbe SBa-baae4 LBg-!fbe IItrec' on Poseidon Submarines


NI u.s. Poseidon submarines were built during a short period during the 1960s. They will
ruch retirement age during 1993-1997. Over many years d use, the stresses 01 deep
submergence on long patrols cause a gradual degradat)()l'l or hull strength.
This problem is not merelytheoretu:al. In actual practice, submarines come under safety
restr}ctions on dive depth as they near retIrement.
When physical deterootion forces these submarines into retirement. the sea-based leg
of the U.S. strategic Triad will be reduced to the two Trident submarines already constructed. (The OIlio is deployed and the Michigan is expected to ., on patrol in 1983.)
The submarine force contributes substantially to strategic stability because of its high
survivability. The loss of this lee of the defense Triad would be a critical bkM to the strategic
forces d the U.S.

!8i!IIu.s.

J.LLt.
LLLt.
TANKS

I . 10YLUIS

January, 1984

!fbe Land-baae4 Leg-!fbe Aging Intercon'inental


Ki Ue.

BalliaUc

At present many U.S. ICBMs are outdated and in dire need of modernization. They are
rapidly aeing and many have devek>ped problems. As they IfT1'N older. their accuracy Ind
even their ability to fire come under suspIcion.
The proposed MX missile would 00 much to upgrade U.S. Landbased strategic forces in
the face d much newer Soviet long-range nudear missiles. But the MX has stalled due to problems with basing and cost. If a nuclear freeze were adopted. the MX coukj not be dep~
oven d the basing problem were solved.
In this case, a freeze would kxk the U.S. in the positIOn of having old and unreliable
weapons in missile silos.

n. Air-ba.e4

Leg-B-S In Beed of a Beplacemen'

American 852s, after years d use as a primary bomber, are row facing not onty physical
obsolescence, but functional obsolescence in the face of modernized Soviet air defenses.
Years 01 use have so stressed many cAthe bombers that the wings are in danger of falling
off. And the U.S. can no longer be confident that they will slip past the thousands of suriaceto-air missiles 01 the Soviet Union.

The American Atheist

NEWS & COMMENTS

/ January,

1984

and a graphic of "Inventory Warheads by Average Age of


Launcher, 1982."
Anyone who listens to Jerry Falwell, noting his poor grammar and
lack of comprehension of any of the current issues, is immediately
aware that he had absolutely nothing to do with this booklet.
The booklet concludes with quotations from Reagan's controversial speech in front of the National Association of Evangelicals
(March 8th) especially his statement that "We willnever abandon our
belief in God." This is interpreted by Falwell as being a part of
Reagan's position "against the Nuclear Freeze." Falwell closed it out
by saying that he knew that "you care ... for your children ... These
children - our precious heritage - are depending on us to protect
them from both slavery and nuclear destruction at the hands of the
Soviet butchers .... Unless we can stop this nuclear freeze, I don't
know how much longer we will keep our freedoms." $25.00 in the
envelope would do it all.
Meanwhile, on June 20th the National Security Council wrote to
Dr. O'Hair that the backlog of Freedom of Information requests was
so large that it would not be possible to give immediate information on
whether or not Jerry Falwell had been briefed by the National
Security Council.
On August 29th, as a result of her continuing quest for all FBI
records kept on her, Dr. O'Hair received a communication from
James K. Hall, Chief, Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts Section,
Records Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
;.

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

1t:.

l.-.oN_..-

DC u.
110 reporu
or
i. attribut to .rill

.tter

D.C.

JISJj

AUG 29 1983
lira . dalyn Murray O'a.lr
2210 aancock
Dr hoe
Auatin, 'rea..
78156

Prhacy

ferenc. b aade
(POIPA) requ

Acta

to your Pre.dOll of Inforut1onconcernin9 your Lf ,

anclo.~
are two docu.enta wbicb have been revbed
r ult of . consultation
wIth the Central IntelUgence
(CIA).
Wher.
noted on the enclo.ed docu.enta certaIn
deletiona
were r~nded
by tb pursuant to 8ubsection.
(b) (1) and (b) (ll
of the PreedOll of Infor t1on Act (rotA).

AlSJency

All other inforaatlon


referred
to the CIA, for
conaultation,
reulna ex.apt fro. disclosure
pursuant to
the above POIA subsections.
Please r.fer
to the enclosed
CIA eae .potion sheet for an eKplanation of the subsections.
'!'bia conclude.
at PBI aeadquarter

procesa1ng

of your POIPA request

Sincerely

.'

yours,

,.

.'

.:

( . <..

J es K. Hall,
Chief
. Preedo. of InforaationPr ivacy Acts Section
aecords Manageaent Dblaion

Itnclosurea

(3)

Meanwhile, by the end of August, Reagan's fight against a freeze


was in enormous difficulty. More and more persons were becoming
aware of the need for peace. The Central American caper of the CIA
had caused unfavorable reaction throughout the United States.
On September 19th, the information requested from the National
Security Council arrived. Reproduced below, this letter stated,
"Dear Ms. O'Hair:
"This is in response to your letter of June 3,1983, requesting
under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act information in the files of the National Security Council regarding
national security briefings given to Jerry Falwell.
"The NSC Staff has completed a search of the files of the
National Security Council and found no records responsive to
your request.
"Sincerely, Brenda S. Reger, Director, Office of Information
Policy and Security Review."

.(j

-.ora.cIa _1

u.s.~"'J_

F 8)-635
NATIONAL

SECURITY

"~INOTON.

D.C.

COUNCIL
10*

September 19, 198)


Dear Ms. OtBair:
This i. in reepcnse to your letter of June ), 1983, requestinq,
under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, information
in the file8 of the National Security Council regarding national
security briefings given to Jerry FalyelL
The: HSC Staff has completed a search of the files of the National
Security Council and tound no recorda responsive to your request.
Sincerely,

Btl(:~
&-

Directo~V.
Office of Information Policy
and Security Revie",

Madalyn Murray O Bair


AIIlerican Atheists
2210 Hancock Drive
Austin, Texas 78756
M8.

On the attached sheets, most of which were completely blacked out,


it was noted that as of July 15, 1983 she was still under surveillance by
the CIA.
Austin, Texas

January, 1984

IN

MAIL

~r:P " :
SOC!ETY Of !:NR';!i,,:::srs.

Page 13

NEWS & COMMENTS / January, 1984


Meanwhile, the Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg advised the
American Atheist Center that by an order of 8/31/83 Falwell's Old
Time Gospel Hour had been ordered to pay the back ad valorem
taxes of $590,759.93 owed on his real estate in that city for the period
1979 to 8/31/83, with interest at 8% and penalty at 10%,both running
from the date of the decision (8/31/83). Falwell had, of course, already
given notice of appeal.
This all leads your author to accept that either the Washington
Post, Jerry Falwell, or the National Security Council is lying about
whether or not Falwell was given special briefing by the National
Security Council at the direct order of the president. You pick out the
culprit(s). If the material was in fact "unclassified" there was no
reason for the National Security Council to be involved. Every citizen
in the United States has had access to information concerned with
the "freeze" battle. Scores of books, hundreds of magazine articles,
thousands of newspaper columns and news stories and months of
television and radio reporting has kept informed any person who
desired to be informed and even reached those who could care less
about the subject. It is most probable that not alone was Falwell given
a National Security Council briefing, but it would be no surprise at all
to find that the money for the full-page ads across the nation also
came from that source. It is not new news that the government lies in
a continuing way to us or that it has utilized religion since the end of
World War II to be an ally in its fight with "godless communism" and
the U.S.S.R. Allof the "established" religions in the nation have been
a part of this. The respectable religions have acceded to every wish of
government in return for the favor of special privilege which has put
them into positions of power throughout the land. It is new news that
the vehicle which the president chose through which the anti-freeze
campaign would be proliferated throughout the land now would be a
semi-literate bible thumper. But, on the other hand, that bespeaks of
what the president thinks of the people of the nation - an unthinking
mass to be manipulated by a new Elmer Gantry for our times.
Jerry Falwell, who verbally bemoans the future of the nation's
children and who emotionally calls to see them all dead rather than
red, does not think enough of them intellectually to pay the tax on his
vast Lynchburg, Virginia real estate holdings, which should pay for
the school system in his city and state. Jerry Falwell, who cries that he
is on the verge of bankruptcy, spends millions of dollars for
advertisements in every major newspaper in the land against a freeze
on nuclear weapons. Jerry Falwell, with a rinky-dink "college" that
could not educate anyone to be a garbage collector, is able to have
cabinet members, senators and even the vice president address his
student body. Meanwhile, the president of the United States goes on
television camera to announce that he has turned the fight against the
freeze over to Falwell and not one organ of the media speaks out
against it. This is a dangerous combination of state and church, the
very thing which American Atheists has been warning against since
1963. The future of the world is in the hands of a grade-B westerns
movie actor and a semi-literate religious hysteric. We have been
reduced to non-people.
Yet, allof this bizarre game plan, now, seems futile. With the advent
of the 007 incident, Reagan can sweep over any freeze foe. He can.
place new missiles in western Europe. He can rattle his bibles and his
missiles in his holsters - facing off on Main St. for the fight.
American Atheists could not file its suit. The Washington Post
correspondent would not bring his notes into court; the Washington
Spectator editor had simply copied the story without confirming any
part of it; the National Security Council was prepared to come into
court and lie that any briefing had ever been given to Falwell; and
following the statements of Dr. O'Hair concerned with the issue on
many national media programs, Falwell changed his story to say he
was "briefed" by the American Security Council - a private think
tank - rather than the National Security Council, an arm of the
government; and we all know what Reagan is - he would not be a
reliable source of information.
And, thus was played out an incident series of the entanglement of
Page 14

January, 1984

religion and government in the United States in the year of our


national follies of 1983.
As an addendum it might be well to bring you up to date on what the
National Security Council is.It was established by 61 Stat. 496 on July
26,1947 and is currently codified in 50 U.s.C.S. #402, under the title
of "National Security Council," pages 190ff. The president of the
United States is obligated to preside over its meetings. The function
of the Council is "to advise the president with respect to the
integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the
national security so as to enable the military services and the other
departments and agencies of the government to cooperate more
effectively in matters involving the national security."
The Council is composed of (Amendment, Act of Aug. 10, 1949 and
others) " __ . the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force,
the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board, and such of
the following named officers as the President may designate from time
to time: the Secretaries of the executive departments, but no such
additional member shall be designated until the advice and consent of
the Senate has been given to his appointment to the office the holding
of which authorizes his designation as a member of the Council."
In an Amendment, Act of May 29,1959, the Secretary of Defense
was authorized to "establish such positions, and to appoint'thereto,
... such officers and employees, in the National Security Agency, as
may be necessary to carry out the functions of the agency."
The National Security Council was established to "act as the
highest Executive Branch entity that provides review of, guidance for,
and direction to the conduct of all national foreign intelligence and
counterintelligence activities."
"In addition to performing such other functions as the President
may direct, for the purpose of more effectively coordinating the
policies and functions of the departments and agencies of the
Government relating to the national security, it shall, subject to the
direction of the president, be the duty of the Council "1) to assess and appraise the objectives, commitments, and risks
of the United States in relation to our actual and potential military
power, in the interest of national security, for the purpose. of making
recommendation to the president in connection therewith; and
"2) to consider policies on matters of common interest to the
departments and agencies of the Government concerned with
national security, and to make recommendations to the president in
connection therewith."
The offices of the National Security Council are in the White
House. If you care to call to ask what all this sinister nonsense was
about, the two officers, to whom you should demand to speak, are:
William P. Clark, Jr.
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The White House, Room G/WW
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
Direct dial telephone (202) 456-2255
and
Robert C. McFarlane
Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The White House, Room G/WW
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
Direct dial telephone (202) 456-2257
It is no wonder at all that as late as July 15th, 1983 Dr. O'Hair was
still under surveillance by the CIA for she was again questioning. This
time it was why the National Security Council had been directed by
the president of the United States to give a "briefing" to Falwell, who
had no security clearance at all and who could - ifhe was able to read
intelligently - have had all the information he needed in order to kiss
the ass of the president and in return seek favors from him - such as
perhaps intervention in the suit wherein he was being required to pay
taxes on his land - from other than a national security agency. ~
The American Atheist

WATER IS LIFE
The American Indian saw humankind and
all of nature as one. Living closely associated with the land, the Indian could not
conceive of a life apart from it. The fantasy
of European religion introduced to him by
the invading white man could not be
accepted. That the Indian was a part of
nature was all he could, or would, apprehend.
During our times, the Sioux Indian has
decided he has had enough of the white
man, of useless treaties, of the continuing
theft of his land. The first major eruption
which became widely known was the faceoff at Wounded Knee. There, Dennis Banks
and A.I.M. (American Indian Movement)
stood before the might of the American
government and lost to a superior force.
Dennis Banks is now a fugitive, wanted by
the federal government of the United States.
In his stead, Russell Means has taken the
lead of a new organization which is called
T.R.E.A.T.Y., The True Revolution for the
Elders, Ancestors, Treaties and Youth. He
is a candidate for the President of the Oglala
Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Still totally in league with nature, his
platform speaks historically, and conternporaneously, of many facets of the Indian
claim. Three of those are presented here:
water; sovereignty; and naturalization. The
Indian has no voice in the media of the
United States and American Atheists is
happy to give our American Indian brothers
a place to speak.
* * * * *

WATER
The FORT LARAMIE TREATY OF 1868
places the eastern boundary of the "Great
Sioux Nation" on the east bank of the
Missouri River. Almost all of the aquifer
known as the Madison Formation also lies
within the sovereign Lakota territory defined by the Treaty. This means that all the
water in the Missouri - and its western
watershed tributaries - as well as the
groundwater in western South Dakota
belong, and have been guaranteed by the
U.S. government, "forever" to the Lakota
people.
Our ancestors clearly saw to it that the
people would have enough water to survive
upon their homeland generation after generation. Even after the territories were stolen
in 1877 - creating what was called the
"Great Sioux Reservation" - the Missouri
River water and much of the aquifer remained within Lakota holdings. The gov
ernment was interested in gold in those
days. Water was not an issue for them, and
so water was left in Indian hands.
Austin, Texas

db~M9k'y W'oS;.
!>I\K<>TI,\
During the period of the Allotment Homestead Acts, when so much of the Great
Sioux Reservation was illegally opened to
white settlement, water suddenly became a
major federal issue. The government became interested in farming and ranching
rather than justmining, and suddenly - as if
by magic - the west bank of the Missouri
River became the eastern boundary of remaining Lakota lands. Overnight, the U.S.
government, with no authorization from the
Lakota people whatsoever, decided that the
water in the Missouri River did not belong to
the Lakota. As the remaining reservations
had been reduced since the passage of the
IRA in 1934, Lakota control and use of
aquifer water has passed along with the
land.
Today, almost nothing remains of the
water rights our ancestors fought so hard to
January, 1984

preserve for us. Oahe and other major dams


along the Missouri divert massive amounts
of water for non-Indian use. What little
groundwater remains available is being
increasingly contaminated by mining and
other industrial processes. Plans are on the
boards right now to drain the aquifer itself
through corporate projects. If such plans
succeed, the very basis for life itself will be
gone from western South Dakota and the
entire Black Hills region.
The Nixon and Ford administrations in
Washington, DC were entirely correct
when they designated the Black Hills and
the surrounding five state area a "National
Sacrifice Area." This reality was clearly
foreseen by our ancestors in the terms of
the treaty they established for the protection of their unborn; it is our responsibility to act in the same way, by protecting
Page 15

our unborn. If we do not offer water to the


future generations, we offer nothing at all.

SOVEREIGNTY

Russel Means, Lakota


TREATYfYeliow Thunder Camp

"For Us, Colonialization


Still Exists"
Prospero Orosco,
Consejo Indio de Sud America

"I will sing a song of the village, we have


asked permission from the Sun and Mother
Earth, there are Indians in South America,
and we are grouping now, we are passing a
phase that is very difficult, for us colonialization still exists. I give my greetings to the
elders and my indigenous Brothers from
your southern Brothers. In our homelands
there are still ambassadors who want to
exploit the earth, from Alaska to Venezuela
it is all indigenous land. We have learnt that
we are not only the indigenous people from
north, central, and south America, but from
the world. In South America, the white
governments do not respect the land or
resources, nor the people. We are under
persecution, massacres in Chile, massacres
and torture in Peru, in Colombia, too, the
governments aided by the United States not
Europeans, what do they want with my
country? The authorities who are seated in
power are well fed many with thousands of
dollars, what have they done for Argentina,
Nicaragua, EI Salvador? We are working
towards a united coalition of Indians in
South America. The leaders of my country
in their suits and ties, don't tell the international community of the crimes going on
down south, they are crazy from too much
coca leaf, is what my people say, it is documented. But, the indigenous people of
South America we do not cry for all these
crimes being done by those with no shame
or fear for we will multiply and will resist."

Page 16

Within the understandings of International Law, it is the right of all sovereign


nations and sovereign people to enter into
treaty relationships with other sovereign
nations and peoples. Only sovereign nations
and peoples can legally enter into such
relationships. Individuals and others - such
as states, cities, and the like - do not have
the legal right to make treaties.
Article 6 of the United States Constitution reflects this fact. The Article states
clearly that the U.S. government cannot
enter into a treaty with anything other than
another sovereign nation. To do so would
be an illegal act under both U.S. and
International Law.
The United States government chose to
enter into treaty arrangements with the
Lakota Nation in 1805,1847, 1851 and 1868.
Thus, not once, but four times did the U.S.
- by definition of its own Constitution determine what our ancestors already
knew: That the Lakota people were (and
are) sovereign in the same sense as the
United States itself. This has also been
proven in the legal doctrines of the U.S.
Supreme Court.
A nation which enters into a treaty
relationship with another has both a moral
and a legal obligation to carry out its
responsibilities under the terms and conditions of the treaty document. The Lakota
Nation has always done so, not only in
relation to the United States, but also with
all other sovereign nations. The U.S. has
failed (or refused) to do so relative to the
Lakota. The immoral and illegalaction of the
United States represent a clear violation of
Lakota sovereignty. By international definition, this amounts to "acts of war"
continuing to this very day.

NATURALIZATION
All sovereign and self-determining peoples have an absolute right to decide who is
and who is not acceptable as a citizen. All
the countries of the world determine their
own citizenship. The United States certainly
does. The Lakota Nation has the same right.
Traditionally, the Lakota people have
always had ways through which its membership was defined, including the membership of non-Lakotas who were for one
reason or another acceptable to the people
as a whole. The Lakota people have always
possessed the means by which to decide
with whom to enter into alliances. This can
lead to citizenship of some sort.
Today, the situation is rather different.
The United States has taken upon itself to
January, 1984

decide who is and who is not a Lakota. How


does the U.S. decide such matters?:
Through a system of "blood quantum," as
crude and vicious as how the nazis decided
who was and was not jewish. Also, according to the BIA (Bureau of Indian
Affairs), if born off the reservation, even a
full-blood child cannot be considered Lakota.
Membership in the Lakota Nation has
been reduced to a primarily racial proposition by outsiders. The issues of blood
quantum and membership have been used
to divide the people. Further, the 1924
Citizenship Act imposed U.S. citizenship on
all Lakotas. We never had a choice as to
whether we would be permanent allies with
or citizens of the United States of America.
It was simply forced down our throats as a
people.
Of course, there are those who say that
"dual citizenship" - being both Lakota and
U.S. citizens at the same time - is a good
thing. However, the question must be
asked: If dual citizenship is good, why does
the U.S. government actively stop us from
making anyone we wish into Lakota citizens? If dual citizenship is good, then our
making more dual citizens should be in
everyone's interest.
The answer is that dual citizenship, as it is
used by the U.S. government, is a tactic to
confuse and dilute the Lakota Nation. By
insisting that people under attack from a
nation are at the same time citizens of that
nation, the aggressor can keep its victims
confused and off balance. At the same time,
the last thing an aggressor nation would
want to happen is that its own citizens come
to view themselves as being members of a
victim nation.
By confusing Lakota people about where
their real loyalties should be, the dual
citizenship policy dilutes the Lakota Nation
physically. Combining dual citizenship with
blood quantum, the U.S. government is able
to create new U.S. citizens at the expense of
the Lakotas. In other words, the child of any
dual citizen whose blood quantum falls
below the U.S. approved minimum limit
automatically becomes only a U.S. citizen,
never a Lakota citizen. By defining Lakota
identity primarily by blood quantum, the
U.S. government is able to effectively
regulate the size of the Lakota population
by remote control.
Reprinted from the Treaty Council News,
July, 1983.
If you want to help or to find out more
about T.R.E.A.T.Y., write:
T.R.E.A.T.Y.
P.O. Box 99
Porcupine, SD 57772
The American Atheist

"HEAVEN" AND EARTH

THE INFLUENCE OF THE RELIGIOUS


BELIEF IN AN AFTERLIFE ON HOMICIDE
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
After discussing this with a large number of offenders and court
personnel, and also after an extensive review of the literature, a
pattern became apparent. This trend was explored via the interview
technique, and the results were codified and tabulated. Only the
conclusions will be presented here.

T heextensively
relationship between religious beliefs and behavior has been
discussed in the psychological, sociological, and
religious literature (Maves, 1953; Knight, 1964; Nelson, 1976). Most
writers conclude that, in general, although some religious beliefs can
facilitate emotional adjustment, many are harmful (Chesen, 1972;
Ellis, 1970). This paper explores several aspects of the religious belief
in an "afterlife" and its relationship to homicide. This topic has not yet
been empirically researched in any great depth, but hopefully willbe
examined in more detail by other researchers. Even Lewis (1946) in
his extensive discussion of homicide and religion, and the effect of
religion on murder, did not touch on the relationship between a belief
in an afterlife and homicide behavior (see Chapter 6, pp. 343-394).
The author explored the relationships between religion and crime
while working with multiple felony criminal offenders in his employment for a large circuit court and, later, while working inside the walls
of Jackson State Prison in Michigan (SPSM), the largest walled prison
in the world. In brief, it was found that most convicted murders had
either a very strong religious belief, or no religious belief at all. The
latter position was not necessarily a well thought out atheistic
position, arrived at from reading and thought, but was neither well
thought out or strongly held. Not uncommonly, the intelligence or
education to arrive at an intellectual opinion on these philosophical
issues was lacking. Our criminal justice system deals mostly with not
only society's failures, but those who fail at crime as well (those who
blundered and got caught). For this reason a disproportion of the less
educated and less intelligent make up our prison population.
Austin, Texas

The Religious vs. Atheistic Belief Structure and Its


Relationship to the Taking of Human Life
Obviously, many factors influence whether or not a lifestyle
orientation or pattern is carried to the extreme which results in a
homicide. Nonetheless, the general belief pattern of religious persons
is: "If the soul is immortal and lives on after the death of the body,
murder is, in essence, a causing of only a change in the 'form' of
existence. The change is from a physical to a spiritual body, or from a
'physical being' to a 'spiritual being.''' In this view, murder is thus not
necessarily harmful to the "real" person (the spiritual person) or the
"immortal soul" that christendom teaches all humans have - and
may often be helpful if we take seriously the claims made for
"heaven." Murder is, if this reasoning is followed, not necessarily a
major sin or even a sin at all.
On the other hand, if this existence and this life is all anyone has and all that one willever have - murder is obviously the most heinous
of all crimes. Without life,one can have nothing else. To lose one's life
is worse than to lose anything else, for loss of lifealways means loss of
everything else as well. Thus, an Atheist who assumes or knows that
this life is all there is may reason: "This life is aliI have, therefore I'm
most concerned about its loss. I'm also very concerned about causing
someone else to lose their life, if only for reasons which relate to
normal identification with that person."
For this reason, the agnostic or Atheist life position may well
influence one to be much more concerned about temporal life. The
religious orientation, on the other hand, may produce less concern
about this life because "there is always the next life, and whether one
goes to heaven or hell is not my problem or concern, but theirs."
It is well known that religious people are more in favor of capital
punishment than the less religious. Walker (1972: 140) notes that
many "christians did not object to [criminal] executions because of
their belief in lifeafter death; even ifan innocent person was executed,
they [believed that] his [or her] soul would find peace in heaven."The
same line of thought is pad of the support for war by many religious
people. As Abbot Arnold is claimed to have said, "Slay all; the lord will
know his own." (Lewis 1946: 370).
The degree of this feeling was expressed by inquisitor Conrad Tors
who, according to Mannix (1964:48) adopted the motto "it is fitting to
burn a hundred innocent [persons] in order to destroy one heretic
among them." This is the opposite of Western justice today: in theory
it is better to let go of one hundred guilty persons than convict one
innocent one.
An Historical Example of the
Influence of Religion on Homicide
From a study of history, it is clear that religious beliefs can directly
influence one to commit murder. Some segments of the catholic
church believed at one time that, to prevent burning forever in hell
and to guarantee entrance into the "everlasting heavenly paradise,"
one had to both accept the church's teachings and be baptized into it.
If, though, after acceptance one reneged one's commitment, he or
she would be doomed to spend forever in the torments of hell. The

January, 1984

Page 17

important thing, it was taught, was one's belief state at the time
he/she died. Thus, during certain times in history some representatives of the catholic church used any and all means of torture to
force a "non-believer" or "pagan" i.e. allnon-catholics to "repent" and
outwardly "accept" the catholic church's beliefs and be baptized,
however insincere the conversation.
It was also believed by many that once a person "repented" the
person would be guaranteed eternal bliss in heaven, but only if death
occurred when one was "in grace with god." On the other hand, ifthe
person reneged or was in a "lost faith condition" at the time of death,
that person would spend eternity suffering in hell. The logical step to
insure that the tendency to renege doesn't occur was to execute the
person immediately after conversion. This would, they thought,

"The religious orientation, . . . may produce


less concern about this life because 'there is
always the next life, and whether one goes to
heaven or hell is not my problem or concern,
but theirs.' "
guarantee entrance into heaven and add a name to the church's
roster of "saved souls." The fear that a forced convert may renounce
his/her new beliefs (which often happened) and therefore spend
eternity in hell, was responsible for countless "murders." The church
tortured thousands in an attempt to force them to "repent" and once
they did they were baptized and then killed.
The church's members likely sincerely felt they were doing their
victims and humanity a favor, and thus many pursued this course of
action with the utmost devotion and zeal (Nickerson, 1932). Even
today, not all catholics look upon this bit of history with horror. Most
people, though, would view this as the epitome of not only stupidity,
but inhumanity as well. Some argue that at least Hitler was trying to
accomplish a purpose for which he felt he had empirical support; the
church's action, in contrast, was based on "pure belief" which, it is
admitted today by the same church, to be partly in error.
The church's actions, although not based on empirical evidence,
were logical if the basic series of premises which they taught are valid.
In spite of logic, even though the underlying beliefs are still accepted,
the conclusions are probably opposed by most people today - even
devout church members, most of whom are not fullyaware of this bit
of religious history. Nonetheless, this reasoning is still part of the
thinking of many religious persons, and no doubt affects their
behavior, in many well known cases very openly (Kilduff and Javers,
1978).
When the atrocities and foolishness of the inquisition and church,
and the political activities of medieval Europe, are examined, it is
often assumed that we have today progressed from (what seems to
our vantage point) absurdities like these (any review of the history of
the inquisition or torture such as that by Mannix [1964] makes for
fascinating reading because it is so unbelievable). Yet the insanity still
occurs today (Franzius, 1969).
People who were obviously insane, claiming that they could change
into toads, for example, were promptly executed as this was .
"obviously" a sign that they were "in league with the devil." It did not
seem to occur to both certain inquisitors, nor some religious people
today, that people who claim to do such things are often mentally off
balance or lying - indeed, when put to the test, they often cannot do
what they claim to. One inquisitor, curious, watched a woman
attempt to change into a toad in her sleep. She said she could, and
asked to be punished, for she knew such behavior was wrong and" of
the devil." After awhile, it was apparent that the woman was still a
woman doing nothing but sleeping. The inquisitor viewing the show
concluded that the woman was suffering from illusions and did
nothing. Later, his superiors concluded that the woman was not
"suffering from illusions" but actually had turned into a toad - an
invisible one and, in the meantime, satan had "materialized" a body
for the woman! That is why it looked like she was still on the bed.
Page 18

January, 1984

Thus, even though no one saw the change, it actually occurred! When
the spectators got tired of watching her sleep, they awoke her, but by
this time she had turned back into a woman. Similar events abound in
history.
Today, of course, this seems absurd to educated, rational persons,
yet it also was to the early church. Augustine concluded that
obtaining a confession by torture was "absurd" and in 384 a.d. an
official synod in Rome denounced both the use of torture and many
ideas that were much later accepted by the people and church!
The feeling that torture was useless was so prominent that Mannix
(1975:43) notes that "as a result, [religious-intellectual] torture as a
legal device to obtain information or a confession virtually disappeared in Europe for nearly a thousand years." The church openly
worked to stamp it out. Pope Gregory I ordered secular judges not to
accept statements made under torture, as such verbalizations were
not valid, again echoing the 384 a.d. synod in Rome. Yet, after this
1,000 years of rejection of torture, for several hundred years the
church not only tolerated torture, but in many ways encouraged it so
that millions died!
A review of history, rather than presenting progress, often presents
cycles. Thus, today we currently have the resurgence of many beliefs
which, just a few years ago, would surely be seen as absurd. The
incident of the toad may actually today be more accepted by the
masses than by many persons a thousand years ago!
Religion and Death
The religious belief of an afterlife should cause a person who has
been essentially "good" all his or her life and is nearing death, to be
happy (Chesen, 1972). Sorrow should not be one of the feelings
experienced at this time. Ifone is journeying to another realm, a much
better one, what reason would there be to mourn? Rather we should
be happy for those dying - that is if we believe heaven is what the
churches teach it is (Nelson, 1976). The belief in an afterlife produces
terms for dying such as "passed away," is "beyond the vail," is "with
the lord," is "in heaven," and "has received his heavenly reward" - all
meaning the person is dead.
If there is a reason to be sad, it is only for oneself in that those alive
will miss the departed friend's companionship or friendship. We
should be happy for those about to embark on a journey, any journey,
but especially to heaven. Probably, though, the majority of even the
devout believers are to some extent not sure of their afterlife belief thus there is apprehension, concern, sadness, etc., surrounding
death. Heaven, it is often said, is where "everyone says they want to
go, but nobody is in a hurry to get there."
* * * * *
REFERENCES
Chesin, Eli. Religion May Be Hazardous to Your Health.
New
York: Collier Books, 1972.
Ellis, Albert. "The Case Against Religion" Mensa Journal No. 138,
Sept. 1970.
Franzius, Enno. History of the Order of the Assassins. New York:
Funk & Wagnalls, 1969.
Kildruff, Marshall and Javers, Ron. The Suicide Cult. New York:
Bantam Books, 1978.
Knight, James A. A Psychiatrist Looks at Religion and Health. New
York: Abingdon Press, 1964.
Lewis, Joseph. The Ten Commandments. New York: Freethought
Press Assoc., 1946.
Mannix, Daniel. The History of Torture. New York: Dell Pub. Co.,
1964.
Maves, Paul. The Church and Mental Health. New York: Dell Pub.
Co., 1954.
Nelson, Marion. Why Christians Crack Up! Chicago: Moody Press,
1976.
Nickerson, Hoffman. The Inquisition. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co.,
1932.
Walker, Peter. Punishment: An Illustrated History. London: David
and Charles, 1972. ~
The American Atheist

John Forest M. Samore

HEROES

"We just don't have any real heroes anymore."


Any nation as young and as dynamic as the United States lacks
inner security. Times of turmoil, an apparent lack of "respect" for
authority, aimlessness of youth contribute to the widely-held belief
that we need some "real heroes to look up to."
Heroes, as a concept, serve a useful purpose in the infancy of a
nation: Ghandi to India, Kenyatta to Kenya, Napoleon to the new
French Republic, Washington to the Colonies. This simple, marketable notion may rally the masses and crystallize national self-interest
for a brief, poignant time, but the rallying strength of a "hero" has a
rather brief effective life.
Our contemporary world has many examples of heroic figures
who, at one time, served as an expression of their countrymen's
hopes and desires, but whose hold on a nation's aspirations became
less durable as their reign wore on.
America has never lacked for heroes; through heroes we have
passed on to new generations the concepts we esteem: Washington's
honesty, Lincoln's determination, etc.
In a truly mature country, the use of heroes to impart cultural
values is hardly a sign of strength. The more society relies upon this
simplistic concept to hold to its values, the more tenuous the grasp.
Rather than a sign of strength, the yearning for "heroes" is a sign of
weakness.
America does not lack for "heroes" today.
So desperate are we to receive a "savior" who willexonerate us of
sin, guilt, and responsibility that we eagerly elevate the most ordinary
actors, athletes and politicians to "hero" status. Those whom we
elevate represent commentary on our values, particularly values of
tradition which we prefer not to observe in our daily lives (fidelity,
industriousness, temperance).
By deferring practice of the values to our hero-figure, we avoid
responsibility to adhere to these same tenets ourselves. One of the
most debilitating ways to avoid accepting responsibility for our lives
and our land is to timidly yield our strength to an ethereal concept
rather than developing our power within.
Having so yielded our virtue, we become intolerant of anyone who
might dare expose our emperor in his new clothes.
The great reverence accorded heroes of past generations was due
to an aura received since so few people actually knew their habits and
eccentricities. Public figures today, while benefiting from manipulative techniques of their publicists, must also live with the media's
Austin, Texas

capability to expose their lies fully. Perhaps, had we known all the
truths, we would not so "worship" the glimmering images of certain
"heroes" in history.
Historians and journalists are responsible, not only to exalt, but to
expose. The peccadilloes of FOR may have been no worse than those
of Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln; no more segregationist than George
Wallace, Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth; no more dedicated to training rules
than today's major leaguers.
We must closely examine our heroes, warts and all; our own
self-esteem willbe diminished if we are to benefit from the emotional
exhibitionism of modern public figures. The fact that we all share
similar frustrations and heartaches in our daily lives should create an
emotional bond between the president's wife and the working
mother. Such knowledge should permit us to better shoulder our
setbacks, since we realize a television star's son may commit suicide,
a macho hero can find his wife has left him for another man, a
prominent executive can lose his job.
In a similar manner is the conceptual flipside, the "anti-hero," used
to usurp individual and collective independence. By popularizing the
homily "All politicians are crooks," the expectation becomes a reality,
and public office is filled by those rarely held fully responsible for their
actions.

"The greater the reliance on heroes, the less


we rely upon ourselves ... to be responsible for
our lot in life, to set a direction for our society."
Those dubious characters whose image has been thrust into
prominence today represent less our poverty of leadership than the
apotheosis of mediocrity.
The greater the reliance on heroes, the less we rely upon ourselves
to make the hard moral choices, to be responsible for our lot in life, to
set a direction for our society. How short is the side road from
election to concentration camps, from salvation to Jonestown, from
servant to zealot.
We must disassociate ourselves from such mysticism, to accept
the responsibility of our fate and to teach our values to our children,
not by blind faith, but by our example.
Every cause and every solution lies within each of us.

January, 1984

3t

Page 19

TOWARD MORE INTELLIGENCE / Richard Smith

The other day I had some time to kill, so I went to dollar-night at the cinema theater and watched
two hero movies. One was the new James Bond fantasy, Neuer Say Neuer Again. I find the high-tech
gadgetry in James Bond movies fascinating and more realistic than most science fiction, and this addition to
the Bond series did not diverge from the established pattern.
I don't know if it's been noted before, but I dare say that Ian Fleming, the original author of the Bond
character, might have been something of an Atheist. In this movie there is a scene where a legend is told
about an underwater river that Mohammed was supposed to have used. The legend teller then proceeds
to say, "But now we have more knowledge and power than he ever imagined." (or something like
that). I conclude that he was not too impressed with ancient "holy men."
I have yet to see any major character in a Bond movie praying, genuflecting, going to church,
or even hinting that they believed in or felt dependent on any kind of mystical creature such
as a god. Certainly Bond himself doesn't act very religious. He's never humble and
doesn't try to moralize to anybody. He is also always getting it on with at least three
women in every movie, and he and the women never.act like they feel the least bit
guilty about it, either! (In contrast, the star heroine i~ another recent "avantegarde" movie, Flash dance , regularly went to her catholic confessional, thus
spoiling the whole movie.) In short, the Bond movies are freewheeling,
adventuresome, technologically sophisticated (though politically
naive), completely non-religious, and just a little bit fun. It's far
better than the fare of that genre that we've been getting from
George Lucas and Steven Spielberg with all of their "forces"
and "lost arks," etc.
The other movie that I watched was The Right
Stuff. I know that the big controversy on this one
has been over the timing of its release, since
John Glenn, a candidate for the presidency,
is portrayed rather heroically in it.
However, most of the astronauts in
the Mercury 7 program were
portrayed just about equally
heroically in the movie, so I
don't think there was any
more than a coincidence
involved in the timing of
its release.
In any event The Right
Stuff brings home again
the fact that the main
objective of the U.S.
space program has never
been scientific progress.
The purpose of manned
space flight has always been to
"prove," at-least symbolically, that the
U.S. is ideologically superior to the Soviet Union.
Before Sputnik was launched on October 4th, '57, the government
was entirely disinterested in a manned space program. Less than a year later, on October 1st, '58,
NASA was founded with a first-year budget of $100 million. In 1965, when space research and
development were at a peak, NASA's budget rose to $5.25 billion. In the years since, NASA's budget,
allowing for inflation, has never been this high.
Once we had developed the technology to eventually land a manned spacecraft on the moon, the
government no longer gave the same importance to space research (except for negative military
purposes) when budgeting tax dollars. The government's explanation for this change of policy was
that we should be more concerned about our problems here on Earth. In actuality, this attitude simply
reflects our government's lack of interest in scientific progress unless that progress results in a direct
Page 20

January, 1984

The American Atheist

political advantage. Allof this points to a serious problem with our current political
system. Decisions are not based on what willbe best for the future of the country
and the world. They are based on what will be best for the career of the politician
making the decision.
The Right Stuff was also interesting to me as a historical review of events which I
remember transpiring while I was an up-and-coming ten-year-old kid in California. It was
also revealing in what the press showed and did not show about the whole space program,
and, by extrapolation, of public people in general. And, The Right Stuff was an example of
the artificial obstacles an Atheist can expect in a public career in the U.S. today.
I remember years ago when the space program was just "getting off the ground." I don't
think there were many people around who didn't regard the astronauts as heroes. As a kid I
was especially so influenced. Astronauts were like baseball stars. They could do no wrong.
Who could be better than they were? Well, I'm older and wiser now, and I can appreciate
some of the points that The Right Stuff makes that completely escaped my attention
then.
The most telling point was that the real "heroes" were the engineers who designed
the rockets and spacecraft. No engineers - no rockets or spacecraft. It was most
embarrassing for the astronauts to have a chimpanzee going up before they did.
Indeed, from an engineer's point of view, success could be measured in
designing a vehicle so simple to operate that even a chimpanzee could handle it.
The astronauts in the spacecraft felt more or less like just functionaries who
had proven their physical stamina like bulls in a breeding program. It wasn't
quite as simple as that; a chimpanzee, for example, could not radio to the
public and gush ecstatically (in English) about what a beautiful sight
Earth was from outer space. Nevertheless, it was the engineers who
were primarily responsible for the success or failure of the space
program.
The trouble was, the engineers responsible for the equipment in
those days were "borrowed" directly from the infamous nazi
war machine. Somehow, that deflated any pretensions to
"glory" and universal "goodness" to which they might have
aspired.
This has several implications. One is that "goodness"
is not necessarily a fundamental prerequisite in the
progression of human achievements vis-a-vis nature.
The other is that no god had anything to do with the
ultimate success of the Mercury program, at a time when
one of its main missions was to "beat the Atheist
Russians." It was simply a matter of performing systematic
calculations, combined with trial-and-error experimentation
with materials, until something was developed that worked.
Ironically, the chief engineer, ex-nazi Werner von Braun, claimed to
be a primitive theist (Sorry, right now I can't give you better documentation on that other than from the
creationists thernselves.), but it would not have mattered if he believed in an aboriginal lizard god, or if he
worked for nazis or communists. He just did what was there in front of him to do. It doubly reinforces the
sense of the absurdity of the situation to realize that people capable of producing as impressive an
accomplishment as the Mercury 7 program willhallucinate design and order (Engineers are notorious for
that. See" An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement," by John Patterson, American Atheist, Vol. 25
#3, March, '83.) where anyone else can see there is at least an equal amount of randomness and disorder (as
in biological, political, and economic systems).
The Right Stuff was also good at exposing a side of the Mercury 7 program that the public did not see
twenty years ago. Just as with sports stars, the press went out of its way to portray the astronauts as "good,
all-American heroes." The book Ball Four by Jim Bouton (See "Champions Without Christ," by Jeff

Austin, Texas

January, 1984

Page 21

Frankel, American Atheist, Vol. 24 #3, March, '82} also exposes this.
There are many star athletes who could care less about religion but,
because this is not so abnormal, and because the press in the U.S. is
obsequious to religion, the press does not advertise them as being
"successful non-christians." It is the abnormal sucker who goes out of
his way to proclaim that his success is dependent on his religiosity
whom the press advertises.

of being a national symbol anyway, an astronaut would have been


hard put to not lie and cause an argument.
Personally, having been an avowed Atheist for many years, I could
not have lied. But that incident in the movie exemplified the pressure
that exists in this country on people to conform, and that is how a lieis
agreed upon and perpetuated. You're damned if you do and damned
if you don't. If you agree, you compromise on truth and personal

"Yet, when the seven astronauts were first presented to the public for a press conference, one of
the questions asked had to be, 'Do you go to church?' The astronaut who answered this
affirmatively got some snickering looks from the others, as if to indicate 'What else do you
expect me to say, you impudent browbeaters.'"
The same was true of the astronauts. Except for John Glenn, there
was no evidence that the other astronauts were particularly pious or
devout religionists. Not that religion would have had any positive
influence on "immoral behavior" anyway, but the astronauts were
also capable of lying, cheating, drinking, adultery, etc. Yet, when the
seven astronauts were first presented to the public for a press
conference, one of the questions asked had to be, "Do you go to
church?" The astronaut who answered this affirmatively got some
snickering looks from the others, as if to indicate "What else do you
expect me to say, you impudent browbeaters?" The whole charade
made a clear impression that the press goes out of its way to create an
image that the U.S. is led by people with a character and a set of
beliefs which they do not sincerely and deeply hold, other than to
portray that image.
,.
As many Atheists are well aware, the space program itself was later
polluted with religion on December 24th, 1968 to the extent that
taxpayers were forced to pay for a public display of demented, pious
religiosity when an astronaut was ordered to take time out, read from,
and broadcast to the whole world the first chapter of genesis (proving
that you really don't have to be much more than a well-trained
monkey to be an astronaut).
One has to sift the gratuitous from the genuine in the movie itself. I
regard as genuine the incident at the press conference to which I
referred, because, as in the case of athletes, I have witnessed it myself
many times already. There was another incident, which I regard as
gratuitous, which reflects a mysticism which the media now wants to
palm off on us. This was the scene with the aborigines at the
Australian receiving/transmitting station during Glenn's flight. The
movie tried to make it look as if the aborigines really had some
mystical way of influencing and communicating with Glenn. Now I
don't have anything against a message of "We're all in this boat
together - from the 'lowliest' to the 'highest,' " which the movie was
trying to make; but to descend to the lowest level of mysticism to
make this message is ludicrous and counterproductive. It is ludicrous
because it is not true that mysticism is "beautiful" or capable of
achieving things that sane rational nonmystical people cannot. It is
counterproductive because it is precisely mysticism that makes
people prone to fall for blind nationalism, religion, sexism, and all the
other evils that threaten world well-being and survival.
The final and most provocative point I drew from The Right Stuff
was how difficult the system in the U.S. makes it for anyone to be
completely thoughtful, honest, and free from religion, and yet still
achieve. At the press conference where the astronauts were
questioned by the press ifthey went to church, I had to ask myself ifI,
an avowed Atheist, would have lied too. The major theme of the
astronauts' program was a team spirit for achieving the goal before
them. That, more than anything else, was instrumental in motivating
the astronauts to carry out their mission. Ifanyone of the astronauts
had been lackadaisical, or unsure of the importance of their mission,
or had done anything to diminish morale, that alone would have been
factor in the mission's possible failure. Thus, unfair as it would be,
anyone who tried to make an issue out of the least little difference not
directly related to the program, even if the majority were wrong,
would be put in the awkward position of being accused of jeopardizing
the program. As it was not so much a question of technical prowess as

Page 22

January, 1984

integrity. Ifyou disagree, you risk being put out of a major project and
being stigmatized as "unsuccessful." Our economic system is no
longer composed primarily of "individual" success stories like
Thomas Edison, but of "team players" who fit in with the corporate
system. Even though it is not true, insecure conformists willbe quick
to accuse a "misfit" of being unsuccessful because they are a "misfit,"
and insecure religionists will be quick to accuse Atheists of being
"unsuccessful" because they are Atheists.
This explains why Atheists today are quick to counter by trying to
identify with famous people like Jefferson, Paine, Lincoln, Ingersoll,
Edison, Burbank, and Einstein, even though those people were not
exactly choice, full-fledged, dyed-in-the-wool Atheists themselves
(they couldn't have been anyway, given the evolutionary nature of
Atheism, like everything else). Atheists, instead, must stand up on
their own two feet against irrational pressure.
Although some biased polls (especially the very biased Gallup poll)
still put preachers on top of lists of "respected" people in this country,
I think that the times are changing. People don't worship heroes like
astronauts and politicians or preachers as much anymore. Billy
Graham never got the flack that Jerry Farback now receives.
I think that what a person thinks is slowly becoming more
important now than what image he or she tries to portray. Someday,
in the long run, people are going to say to public persons, "You
actually said that just to go along and be popular," rather than say as
they do now, "You dared to disagree with us rather than guarantee
the success of our mission." I don't mean here, either, that there is a
virtue in disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing, but I think there
is hope for the Atheist in a land where virtue has been labelled as "In
God We Trust."
Mercury 7 is past. Space programs no longer even constantly
allude to dead mythical Greek gods like "Mercury" and "Apollo," and
I don't see any sign that they willever use christian names or repeat
bible readings. Other more realistic priorities like putting women into
space have surfaced, and they haven't resulted in jeopardizing the
space program.

"Anastronaut ... who doesn't feel dependent


on an imaginary god, who can stand and think
on his or her own two feet, and doesn't waffle or
lie to the public - now thafs someone with
THE RIGHT STUFF."
Now is the time to insist that an avowed Atheist, too, be put in the
space program. Then, it will be easier for Atheists, generally, to
"succeed" without compromising in other areas of life in the U.S. An
astronaut (or any public figure) who does not feel dependent on an
imaginary god, who can stand and think on his or own two feet, and
who does not waffle or lie to the public - now that's someone with
THE RIGHT STUFF. ~

The American Atheist

END OF THE TUNNEL / Michael Battencourt

ULTIMATE QUESTIONS
read the usual things people read in the summer, the current
Idospynotnovel
or the latest dead cat book. Right now I've finally made

my way through Hans KUng's Does God Exist?, an 800-page tome


whose ultimate answer, with elaborate erudition, is simply "Yes."
KUng's title is the primum inter pares of ultimate questions. Also
included in the brood of which KUng's title is patriarch are such
questions as have troubled people allthrough time: what is the nature
and purpose of life? what is the nature and purpose of the individual
human being? do we have a soul? is there death after life? is there life
after death? These questions have propelled people to do incredible
and monstrous things, to found monasteries and to spark long
personal quests, but also to mortify the flesh and to justify the worst
excesses of massacre and inquisition. We have then deduced from all
this energy and concern expended on finding the answers to the
questions, that the questions themselves are important, are worthy of
our attention and somehow evoke what is noble in our character.
That, however, may be a mistaken assumption.
When I was a teenager, I was very taken up with these questions.
As a serious catholic, a catholic boy seriously contemplating a career
with the trappists, these questions were the meat-and-potatoes of my
religious existence, my reason for being. And when the religious
impulse died under some very expert tutoring by a priest who taught
my religion class and who was later defrocked, the intensity of the
questions still persisted, fueled by the usual idealism of adolescence. I
soon began to take on a casual Keatsian air, the young romantic
unwilling to soil himself with questions of mundane reality but who
instead kept his sights on the celestial nature of things; who, in his
own mind, was a noble character because he dared to ask and to face
the essential questions of life.
I continued this innocent sentimentality on into my first years at
Harvard, where my airiness could be nourished by a 5-millionvolume
library and hordes of intelligent and committed teachers. I searched
among the various philosophies and religions for answers; I argued
long hours with roommates over minor points of meaning; I wandered
in existential angst up and down the banks of the Charles. In short, I
indulged in the life of the knight errant in quest of the Grail, feeling
sterling because tragic, justified because unsuccessful.
This may sound foolish, but I assure you I was dead serious about
all this. The problem, of course, was that I was getting nowhere. I
continued to be racked by unappeased desires for certainty, and
certainty in the form of answers to those questions was simply not
available. As much to take my mind off these problems as to do my
duty to society, I volunteered to do some tutoring and teaching in the
community and at a nearby state prison. It was then I found the
answers to what had been unanswerable before.
I realized much later that a good source of my existential problems
then was how I had asked what it was I wanted to know. The form of
the question is important because the form to some degree should
help determine the shape of the answer, or at least suggest what
shape an answer might take so that one is not stumbling around in the
dark for too long. I had asked large amorphous questions that
suggested large equally amorphous answers. Really, what possible
answer is there to the question, "What is the meaning of life?". The
word "meaning" in this interrogation implies a certain definitive
restriction and hope: it is this and no other possibility. Given the
multifarious nature of our existence, the crazy-quilt texture of our
lives, the question is really meaningless because we're looking for an
impossible uniformity, a "meaning" amidst what works best as a
jumble, a confusion, a hoard of infinite possibilities. A question, a
Austin, Texas

good question, is a request for information that is, or willbe, available


at some point in time. A good question is also a way of provoking
reality to give up its secrets; it is a pry-bar on some unseen
phenomenon. Ultimate questions don't work this way; they are
questions that do not really look for answers. Instead, they
encapsulate a certain romantic urge for definiteness and order. They
provide the questioner with a sense of continuity over time, a
continuity that would be destroyed by an iron-clad answer. Asking
the question "What is the meaning of life?", then, is the answer to the
question. Asking the question, not finding the answer, is the meaning
of life to those interested in such questions.
But anyone can see the fruitless circles into which this would send
someone. What appears as nobility is, in fact, simple foolishness.
Questions are only good if they keep leading one back to actual life,
back to testing and verifying the surrounding world. Richard
Feynmann, the physicist, in a recent NOVA program, suggested that
we would all do better if we learned to live without the open-ended
questions because physics, at least by what it shows now, indicates
that they won't be answered. I agree fully. Far from being debilitating,
this lack of certainty is vivifying. It provokes us into finding out how
things work, but finding that out in a way that is consistent, through
the method of science, and attached to the material universe in which
we reside, since this is the only home we can definitely say is ours.
In the BBC production of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,
the giant computer Deep Thought has come up with the answer to
the question posed to it earlier on the show, namely, "What is the
meaning of life, the universe, and everything?". The answer is 42.
When his listeners exclaim disbelief, outraged after waiting 7 and a
half million years for what they see as a frivolous answer, Deep
Thought gives them some very good advice. It's not the answer that's
at fault, but that they did not know how to ask the question. Now that
they have the answer, they have to go back and find the question ..Our
universe is like 42; it is, in a sense, our answer. Our duty as human
beings is to find questions that fit the answer. Ultimate questions
don't do this; science does. Kung's "Yes" is not an answer at all, only
an assertion. Let's get down to the computers and the microscopes.

January, 1984

3t
_

~.

-~,l'. ;:,,0,

-.:...2~

~~L
-e

2-

"

.-

, .-

HEAR VEl
Sanity Is In Sight!
Let it be known to one and all
that subscriptions
are herewith
solicited throughout
the land
FOR

THE MATCHI
The APEX

of

ATHEISTIC

A NARCHISM
Available at the astonishingly
low price of only $6.00 per year.

BOX 3488
TUCSON, Al. 85722

Page 23

---:

REPORT FROM INDIA / Margaret Bhatty

RECYCLING OLD SOULS

"~~--p~~~ r.,.~~at
""',""

,~,,"---;'-1

t~'~

.....".

/-

SOULS;'
ONt:'!

A couple of years back, India Today, one of our leading English


newsmagazines, published a story on rebirth under its SCIENCE
section. A letter I wrote questioning the claims made was never
published. The news report was on research done by a certain Dr.
Satwant Pasricha for her doctoral thesis to prove that rebirth does
take place. Her findings may be regarded as another uniquely Indian
contribution to scientific knowledge.
In the middle of this year a monthly from Bombay featured an
interview with the "scientist" and I thought it deserved some
disinterested comment. Pasricha is a lecturer in the Department of
Clinical Psychology at the prestigious National Institute of Mental
Health and Neurosciences in Bangalore. I wish I could be impressed
by her credentials as an authority in this particularly nebulous field of
research. Shortly after she published her thesis she travelled to the
U.S. to work with another specialist in hear- say, Dr. Ian Stephenson.
Pasricha is described as a humorless, prim woman who prefers to
keep a low profile. Her peculiar "scientific" obsession takes her to
many corners of the country to investigate cases of rebirth reported
in our press. "It's no sensational story but a cold clinical fact
confirmed by rigorous criteria and meticulous research," she says of
her startling thesis. In a population of more than six million humans, it
rests on precisely 250 investigated cases! At that average one can
hardly accuse her of gross exaggeration.
Her "meticulous research" involves contacting people who know
of anyone who recalls his/her former life. She then talks to the
subject's parents and neighbors. Having "ascertained" the previous
existence did take place, she then gets in touch with others recalled
by the subject. Cross-checking is done of facts, data and significant
dates of birth and death. In cases of suicide or murder, death
certificates and post-mortem reports are scrutinized. These are
important because, says she, rebirth is more likelywhen a person dies
suddenly by violence or accident.
Ancient hindu texts put the number of rebirths at 8,400,000 for
each soul. Most oriental religions profess a belief in rebirth. At the end
of this gruelin-ground, one's karmic register tots up merit and demerit
to square off the account before one is granted a certificate for
salvation. That all this is entirely unverifiable doesn't concern a
scientist of Pasricha's standing. After all, our papers always carry
strange stories of children recalling former existences, rattling off
entire books of ancient scripture in Sanskrit, or the whole koran in
Arabic.
Right here in Nagpur there is a young woman who claims she was
born in a village in Bengal a hundred years ago and recalls details of
her former life. But she stubbornly refuses to cooperate with
rationalists prepared to investigate her claims.
Page 24

January, 1984

More recently our papers reported the appearance of an avatar of


Mahatma Ghandi, but his claim lacked credibility and he was treated
with derision. Indian godmen all seem to spring from a superior
bloodline as avatars of krishna, shiva, or whatever.
Pasricha's research makes a distinction between genuine cases
and mere nuts afflicted by the possession syndrome or multiple
personality syndrome. All her subjects were under 12 years of age undoubtedly impressionable children, given to fantasizing and gifted
with a talent for shocking their elders.
A case of reincarnation can be "detected" as early as 2 years or
when he/she learns to talk. Investigations should be completed as
early as possible, before the former memories begin to "fade." By the
time the child is ten it becomes less reliable. After 12, they are more
prone to cunning, and, in fact, adults claiming to be reincarnations are
usually frauds - which cancels out a good number of our godmen.
The incidence of "rebirths" is higher in regions where violence is
prevalent, like the northern states of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh,
Haryana, Bihar.

"More recently our papers reported the


appearance of an avatar of Mahatma Ghandi,
but his claim lacked credibility and he was
treated with derision. Indian god men all seem
to spring from a superior bloodline as avatars
of krishna, shiva or whatever."
This odd fact, which I would describe as the Regional Syndrome,
actually hinges on Dr. P's inability to speak any other than the
northern languages of Hindi and Punjabi. She feels an interpreter
would introduce an unscientific bias while questioning a south Indian
child, so she has confined her research to children from the north.
Interestingly, she has yet to come across a soul from the north who
has wandered south and still recalls its former mother-tongue.
Evidently, we Indians don't mix that easily even after we are dead.
However, it is heartening to know that caste barriers are being
crashed by some more enterprising souls. For instance, Swaranlata
was born into a north Indian family of the priestly brahmin caste in
1969, but she claimed to belong to the untouchable caste. Pasricha
found her a normal child except that she had a marked fear of trains,
refused to go to school and was very stubborn.
When whe was three some untouchables approached her father
for wood to roast a wild boar they had killed. Swaranlata not only
urged him to give it, but expressed a desire to join in the feast since
they were all one.
To her family's consternation, she then claimed her real name was
Shanti, and her husband a certain Rajinder Singh who lived in a hut
near the railway lines where, she recalled, she'd been run over while
picking coal.
Pasricha's investigation "confirmed" all this, notching up another
"hit" for her. But one must wonder what was Swaranlata's subsequent history. It is unlikely that a brahmin family would want to
keep a daughter proven to be a former obnoxious untouchable for
fear of social ostracism. Nor willanyone come forward to marry her
when she reaches a marriageable age.
Indian films make imaginative use of the rebirth theory and starThe American Atheist

crossed lovers often turn up in different guise in another birth,


recognize each other immediately and finallyfind happiness. Though
no study has yet been made, it is possible that many of the suicide
pacts made by young lovers, who cannot hope to marry because of
restrictions of caste and religion, reflect this belief. A police officer
once told me that he had to ban the screening of a particular film in a
small district town where he was posted because it dealt with just
such a tragedy and encouraged a spate of suicides among young men
and women.
The common belief is that an untimely death leaves a soul
unfulfilled and unhappy. It therefore seeks to return and finish its
existence before going on to the next. When abortion was legalized,
there were many orthodox people who opposed it on these grounds.
And when birth control was introduced as a national programme,
some argued that such worldly considerations as population control
should not be allowed to interfere with human existence at the
essentially spiritual level - an argument which raises the laughable
vision of hordes of unfulfilled souls scrambling about wildlyon finding
a rubber condom interposed between them and ultimate salvation.
When quizzed about this particular point of "untimely death" and
popular folklore, Dr. P replied, "Well, this is a belief and part of
spiritual life and religion, and I would not like to comment on it."
According to her research, 48% of the cases studied died violently

in the previous life - eight times more than what usually occurs.
But ifindeed souls were getting reborn like mad all the time, we now
have a "rational" explanation for India's population boom - it's
nothing but the fall-out from countries with zero growth whose souls
are descending on this country in large numbers to make sure they
get back onto the merry-go-round.
Such levity would shock the no-nonsense Pasricha. "Let's be clear
about this," she says, "what I am pursuing is scientific research. I try
to verify the claims of reincarnation. I am trying to establish the
possibility of reincarnation, not to find validity of various religious
beliefs." Which is ridiculous, of course, because the concept of "soul"
is nothing but a religious superstition. And the biggest hole in her
thesis is that neither she nor any of the clever ancients of centuries
ago have yet devised any "rigorous criteria" to verify that it even
exists as an entity distinct from the physical self.
But she feels she's on firm ground because cases of "rebirth" turn
up the world over, even in societies which don't believe in it. "Coming
to hindu belief," she says, "it is more or less a moral attitude that's
expressed through these doctrines like the karma doctrine. I have
nothing to say about these religious texts. Mine is scientific work,
verifying facts through field-work. It is neither philosophy nor ethics."
Indeed, it is not. But it is not science, either. It is ballyhoo. ~

THE ANGRY YOUNG ATHEIST / Jeff Frankel


------:
;.

EDITOR'S FORUM
ne of the best forums for individuals to voice opinions is the
"Letters to the Editor" column which is carried by virtually
every newspaper. I have utilized this forum on many
occasions for many reasons. I'm sure you can guess that one of those
reasons has been educating the public on the philosophy of Atheism
and the fallacies of religion. I have had two particular experiences
which I would like to share with you to illustrate just what can result
from speaking your mind publicly.
In January 1982, during the height of the creationism controversy, I
wrote the following letter to the Decatur (Illinois)Herald and Review
which was printed with the headline "Christian Right Bears
Watching."
"Three cheers for U.S. District Judge William Overton and
the American Civil Liberties Union for overturning the Arkansas law requiring teaching of 'creationism.' This was just one
more attempt on the part of the christian right to force their
beliefs down the throats of others. I hope that the ACLU is
equally successful in overturning these ridiculous laws in other
states. As your January 4 editorial so aptly stated, 'Mixing
science with mythology is wrong.'
"The entire creationism force is just one part of the christian
right's movement to change the laws of our nation to suit their
own purposes and make others conform to their narrow ideas.
The latest abomination is the so-called 'Family Protection Bill'
they've introduced in Congress. The bill would restore prayer
in public schools, discriminate against homosexuals, stop
efforts to end tax subsidies to segregated private schools, and
even end federal programs designed to prevent child abuse. It's
shocking but true. The people who perpetrate these things are
obviously demented, but they are organized and they mean
business.
"As has so often been the case in history, christianity and
intolerance are walking hand in hand on a path which willlead
only to fewer rights and a further breakdown of the Jeffersonian wall between church and state. History tells us of father

Austin, Texas

Charles Coughlin and the National Union for Social Justice in


the 30s and the mindless antics of Joe McCarthy and his
'christian capitalism versus godless communism' mentality of
the 50s. Perfect examples of those who speak religious
platitudes from one side of the mouth and words of hate from
the other.
"The ACLU victory in Arkansas is, hopefully, the first step
toward defeating the bigoted ideas of the christian right. I
strongly urge those of you who feel as I do to support
organizations which are fighting the moral majority types, arid
inform your congressman of your opposition to creationism in
the schools and the Family Protection Bill."
Little did I dream when I authored that commentary that I was in
the process of spawning a controversy which would dominate the
Letters to the Editor page for weeks to come. The first response came
from a rather naive female of the species.
"This is in response to the letter of Jeff Frankel. Sir, may Iask
what gives you the right to say that evolution should be taught
to the children in public schools when it is just a theory
dreamed up in some man's mind and has never been proven
over christian beliefs of creation.
"It seems to me that you are shoving your beliefs down our
throats - not the other way around. Maybe they should leave
the teaching of both out of the schools and let parents teach
their children at home what they want them to know on the
subject.
"The greatest point to be taken though, even after all you
have said, Mr. Frankel, is that god, creator of this universe,
loves you Jeff Frankel. Yes, even you, even though you don't
believe in him. His love is so great that he sent his son jesus to
die for you. God is truly worthy of all our praise. May god bless
you, sir. Praise the lord our god."
After settling the upset stomach which resulted from reading such
unadulterated ignorance, I composed my reply.
"(The writer's) response to my letter on creationism and the

January, 1984

Page 25

christian right is typical of the ignorance of most christians I


have met. Not only does she avoid addressing my comments
directly, she reads things into my letter which weren't there.
"My letter didn't state that I don't believe in god, although I
freely admit I'm an Atheist. But a letter like mine could have
been written by a christian. Several ministers testified for the
ACLU during the recent creationism trial, and many ministers
have said creationism belongs in church, not in school. The
National Council of Churches and Billy Graham have voiced
public disapproval of the moral majority, as have People for the
American Way, a group in which ministers comprise over
one-third of the board of directors. Charles Swann, a presbyterian minister, exposes many of Jerry Falwell's lies in the book
Prime Time Preachers. Would you dare say they don't believe
in god?
"What gives me the right to say anything is what gives her the
right to free worship - the U.S. Constitution. Amendment I:
'Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Legislating the
teaching of christian doctrine into schools is unconstitutional.
Christian creation is taught in world religions classes alongside
the doctrine of other faiths. But that's too fair for fundamentalist minds.
"Evolution has never been proven over christian creation?
What proof is there for christian creation? It is simply a blend of
Babylonian and Sumerian myths which bears no more truth
than any other primitive mythology. Much of it is scientifically
unsound, and that which isn't does little for verification (see In
the Beginning, by Isaac Asimov).
' .
"She claims I'm shoving my beliefs down others' throats?
Who's lobbying in Congress for legislation of their beliefs on to
all? Not Atheists, agnostics, jews, muslims, hindus or buddhists, but christians. That speaks for itself.
"You say god loves me? Which god? Yahweh? Jehovah?
Perhaps allah or ahura mazda? Maybe even odin or zeus? Next
time be specific. One person's god is another person's myth."
Considering that the female in question originally attacked my letter
on the moral majority and the christian right, her next response
further reflects the workings of a confused mind.
"Mr. Frankel, all christians do not support the moral
majority. I personally do not support Jerry Falwell. Also, you
wanted me to make more clear what god loves you. He's the
great 'I am.' The god who created this universe, the god in kings
1:18 who sent fire down from heaven when Elijah prayed to
show the people he was the true god. The god who so loved the
world that he gave his only son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish but have everlasting life(john 3:16). Yahweh.
Jehovah. God. One and the same. He loves me and he loves
you. Praise the lord. I'll be praying for you, Mr. Frankel. May
god bless you."
This was just the beginning of a flow of letters which touched down
on a number of subjects pertinent to Atheism and church-state
separation. The following is another response to my letter which
came from a woman who appears to need glasses.
"I would like to comment on Mr. Frankel's letter of Jan. 17. In
it he denounces the teaching of' creationism' in our schools and .
also 'christian rights.' America was founded so people could
have religious freedom or 'christian rights.' The First Amendment gives us the right of freedom of religion and freedom of
speech. Our money and many of our buildings have on them 'In
God We Trust' so certainly we should allow creationism to be
taught in our schools as it is in line with the foundation of our
country and its traditions.
"We are hearing a lot of criticism of our country these days,
but we should never forget why America is great. America from
the beginning has always acknowledged god. If 'Christian
Rights' bear watching, as the caption to Mr. Frankel's letter
states, what has happened to our freedom of expression and
freedom of speech? Mr. Frankel certainly has the right to
express his views, but I do not think this gives him the right to
Page 26

January, 1984

criticize those of us who are christians and choose to express


our views."
Because of a Herald and Review policy which allows only two
letters within a ninety-day period from a writer on the same subject, I
was unable to reply to this letter directly. But I do have my ways. I
have several friends who are nonbelievers of various types and they
offered their assistance to me in this battle of the written word. One
friend of mine thought this letter sounded like an editorial response by
Emily Litella, the slightly deaf character played by Gilda Radner on
the original Saturday Night Live. With this in mind, he composed the
following gem.
"(The writer's) reply to Jeff Frankel's letter was cute in an
odd sort of way. She came across like Emily Litella, the
bumbling but well-meaning editorial commentator on Saturday
Night Live who always seemed to miss the point. The headline
to Jeff's letter read 'Christian Right,' not 'Christian Rights.'
Perhaps ifEmily had interpreted Jeff's letter the way (she) did, it
would have sounded something like this:
'(Emily): What's all this fuss I hear about watching
christian rights? Why shouldn't christians have rights like
everybody else? After all, this isn't Russia or some
country where we persecute people because we don't
like what they say, do, or believe. This is America, the
land of the free, and Atlanta is the home of the Braves.
This is an outrage, it's terrible, it's ... it's ...
'(Chevy Chase, the "Weekend Update" anchorman):
Miss Litella, the editorial was not on christian rights. All
rights, christian or not, are protected by the Constitution. The editorial was on the christian right, which is
a group of fundamentalists who want to legislate child
abuse, persecution of homosexuals, and giving federal
money to private schools which discriminate against
minorities. They want to persecute people who don't say
or do or believe as they do, even if they happen to be
christians.
'(Emily): Oooooh! Well, that's very different. Never
mind.'''
Another friend of mine wrote the following letter, which deals with
the alleged religious heritage of the United States.
"Why don't people read letters before responding to them?
(The writer) either misread or chose misinterpret Jeff Frankel's
letter on creationism and the moral majority. It was clear he
wasn't speaking of christian rights. In fact, the only rights he
mentioned were those the moral majority wish to abridge.
"She also brought up a point we often hear about our socalled religious heritage. Many claim the founding fathers were
all christians. History does not bear this out. Thomas Jefferson
was a deist and a strong critic of the church and christian
doctrine. He questioned certain biblical accounts and opposed
bible reading (creationists take note). During his presidential
campaign of 1800, many of Jefferson's detractors called him an
infidel and claimed his election would cause the destruction of
churches.
"John Adams had little good to say about religion. In a letter
to Jefferson he said, 'This would be the best of all possible
worlds ifthere were no religion in it.' James Madison, the father
of the Constitution, once stated, 'What has been christianity's
fruits? Superstition, bigotry, and persecution.' George Washington made the proclamation, 'The government of the United
States is in no sense founded on the christian religion.'
Benjamin Franklin was a deist who said 'Revealed religion has
no weight with me.' Thomas Paine, another deist, whose
pamphlet, Common Sense, helped pave the way for the
ratification of the Declaration of Independence, also wrote The
Age of Reason, a scathing denunciation of the bible and
christianity.
"Even Illinois' favorite son, Abraham Lincoln, was a deist and
a critic of christianity who, said one friend, 'bordered on
Atheism.' According to William Herndon, Lincoln's long-time
friend and law partner, Lincoln wrote an essay in 1834 which
The American Atheist

argued against christianity. A friend took it and burned it


because he feared the effect it would have on Lincoln's political
career.
"These facts are verifiable history, but are largely ignored by
self-serving christians. If these men were alive today, they
would be the strongest critics of the moral majority and the
christian right."
As a result of my initial letter , the creationism versus evolution debate
really heated up, beginning with the following letter.
"I agree with Jeff Frankel that science should not be mixed
with theology, or mythology, as he stated it. Science should go
against science. There are scientists, and a growing number at
that, who are teaching a creation theory and can show more
evidence that creation has to be the way the universe came into
existence than can the evolutionists. It is said that Charles
Darwin realized before he died that evolution was wrong and
rebuked his own theory, but we don't read of that in science
books.
"I believe both theories should be taught, side by side from a
scientific point of view, using all facts available. There are two
scientific points of view. By the way, if all of the evidence for
evolution and all of the evidence for the creation were laid side
by side from a scientific point of view, evolution wouldn't stand
a chance.
"As a christian, I'm tired of false information that scientists
believe in evolution. Some do but many don't. The number of
those who don't are growing daily as they are exposed to the
scientific evidence on both theories. To ban a branch of science
from school because it happens to agree with the holy bible is
grossly unbalanced education."
The following writer presented a quite logical analysis of the
fallacies of the above letter.
"I must disagree with (the writer) who stated in his letter that
creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science
classroom. (The writer) made many unfounded statements
which have no evidence to support them. For example, (he)
states that 'Charles Darwin realized before he died that
evolution was wrong and rebuked his own theory.' This
statement is nothing more than creationist propaganda and
completely erroneous. Charles Darwin wrote until his death in
1882 on the theory of evolution, constantly expanding the
ground of his theory (e.g. The Ascent of Man).
"(He) also states that 'some' scientists believe evolution to be
true, 'but many don't.' This is tantamount to saying that the
majority of scientists believe creationism rather than evolution.
This is utter nonsense. Having attended three colleges
(Washington University, MacMurray College and Millikin
University), I have yet to come across a scientist who is a
creationist. All I have known are evolutionists. I would doubt
that over one percent of true scientists are creationists. The
reason for this is that the true scientific evidence points to
evolution as the mechanism by which life arose and not to a
spontaneous generation of life. I would be interested in seeing
where (the writer) obtained his questionable statistics.
"The bottom line of the argument is that evolution, with its .
wealth of scientific evidence from areas ranging from anthropology and geology to biochemistry, genetics, and embryology,
is, in fact, a valid scientific theory. Creationism, on the other
hand, with absolutely no evidence to support it (including the
Second Law of Thermodynamics which has been grossly
misinterpreted by creationists), is merely an unfounded
hypothesis. It is religion masked as science and should not be
taught in the science classroom."
Another writer further expounded on the allegation that Darwin
rebuked his theory of evolution before he died.
"According to a letter to the editor, 'It is said that Charles
Darwin realized before he died that evolution was wrong and
rebuked his own theory, but we don't read of that in science
books.' There is little doubt, however, that the undocumented
Austin, Texas

rumor on which the letter writer relies is a pious fabrication,


without foundation in fact, and never mentioned in science
books simply because it isn't so.
"A relevant primary source is the Life of Charles Darwin,
edited by his son, sir Francis Darwin, who was in a position to
know. In an appendix Francis examines in detail his father's
views on religion but makes no mention of any recantation by
Charles at any time of his theory on the origin of species indeed, demonstrates to the contrary Charles' rejection of
pre-Darwinian orthodoxy. In the absence of any grounds for
impeaching Francis of ignorance or bad faith, rumors of any
recantation must be dismissed as unworthy of credence.
"A possible explanation for the origin of this pious fabrication
is that Darwin's body lies in Westminster Abbey. To eager true
believers this may imply that as a condition precedent, Darwin
must have forsworn his 'heresies' and embraced 'orthodoxy.'
But they would be assuming too much. The family wished to
bury Darwin at Down in Kent. It was the public - press and
pulpit, learned societies, cabinet ministers, members of
parliament - that demanded funeral honors at the Abbey, and
the dean of Westminster acquiesced. As biographer William
Irvine writes, 'Death, in fact, had canonized him; his heresies
had become part of the wisdom of our ancestors, so that many
English divines felt obliged to show that there was no essential
disagreement between god and Professor Darwin.'
"Darwin, be it noted, had no part in the selection of this final
resting place and his interment there constitutes neither
confession of faith nor confession of error on his part. The
whole occasion can rather be regarded as his cousin, sir
Francis Galton, described it: much like the giving of a university
degree."
A pro-creationist had this to say.
"Many promoters of evolutionism teach and preach it as fact
rather than theory. It has become a 'religion' to them.
Therefore, consideration should possibly be given as to
whether or not it should be taught in public schools .... I find it
impossible to grasp the incomplete chain of evolutionism when
I can grasp the 'god said it, I believe it, and that settles it' chain of
faith which has no missing links."
Another friend of mine jumped into the battle with these remarks.
"The constant cries that evolution is a religion is typical of the
paranoia aroused in religionists when something comes along
that they construe as a threat to their fragile faith. It's the same
as the reaction to the ideas of Galileo in the 17th century.
Christians can't imprison and killthose who disagree with them
anymore, so instead they resort to meaningless rhetoric and
baseless innuendo.
"(The writer's) attitude of 'god said it, I believe it, and that
settles it' isn't only irrational; it's dangerous. This reasoning was
behind such 'acts of faith' as the inquisition and witch burning
(the bible says, 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'). Others
have had that attitude, substituting names like 'Hitler,' 'Jim
Jones,' and 'Charles Manson' for god. Attitudes like that are an
insult to a thinking man."
Yet another friend submitted this dissertation which helps put the
entire creationism farce into perspective.
"The recent creationism letters have been quite interesting.
So far, the pro-creationists have shown a lack of reading
comprehension, emotional overreaction and few facts. Aren't
they aware of the hostility christians showed toward science
until discovering they couldn't fight it? The creationists of the
William Jennings Bryan/Scopes 'monkey' trial era viewed all
science as evil. Now science is being used by christianity as a
branch of apologetics.
"What of the pro-creationism scientists? A thorough check
will find these scientists work for creation science centers or
other 'research' teams whose salaries are paid by christian
backers. Scientists who deviate from christian orthodoxy are
not tolerated. Don't believe me? Take the case of Walter
McCrone, a member of the 'shroud of Turin' research team.

January, 1984

Page 27

After exarmmng shroud samples, McCrone concluded the


shroud is a painted fraud. For his impartial opinion (McCrone
stated he wanted to authenticate it), McCrone was fired. I'm
sure the same thing would happen to an objective creation
scientist.
"Creationists, like the rest of the christian right, want
everybody thinking like them. A perfect example is this
quotation from Kelly Seagraves in a creationism newsletter
following (the 1981) Seagraves/,Scopes 2' trial in California;
'We won. Not just the battle, mind you, but the war. What's left
is the implementation, perhaps a little police action, the mop-up
and maybe a lot of hard work at establishing peace and
changing the guard. But the war is over.' Sounds like the
acceptance speech of a dictator. (For more on Seagraves and
creationism, see Mother Jones, September 1981.)
"This quotation from famed journalist H.L. Mencken sums
up the drive behind the creationism movement: 'Theological
literature is largely given over to fantastic "proofs" and many of
them are supported by multitudes of earnest witnesses. But all
they really prove is that the theologians are well aware, deep
down in their hearts, that faith alone is not sufficient to make
even half-wits believe in their mumbo-jumbo. Thus they will
counterfeit and debase the coin of science.' "
Overall, there were fifteen letters printed in the newspaper which
came about as a result of the original letter I had submitted. Some of
the other results were quite interesting as well. My letters were quite a
big topic of discussion at my place of employment, with copies of
them being passed around and read. One employee, told another that
my letter had been an attack on all christians. The person, a christian,
confronted me with this without reading the letter. After going back
and reading it, the person apologized. Another employee put up a
copy of my letter in the womens' lounge as a way of taunting a rather
fanatical woman who is a sunday school teacher. My friend who wrote
the letter on the founding fathers also experienced some minor
repercussions. He had once been on the board of directors at the
church where his late father had been the minister. After his letter was
published, his mother was bombarded with phone calls from irate
church members wondering where her son had "gone wrong" (the
calls went to her because, fortunately, he has an unlisted number).
His mother lectured him about it and told him he should go back to
church. He just laughed the whole thing off.
Looking back on what happened, I saw that a lot of worthwhile
ideas had been expressed by myself, my friends, and the other
like-minded individuals who wrote letters. But I felt that something
was missing because Atheism was mentioned only once. I made up
my mind that, as soon as an opportune time presented itself, I would
submit a letter which would deal exclusively with Atheism. That time
came about approximately nine months after the furor had subsided
from my last letter. A controversy arose locally over the distribution
of gideon bibles to public school students. The American Civil
Liberties Union intervened and the area school boards halted
distribution. Some prominent local religious nuts protested as though
their rights were being violated because the schools wouldn't
sanction their faith. That was all I needed to put my wheels in motion
and prompt me to author the following commentary.
"I've been following the recent gideon bible controversy with.
great interest. Many christians feel their rights have been
violated because area schools have refused to promote their
religion. But what if reverend Moon's disciples had wanted
moonie literature distributed? What if a group of Iranian
students had wanted to pass out islamic holy books? What if
Madalyn Murray O'Hair wanted to give out copies of American
Atheist magazine? I'm sure those who were so quick to protest
the decisions of the various school boards would have sung a
different tune.
"If you really want to discover what rights violations are all
about, become an Atheist. Atheists cannot hold public office in
Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, or Pennsylvania. In Arkansas, not only are we denied the right to hold
public office, we are considered unfit to testify, even on our own
Page 28

January, 1984

behalf, in a court of law. There are court battles going on in an


attempt to change these laws. But how much justice can we
expect when president Reagan tells a Knights of Columbus
gathering in Hartford, Connecticut, 'We're supposed to have
freedom of religion. Nothing in our Constitution says "freedom
from religion." This creates a social climate where Atheism is
met with intolerance, and the American Atheist Center in
Austin, Texas is regularly vandalized. A house in my neighborhood is adorned with a 'Jesus' banner. IfI displayed an 'Atheist'
banner on my house, I could expect to have it pelted with
rocks. (Why not? Leviticus 24:16 recommends stoning blasphemers to death.)
"Atheists are not all communists. We don't all go around
calling Ann Landers' readership idiots. We are thinking, feeling
human beings who are sick of being made out to be social
misfits by self-righteous religionists. We're not out to gain
converts. We only want to gain and preserve our rights while
keeping religion and government separated. We only want
other nonbelievers out there to know they are not alone. Ifyou
feel as I do, write P.O. Box 2117/ Austin, TX 78768-2117. If you
don't, go to church and do your own thing."
Just think of what could happen if all of you wrote a similar letter to
your local newspaper when a good opportunity arises. It's like free
advertising and it has excellent outreach potential. Atheists need to

"It'sessential that we keep Atheism and other


related ideas in the public eye as much as we
can."
take advantage of this open forum as often as possible. It's essential
that we keep Atheism and other related ideas in the public eye as
much as we can. Many of you have been doing exactly that and it is
greatly appreciated. For those of you who would like to write a letter
but are unsure of how to go about it, here is good advice from
Christine Oleynichak, reprinted from the February 1981 Illinois
Chapter newsletter.
"For those of you budding Pulitzers out there who may have
been trying to break into print in the newspapers, I'd like to
offer a few tips on composing letters. Be as concise as possible.
Make a point with a few well-chosen words and move on to
your next point. Don't rant and rave like a born-againer. In
dealing with such a polarized subject as church-state separation, it seems helpful to answer someone else's letter which
has already been printed. I think editors look for contrasting
points of view to balance their letters column. That doesn't
mean you shouldn't write your own thoughts, but your chances
may be better the other way. Above all, be as consistent, logical
and reasonable as possible. We want to see Atheists and
Atheism represented positively. Anything less only makes the
religionists look better to those who possibly haven't yet made
up their minds as to where they stand on Atheism, church-state
separation, and related issues. The only commandment is THINK!"
Christine has had quite a number of letters printed in the Chicago
Tribune, so she knows that of which she speaks. So, come on, Atheist
friends. You have the knowledge; you have the method. Now is the
time to put it all into action and SPEAK OUT! ~

~~0:~'~~~'

~~~~

1&ltsstb art the cross=tpeb~:


(or tbep sbaU see ~ob twice
~~I;tt'~
The American Atheist

100 YEARS AGO


In 1873 D. G. M. Bennett, a seed merchant, got into a discussion on "prayer" with two clergymen, which discussion was carried on through
the local papers in Paris, I/linois. The editor of one of these was unfair towards Bennett in that he published Bennett's antagonists' articles but
not Bennett's. This so particularly angered Bennett that he decided he would start a paper of his own in which he could say what he pleased.
And, he did. This was the sole origin of The Truth Seeker, an Atheist type magazine which came aborning on September 1,1873. Twelve
thousand copies were issued on that date and "broadcast througout the land." Always in the thick of the issue, this great American Atheist's
message was loud and clear. A sample is issued here:

A PETITION FOR STATE SECULARIZATION


(Reprinted from The Truth Seeker - May 31, 1884)
To the Honorable Senators and Members of the House of Representatives of the United States
Congress:
A republican form of government being based on liberty, equality, and fraternity, as both means and end,
involves the separation of church and state, whose union is the worst form of class-legislation and the most
infallible sign of arbitrary power. A house divided against itself cannot stand. The institutions of this
Commonwealth should be made homogeneous throughout. Impartial protection of all citizens in their
equal rights and liberties, by encouraging the free movement of mind, promotes the establishment of truth in
whatever direction. Any infringement QY government of this absolute equality of its citizens is the parent of
manifold evil, a national crime committed against the natural "justice" which, as the Constitution declares,
this government was founded to "establish."
And yet, though the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says, "Congress shall
make no la w respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," there does exist
a union of church and state, which gives to christianity moral and material aid, and so proscribes other
religions and forms of belief and unbelief, while taxing these also for the support of that special religion.
The ways in which this old alliance between church and state still survives among us are:
1. Recognition of god and christianity in state constitutions.
2. Exemption of church property from taxation.
3. Appropriations of public money for sectarian purposes.
4. Religious exercises, as the reading of the bible, etc., in the public schools.
5. Laws enforcing the observance of the sabbath on the authority of the bible.
6. Religious test-oaths in courts of justice and on installment into office.
7. Chaplaincies in the legislature, the army, and the navy.
8. Fast and thanksgiving proclamations, which contain theological ideas that mayor may not be
acceptable to the citizen.
The necessity for this separation of church and state is more apparent now than ever before, because of the
still greater diversity of religious beliefs, the many forms of dissent from the religion which receives state
patronage, and the growing signs of sectarian strife and ambition in the arena of politics. And emphasis
needs to be given to the fact that the union of church and state is a great hindrance to the employment of
right methods in dealing with many questions of reform now demanding attention. And most essential is it
at all times, and especially in the present, in order to secure for the law its due respect and observance, that
the people's representatives should exhibit the strictest fidelity to their trusts by following the la w in its letter
and spirit.
Your petitioners, therefore, pray that immediate action be taken by the law-making power to bring into
harmony the theory and practice of our government in making the following principle a part of the
fundamental law of the land by amendment to the United States Constitution:
The total separation of church and state, by prohibiting Congress or any State, County, Municipality, or
Township from enacting any law that favors religion in any of the eight ways specified, or in any other way,
or prohibits the free exercise thereof.
Austin, Texas

January, 1984

Page 29

AMERICAN A THEIST RADIO SERIES / Madalyn Murray O'Hair

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CHILD


Program 77 -

Of allthe very large struggles in which man has been involved, none
is longer, more involved, or more bitter than the struggle for the child.
Today, in America, and always everywhere in history we have and
have had new minds born into old environments. The environment of
which I speak is the environment of the prevailing ideas, beliefs,
customs and stored- up knowledge which shape and come to bear
upon the new minds which come into that environment: children born
in any era.
There is little or no difference between the children born today and
those born many generations ago. We can't say that we have keener
sight, or stronger muscles, or a brain of greater capacity. We have
merely a greater bank of enlarged knowledge from which we can
draw. But, all of the previous generations, and the environment of
ideas which those previous generations have brought to be "culture,"
as we know it today, are vividlyalive in the battle to mold children and
children's minds into the conformity of "not rocking the boat."
Although we have inherited the benefits of what previous generations
have acquired, we also inherit the irrational ideas which drag along,
long-tenacled, from the dark eras of mankind, and from the dark
recesses of the human mind.
The churches have never failed to attend to education. From the
beginning of the christian era forward, in "western civilization," the
churches have demanded the children. In America all of our first
schools were in the hands of the church. Every college was founded
by church groups. They recognized the importance of gaining the
child early and keeping the child late, to thoroughly instill into the
mind of the young, the adolescent, and the beginning adult those
habit patterns of thought which would wield power to the church the ability to control and direct the mind, mental processes, ideas.
When, in America, the first battles began for secular education, the
churches fought with ferocity to maintain control of the schools, and
there is every reason for this to be so.
The human environment has been changing with rapid technological and scientific ideas intruding themselves everywhere into the
idea structure. The mere amassing of experience and its expression
in these and related fields effect changes in the idea environment of
successive generations. These changes are expressed in the form of
new institutions or in the modification of already existing ones.
The christian church, or any form of religion, has before it two
possible courses, contantly. Either it must maintain an environment
that is as little as possible unchanged, or it must modify its body of
teaching to meet the changed surroundings. Some churches are
unyielding, as the roman catholic church, and strive to maintain the
idea environment unchanged. The so-called more "liberal" churches
attempt to rationalize, or modify, or interpret differently their body of
ideas to make the acceptance of those ideas more palatable in the
face of the increasing store of human knowledge and experience and
the earnestness of the young and enquiring mind. Everywhere in
America we see every degree of these ideas manifested. Consciously,
however, as a matter of policy and principle the churches have usually
followed the course of trying to maintain an unchanged environment.
This is the real significance of the attempt of the more orthodox to
boycott new or heretical literature and personalities, and to produce a
"religious atmosphere" around the child. This is an attempt to create
an idea environment to which the child's mind will respond in a
manner that is favorable to the claims and teachings of the christian
church.
nie church dares not openly and plainly throw overboard its body
of doctrines to meet the needs of the modern mind. Instead, it must
Page 30

January, 1984

December 15, 1969

-to keep its doctrines - inhibit the mind from an inspection of them
in an objective manner by whatever artificial procedures possible.
Religious instruction is in conflict with many scientific ideas and
theories. So, life itself - social life - is the vehicle which is used to
enforce religious teaching. It cannot be put under the microscope of
scientific survey, so the habit has come to be enforced of dividing the
environment into the "sacred" and the "profane" - which is to say,
religious and secular activities and duties. The scientist can work on
his job eight hours a day, five days a week, but on Sundays he is
expected to divorce his mind from reality and really make believe that
the wine of the sacrament is indeed the blood of god. In the laboratory
he would never believe it; in the semi-dark church amid incense and
chanting it is quite agreeable to him as an idea.
But, given the world as it exists today, if special religious training
were to stop, there is nothing of the miraculous which would lead
children unencumbered with religious training to an acceptance of
religious ideas. The response of a modern child in a modern
environment is a strictly non-religious response.

"... if special religious training were to stop,


there is nothing of the miraculous which would
lead children unencumbered with religious
training to an acceptance of religious ideas ....
The churches must build into the child an
uncritical acceptance of its tenets before the
child gets to the age of objective examination."
In self defense, therefore, the churches are bound to make a fight
for the possession of the child. They cannot wait. If they waited, this
would mean allowing the child to grow to maturity and then dealing
with the small adult when he or she is able to examine religion
objectively and with regard to history, science and technology. The
churches must protect the growing child from the influence of these
environmental forces that make for the disintegration of religious
belief. The churches must build into the child an uncritical acceptance
of its tenets before the child gets to the age of objective examination.
The churches must recruit the mind of the child by impressing it early,
and often, and before that mind has become old enough to resist, or
to reject.
With other subjects we wait until the child has the mental maturity
to grasp them. We do not start a child on analytical chemistry or solid
geometry. We begin with small numbers and lesser skills in every
subject - except religion. Apart from the desire of religion to capture
the mind early and indoctrinate it constantly, there is no reason at all
why religion could not wait, as other subjects wait, until the child is old
enough to understand and appreciate it. But, for religion and the
churches, it is literally the child or nothing; for if they fail to get the
child, they get nothing.
When the state educates the child, it says that all children shall
receive certain tuition in certain subjects for a certain and given
period. It makes instruction in these subjects compulsory on the
definite and intelligent ground that basic education in certain welldefined areas of knowledge is necessary to the intelligent discharge of
the duties of citizenship within the state.
The state does not, any more, do this in respect to religion. In
essence the state points out the non-essential character of religion by
The American Atheist

permitting allwho willto go without it. The state, therefore, has found
that it can teach the rudiments of good citizenry, and prepare children
for lifein our economic world without resorting to religion, which is an
extraneous subject. We need no stories of Jesus to learn Arithmetic.
Moses has nothing to do with Chemistry. As we go further, it is quite
possible to learn the values, if indeed they need to be learned by
people, - the values of kindness, truthfulness, honesty, justice, duty.
What would one need of the story of Ruth for any of these qualities?
There is no religious story anywhere, in any time, which is needed to
influence children, or cultivate in children, a sound mind in a sound
body.
If the child had the chance to come to these stories and ideas
without bias of inculcation from an early age, religion would die in a
flash tomorrow. The state recognized the bitter acrimony of religious
disputes and how adults are unable to arrive at any ecumenical
doctrine, and hence the state does not force upon the child, as true,
these teachings in dispute.
There is a wide difference between cultivating in a child sentiments
the validity of which may at any time be demonstrated, or teachings
upon the truth of which practically all persons agree, and impressing
upon a child religious sentiments about which almost all persons are
in dispute.
The church - religion - desires to get the child early and keep the
child late. it must take advantage of the trust, the innocence and the
ignorance of the child. The churches want the child to have certain
sentiments in favor of certain church or religious opinions although
these things themselves are not understood by the' child, or even the
adults who teach them. No child, when religious education begins, is
old enough to appreciate intellectual justifications - if there are any
- for religion or religious teaching and training.
When the Society of Separationists fights to remove prayer from
schools, or from the public arena, we are fighting to rescue the
children, and to show to the adults that their lives can be full of the
sense of kindness, justice, honesty, truthfulness, beauty, without
resorting to this kind of activity. We feel that our fight is in the interest
of civilization itself. The fight for control of education is the fight to
dominate the mind of the rising generation. The fight for the liberation
of the child is thus a fight for the control or direction of civilization. it is
a question of whether we are to permit the church to hold the future
to ransom by permitting this control of the child, or whether we are to
leave religious beliefs, as we leave other antiquated and useless beliefs

DIAL-AN-A THEIST

of a speculative character behind as we grow in our civilization, so


that the child, maturing, can look at these beliefs and ideas when the
child is old enough to understand them and approach them with
rationality. This is a fight for the future of civilization.
And, now we in America are involved in such a fight, and it willbe a
fight to the bitter end. At a time when the cities and states were
requesting federal aid for education the religious community moved
strongly in our national capital to demand that tax money be given to
them for their religious schools ... and to influence enough persons in
Congress to keep the aid for education bottled up indefinitely in the
congressional committees until such time as there was a ransom paid
to permit that total federal aid to all children. The ransom was paid
when the church schools were included in the federal grants.
This was in defiance of our Constitution and the founding principle
of our nation, and in defiance of every state constitution in America,
all of which have clauses which emphatically command that no state
funds shall ever go toward religious education.
Today - and I mean this calendar date - there are in America
forty one cases in present litigation, in the courts of our land, at all
levels in respect to separation of church and state. Fourteenhave to
do with fights to keep tax money - federal, state and local - from
being given to church schools. Six cases are on a federal level. Of the
rest the cases are to stop demands for tax money to bus children to
church schools, tax money to provide public services to church
schools, tax money as direct financial subsidies to parents having
children in church schools, tax money for tuition payments to
children in church schools, assignment of public school teachers on
public payrolls to teach in church schools, often without their
consent, tax money to construct new church schools, tax money to
repair church schools, tax money to expand church schools, tax
money to furnish books to church schools, tax money ... tax money
... tax money ... until the Society of Separationists feels that it is the
finger in the dike as the powerful sea of church influence stands ready
to overwhelm our civilization.
The peculiar dichotomy exists: as the churches lose influence in the
minds and hearts of our nation's people, they gain in power by moving
into control our capitalist community and by gaining political power
- power enough to dip into our tax money at the federal, state and
local level.
Won't you help us to stop this practice? Won't you help us to
rescue the future? ~

CHAPTERS OF AMERICAN A THEISTS

DIAL- TH E-ATH EIST


Tucson, Arizona

(512) 458-5731

(602) 623-3861

Detroit, Michigan

(313) 721-6630

Phoenix, Arizona

(602) 267-0777

Eastern Missouri

(314) 771-8894

Orange, California

(714) 771-0797

Reno, Nevada

(702) 972-8203

S. Francisco, California

(415) 974-1750

Northern New Jersey

(201) 777-0766

Denver, Colorado

(303) 692-9395

(505) 884-7630
(518) 346-1479

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

(305) 584-8923

Albuquerque, New Mexico


Schenectady, New York

Tampa Bay, Florida

(813) 577-7154

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

(405) 677-4141

Atlanta, Georgia
Chicago, Illinois

(404) 962-5052
(312) 772-8822

Portland, Oregon

(503) 771-6208

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

(412) 734-0509

Evansville, Indiana

(812) 425-1949

Houston, Texas

(713) 664-7678

Des Moines, Iowa

(515) 266-6133

Dial-a-Gay-Atheist

(713) 457-6660

Lexington, Kentucky

(606) 278-8333

Salt Lake City, Utah

(801 ) 364-4939

New Orleans, Louisiana

(504) 897-9666

Northern Virginia

(703) 370-5255

Boston, Massachusetts

(617) 969-2682

Virginia Beach, Virginia

(804) 588-0118

Austin, Texas

January, 1984

Page 31

THE FIFTH COLUMN / Fred Woodworth

GOD'S SCOURGES
/

ust to show to what levels of hysteria public dialogue can plunge


in a religionized country, we note the incredibly asinine remarks
being made lately on the subject of the new diseases, AIDS and
genital herpes. AIDS - the usually fatal Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome -, which appears to afflict mainly homosexual men, and
the less serious but more widely felt herpes epidemic, have actually
been hailed by certain preachers as godsends specially intended to
punish lapses from christian morality. Major news magazines, in
particular, seem to be fond of portraying this astounding, benighted
view as a credible minority opinion, or even as THE opinion of the
nation's wise, theologizing moral "experts."
Frankly, it's infinitely more probable, in view of the fact that the
likelihood of the existence of "god" is zero, that these afflictions are
specific creations of government genetic engineering, loosed on the
populace to disrupt the profoundly subversive trends toward free,
guiltless erotic pleasure, thus pushing society rightward, away from
easy, open uncontrollability, and TOWARD regimented, disciplined
automaton-ism - which is more compatible with the aims of the
State.
Still more likely, and indeed most probably true, is the simplest
explanation yet: that these diseases have not arisen at all in the sense
of springing into being, or being created by anybody; but have merely
escaped from previously narrow geographic confines as the human
race has become more mobile.
No doubt remedies for AIDS and herpes will eventually be found,
just as ones were for the predecessor gonorrheal and syphilitic
infections that in their own early days were likewise hailed by the
religious as godly means to enforce biblically-strictured sex relations.
When cures are found, they won't have anything to do with prayer or
"holiness," and will have been fought every step of the way by
religious individuals; however, following the introduction of these
cures, church figures will,as they always have, step forward to "thank
god" for humane boons.
Meanwhile, the cheering ministers and bible-readers, busy denouncing AIDS and herpes victims, really denounce themselves and
their beliefs in a profoundly significant way of which they are,
typically, completely unaware.
What their statements demonstrate, overwhelmingly, is how far
the terrible christian religion is from being a wholesome ethical guide.
Its anti-orgasm obsession, and in fact its entire body of contradictory,
befuddled concepts, offers no real concept of right and wrong at all'only arbitrary rules set out to be obeyed through fear of punishment
or bribe of reward. Its insistence on an afterlife is christianity's
clearest sign of moral bankruptcy, since it has to postulate this
existence after death as a time of reckoning; and without it the religion
would have nothing at all to back its commandments. A real ethical
system would propose good to be done for its own sake, and would
necessarily have only praise for any variety of consenting sex, no
matter how "promiscuous."
When human behavior shrugs off some aspect of these arbitrary
orders - in the way that, for instance, people have largely come to
ignore the absurd restraints on sexual contact - christian practitioners can only sputter in helpless rage. They are blind to the idea
that behavior freely engaged in by persons seeking enjoyment is in
every rational sense a good thing. Instead they follow the ranting

Page 32

January, 1984

injunctions laid down in frenzy and ignorance by very probably crazy


individuals of long ago, and willuse any extreme to force others into
equal compliance. Should it prove to be beyond their power to
subject everyone else to their rules, their last resort is to applaud
natural calamities befalling anyone outside their orbit.
It is no surprise to see certain christians reveal once again how
easily their "high," "divine" code cheapens into a vicious reason for
delight at the misfortune of others. The glad, evil cries of jesusists,
now that gay people are fallingdead of a tragic ailment, also show how
rotten the fiber of decency really becomes in persons who depend on
christian dogma to fortify their character. Thoughtful, kindly, finespirited men and women could never rejoice at the calamities suffered
by those who had never harmed them.

"(Fundamentalists) never wonder why, if herpes is sent by 'god' to scourge 'adulterers,'


whooping cough and measles weren't purposely created to lambaste children."
And as usual in the case of anything religious, the whole business is
illogical to a gross degree, betraying the fact that persons of christian
background not only do not react with human sympathy, but can't
think straight either. They never wonder why, if herpes is sent by
"god" to scourge "adulterers," whooping cough and measles weren't
purposely created to lambaste children. Is "turista" god's means of
smiting those who go to Nogales?

nthe face of all this howling - and we willhear much more of it in


I
the next year or two before the epidemic abates - the fragile
wavering structure of humanitarian scientific outlook seems to sway
most alarmingly. The sad fact is that the ignorant, screeching mob,
fueled by religion, and levering the authoritarian wheels of the State,
falls only just short of enough power to topple the entire rational
attitude and bring back theocracy everywhere.
As technology has moved beyond human scale, creating devices
that most people livingtoday cannot understand (electronic circuitry
that is too small even to be seen, etc.), the predisposition has again
grown for large numbers of people to slip back into the simplistic
concepts of religion. At the same time, science's ghastly love affair
with the computer and with weapons has worked no end of harm.
The crazy equating of disease to "sin" is a soberingly dangerous
tendency that seems to be gaining ground all the time. As the results
of science become more inaccessible or burdened with being
perverted to inhumane ends, we enter a time when the craziest values
will hold sway, and the civilized world turns ever riper for wars,
dictatorship, and gleeful misery. ~

The American Atheist

Jack Catran

SPACE SNEEZE CAUSES EARTH COLDS


Jack Catran is a behavioral scientist presently involved in the
design of future cities. He is the author of Is There Intelligent Life on
Earth?
The compliments from friends are always well intentioned. Wow,
they froth, what a knowledgeable chap. You should write a book.
Fortunately, few who make that suggestion are publishers, so
millions of witless works of science remain unwritten.
But sir Fred Hoyle, England's leading astronomer, and professor
Chandra Wickramisinghe, of University College in Cardiff, Wales,
both managed to have slipped through the filters.
.
A few years ago they jolted the world of science with a book entitled
Diseases From Space, which theorized that microorganisms from
outer space were the cause of colds and influenza on Earth. A later
collaboration, published in 1981, called Evolution From Space,
proclaimed that Darwin was in error when he maintained that all life
on Earth evolved from the one-celled organisms that inhabited our
planet over 3 billion years ago.
And now, in a lecture to an audience of scientists at London's Royal
Institution, Hoyle announced that the basic stuff of earthlife, with its
"amazing measure of order, must be the outcome of intelligent
design," the work of intelligent beings from outer space.
The technical jargon in the books and lectures -was authentic.
Expressions such as biomaterials, fossil record, chains of amino
acids, and intelligent life impressed. Could this be?
Maybe, but not with these gentlemen who, I submit, couldn't come
up with a passable definition of intelligence in a million light-years, let
alone take on Charles Darwin. Ifthere was a missing link, it was to be
found in their logic. And I resolved to trace it down.
I placed a long-distance call to Brisbane's Waldo Kumquat, the
eminent Australian paleontologist and compiler of the Australian
Publication on Evolution (APE), considered the definitive work by
workers in the field. Dr. Kumquat is also the publisher and editor of a
monthly newsletter circulated to university biologists and geneticists
all over the world, the Brisbane, Australia Biology, Ontogeny, and
Ontology Newsletter (BABOON).
After I introduced myself, but before I had a chance to ask a
question, Dr. Kumquat said, "Forgive me for interrupting, but Ithink I
know why you've called. Hoyle and Wickramisinghe are 2000 years
out of date. The question of life on Earth is as old as the Earth itself.
Anaxagoras, an ancient Greek astronomer, claimed that the ethereal
embryo of life was omnipresent in the universe - they called his idea
Panspermia. Concept-wise, Hoyle and his partner are still swinging
from trees, compared to Charles Darwin."
"Yet the world press and the public appear to believe it's a new
idea," I said. "Old or new, is there any merit to it? I mean, Hoyle and
Wickramisinghe are highly respected. Is there a chance that their idea
of a super-intelligent creator could be correct?"
"Because the mood of the times is anti-intellectual," he replied, "the
views expressed by Charles Darwin and me are regarded as heresy
by the uncultivated and half-learned. I understand that Wick ramisinghe has appeared as a witness in your state of Arkansas (he
pronounced it ARK-kansas. Was it sardonic, or simply Australian
argot?) in support of creation science, whatever that is. Clearly, he
doesn't know from Adam.
"According to Hoyle, today's humans are too complex to have
evolved from a simple animal to their present state. Well, that's not
according to Hoyle. What he's really saying is that the part of the
universe that is enclosed within the body of humans is somehow apart
and different from the rest of the universe, a kind of immaculate
exception.
"Humans weren't created de novo. Our genetic endowment is the
sum of billions of years of evolution. The process is irreversible - no
organism can return to its previous state. And cumulative - the
effects of previous states in the evolution of the organism are never
Austin, Texas

lost. By the way, do you subscribe to BABOON, my newsletter?"


"No, but I would be happy to sign for a year's subscription. Please
bill me." I returned to the subject at hand. "As you may have heard,
creation scientists are in the majority here in the States, as are the
moralists. Not everyone shares your view that creation science is not
valid. How can we convince them otherwise?"
"For one thing, don't argue; it won't work. But if they must have
their creation science, they might try being more creative about it.
Spread the word among your countrymen that mother frog created
the universe. You can quote me. She lives right here in Australia,
deep in a mountain, in the middle of a pygmy reservation. The
pygmies believe that if mother frog is disturbed the world will end.
"It so happens that your American businessmen have detected
huge uranium deposits at the base of that mountain. But because the
pygmy reservation is off-limits to exploiters, the mountain has not yet
been tampered with.
"To make a long story (sic), enough uranium has been mined in
other locations on this planet to create the world's present stockpile
of 50,000 nuclear weapons. I should think this demonstrates the
scientific validity of the pygmies' belief. The mountain will still be
standing after we all blow ourselves to oblivion. Now that's creation
science."
His message was not quite clear. But what about Hoyle's assertion
that because we are so well designed, we must be the work of
intelligent beings from outer space? "How do you respond to that?" I
inquired.
He was losing patience. Little did he realize that I was playing
"devil's advocate." He continued. "We do not have arms in order to
perform manual tasks; we perform manual tasks because we have
arms. We do not have eyes in order to see; we see because we have
eyes.
"Organisms are not designed for a purpose. The word purpose has
no meaning in science, and the word design has no meaning in the
sense that it is ordinarily used. Any life form one can imagine has at
one time been presented to the world, which selects only those it can
support. The process is one of editing rather than authorship.
"How do we know all of this? The scientific method. It is not 'Will
this apple fallto the ground ifI release it?' but 'What is the probability
of this apple falling to the ground if I release it?' Established fact, in
science, means high probability."
He stopped talking for a moment. I think he was lighting his pipe; I
could hear him puffing away. Then he went on. "There are two kinds
of science. The first requires a meeting of enlightened, cooperative
scientists. The second requires sensitive interplay, give and take, and
above all, mutual listening by kindred spirits. Which should we
support?"
"The first," I answered. "The one with the enlightened people."
"Wrong!" he bellowed. "The second, the one with the mutual
listening. Next question: Is there chaos or hope ahead?"
"Hope," I replied, hoping that I scored this time.
"Wrong again! The answer is chaos. Nuclear war is a real possibility
and the decision for that happening lies in the hands of the fools who
are in power."
I had the feeling he was remotely monitoring my gut reaction. He
rambled on: "But I am a long-term optimist. Out of the ashes willrise
the age of science and enlightenment. Oh, there willbe resistance -~
cults, concepts, religions, quasi-scientists, power groups with imagined self-interest. A painful transition. Birth pangs, and all that. Then
freedom from humdrum dehumanizing work. Liberation for women,
minorities, the deprived, the aged, and the young.
"There's more, but I'm out of time. Anyhow, welcome to tomorrow. And thanks for your call. Ciao."
That's it. I thought it was a jaunty, affectionate, tellingly detailed
exposition of the case for science. Maybe you had to have been there. ~

January, 1984

Page 33

Paul Tirmenstein

THIS IS ATHEISM
Just what comes to your mind when you hear Atheism mentioned?
What do you know about that valid lifephilosophy which many of the
greatest thinkers in the world have lived by? Have you gone to the
trouble to learn anything about it? Or, are you content to sit back
mesmerized, listening to and accepting the propaganda dished out by
your clergyman, or the raucus, irresponsible defamation hurled at
you by the television "evangeliars"? You know the answers to those
questions, and so do I. If you willgive the following the same interest
and credibility you give those who do not know any more than you do,
who are protecting their own businesses by deceiving you, you will,
after reading this, know the truth both as it concerns Atheism and the
propaganda emanating from the clergy.
Atheism is the lifephilosophy which is completely free of theism. A
"theist" is one who believes in a god, his god. An Atheist is one who
does not. It is that simple. Unlike the theist, the Atheist can discuss his
philosophy without resorting to theological highjinx, in a calm and
unemotional manner, from the standpoint of intelligent logical
reasoning. Crisp, clean evidence supporting facts preclude any
maudlin sentiment or emotion. The Atheist conceives goodness and
mental exaltation as coming from the high moral character of people.
He places humans on the high pedestal of superiority where millions
of years of evolution have elevated them, and where they undeniably
belong. The Atheist allows no depravement, no debasement, no
grovelling and slavish adulation and worship of a myth. The Atheist
credits people with the quality of self-reliance and the power to make
their own destiny. Atheism is devoid of arrogance and bigotry, and
through the exercise of mental freedom, develops man's mind to the
full measure of his energies and ambitions.
The Atheist knows that within the horizons of Atheism people can
enjoy livinglife(the only one they willever live), partaking of every joy
and pleasure which it provides, while at the same time improving their
material condition. The Atheist pursues the adventures and triumphs
with which his or her life is filled by following in the spirit of
advancement and self-improvement within the limits of his or her
morality. The Atheist's morality is in accord with the code developed
through long centuries of humans' relations with their fellows. Those
who think that our standards of morality were first laid down by the
mythical Moses had better read ancient history. The ten commandments are only a copy of the laws by which people lived throughout
the fulllength of humankind's development through the thousands of
years. The only new parts are the religious additions meant to
establish the reign and slavish worship of an imaginary god. The
Atheist's sense of morality manifests itself in consideration and
sincere love for his or her fellow human, and not for a god of any kind,
color, race or sex.
The magnanimity of the Atheist's life philosophy does not permit
any reduction, adulteration, or deviation of man's sense of his own
worth in favor of supernatural tyrants. It is whole, undefiled,
rewarding, sincere and unoppressive. The Atheist's philosophy
leaves no room for dictation by dogma based on imaginary
prophecies of the dead. It does not permit the destruction of the joys
of lifeby the magnification and multiplication of the nonexistent terror
of death and perdition.
Miracles have no place in Atheism, nor do revelations, divine
inspirations, hallucinations or visions. No nonexistent phenomenon
can be part of the life philosophy of Atheism.
In Atheism, the recognition of and insistence on truth leaves no
room for unsubstantiated, deceptive and hollow assertions. Everything that is offered as truth must stand the combined trial by all the
faculties of the mind and physical senses. Thus, only truths
established by actual facts become worthy of any human conPage 34

January, 1984

sideration, without the taint of prejudice or fear, in the calm of perfect


candor and confidence. Thus, virtue is established, virtue which is
self-evident in a clear, calm and reasoning mind.
Atheism fosters and insists on freedom of the mind and body. It
holds that if you cannot think and freely speak your mind, you are a
slave. The truth discovered through intelligent and free inquiry and
investigation should be presented and discussed freely. Any attempt
to deny or limit such discussion is immoral and a hindrance to human
development.
The Atheist says nothing is exempt because it is sacred. The
assertion that a subject is sacred is a subterfuge to hide truth. The
Atheist defends his or her right to seek and find truth, and when
found, accepts it with joy, accepts it in spite of preconceived opinions,
in spite of prejudices and hate. He or she knows that this is the course
followed by the wise and honest, that no other course is possible. If it
is good for one to be intellectually honest and inquisitive, good for one
to find a shining truth, then it is equally good for others to know the
truth he has found. Those who prevent or try to prevent the
dissemination of truth and honest thought are foes of civilization.
Nothing can exceed the egotism of him who claims the right to
express his thoughts, while denying the same right to others. If
anyone can find fault with Atheism on that score, I say go to it and
make the most of it in a blatant and arrogant exercise of futility. The
Atheist says: strengthen the desire for inquiry, accept the truth
honestly, tell it to the world and preserve the veracity and sanctity of
the mind.
Consistent with his or her code of ethics, the Atheist denies anyone
the right to force a supernatural belief on anyone. All are born with a
clear and empty mind. It is everyone's duty to insist that it willbe filled
with nothing but the facts which willenable one to form wise opinions,
reason, and sift out those truths which a life of sanity and mental
enlightenment willrequire. Weighing and analyzing verifiable facts, to
the exclusion of all others, are necessary in developing the mental
power which everyone needs to solve the inevitable problems of
modern life.The Atheist holds that any attempt to weaken the power
to judge is unethical. That is why he is so vehemently opposed to the
unethical practice of forcefully injecting unreliable and factually
unsupportable falsehoods into a child's mind. Nearly as unethical is
the failure to impress on the mind verifiable truths. It is futile to rely on
anything that cannot be substantiated through perception by our
physical senses.
Atheism is not, as declared by the clergy in general, a political
system or an economic one. The Atheist would have you freed from
the erroneous and harmful accusation that Atheism is communism.
Undeniably such claims are made by either those who are ignorant or
deliberately leading others down the blind path of hatred and bigotry.
That it is godless is at once its most accurate, intelligently honest,
proud and rewarding feature. Those wishing to know the truth need
to dig no deeper down than the shallow surface to find that they are
being willfullymisled by their "spiritual" leaders who should, allegedly,
be the very paragons of virtue. The Atheist believes that no human
should accept, without question, the words of confidence-men,
including the one in the pulpit.
As stated before, Atheism is the life philosophy of those who are
free from theism. It is a potent force in directing humans into a pattern
of ethical behavior. It can be defined as the mental attitude which
unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason, adheres to a
philosophy verifiable by experience, independent of all arbitrary
assumptions of authoritarian creeds.
Atheism declares that the cosmos is devoid of conscious purpose;
that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable and impersonal
The American Atheist

laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that


man, through his own resources, can and must create his own
destiny; that his potential for good and higher development is, for all
practical purposes, unlimited. Anyone finding communism in that is
insane.
After untold future millenia of relentless human progress, people
will, as a natural outgrowth of higher intelligence, look back on
present day doltish acceptance of religion as evidence of their past

weakness and ignorant acceptance of the supernatural over the real


and actual physical world. Religion willbe outworn and outgrown like
an old shoe. Atheism willnot have to assert itself. It willmanifest itself
in the final achievement of the loftiest advancement by humans at the
zenith of their intellectual development - at a time when there willbe
no problems, only achievable goals. Such is the nature, power and
promise of Atheism. ~

POTPOURRI
A COMMENT - I've often wondered what happens when Paul becomes Saul. You remember the story of Saul - the hard-nosed guy who
knew his mission in lifewas to exterminate christians. He went about this mission with zeal until, one day, he was zonked in his tracks by a voice
claiming to be god. Saul became Paul - the carrier of the good news. He became a hard-driven, risk-taking, preaching and praying idealist.
Saul became Paul and stands at the front of those responsible for the survival of christianity into our own times. But what happens when Paul
becomes Saul?
Think about the modern day Paul whose eyes came alight with the fire of a man possessed while he was still a youth. He chooses his idealism
as his vocation. He is the prophet carrying a message. And people respond. Partly because of their own emptiness and gullibility and partly
because of his extraordinary cleverness and fire, people receive his message. He soon has position, power, prestige. He is the sought-after Paul
- speaker at fundraisers, blesser of babies, prayer of powerful prayers. Then, Saul begins to emerge.
The buried doubts begin to flourish. Has he been a prophet of god or a manipulating salesman of a much abused product? His inner moral
chaos and inconsistency begin to assail him. He carries on his "ministry," but now quakes in constant fear of exposure. He begins to be honest.
(Oh, rare thing!) He realizes that his loyalty to popular convention has, as its source, many doubtful reasons (reputation, self-regard, parental
approval, financial security) and few good reasons (like his innate humility) that won't allow him to place himself against all others.
Finally, and suddenly, he is old. The always present doubt surges to the surface. He was wrong - has always been wrong. In sadness, he can
now chase among few options. One, he can fake it. He can continue to preach the message of idealism without believing it. Impossible? No, we
are led by many Sauls in every arena of our lives. Secondly, he can become inert. Watch television, sell insurance, drift, hide. This is, of course,
a subtle form of suicide. Finally, he could accept his new reality, reverse his course, and pursue with prophetic intensity whatever insight or lack
of insight he perceives. Of course, this means a price something like Saul/Paul must have paid. Paul's former christian-chasing cronies must
have produced more than a sneer upon hearing the news of his new faith. The modern Paul/Saul willpay a similar price. Saul is anathema to
most of us; even to those of us who are Saul.
W. Dale Brown
DEAD MAN'S JUSTICE. The church has had many strange things happen within its confines since christianity was started, but one of the
most bizarre was that of the trial of a dead man - nine months after he had been among the departed.
Although he had been quite active in missionary work and took a leading part in the Roman council of 869, the gentleman who was eventually
to become pope Formosus was excommunicated by pope John VIII- but was readmitted to lay status in 878, when he had to swear never to
try to become the bishop of Porto again. However, pope Marinus I restored him to his office in 882, and in 891 he was elected pope.
A dispute arose involving Lambert of Spoleto, king Arnulf and Guido III (Lambert's father - also of Spoleto), but then Formosus
conveniently died before he could be denounced. Not to be denied their vengeance, his enemies draped his rotting corpse in his robes of office
and held a trial. Then, since he didn't speak a word in his own defense, he was convicted. What was left of him was burned and thrown into the
rIver.
And such are the blessings of the church to her faithful sons.
Ruth Burke
ATHEISTS AS CHRISTIANS?? How many times have you been rudely jolted by a remark like, "You Atheists are so fanatical! You're just
like christians!"? Ifyou're open about your beliefs, it's probably happened more times than you'd care to remember. The first time it happened
to me, Iwas as much puzzled as Iwas shocked. Why would anyone make such an idiotic statement? Having been subjected to such remarks on
several occasions, I've had plenty of time to ponder that question. I believe that those making such comments do so because they intend to
shock you and put you down, and thereby silence you.
Why would anyone want to do that? The answer is that persons making such remarks are usually ignorant - they can't tell the difference
between the rational and the irrational- and they're almost always intellectual jellyfish;they have no strongly held opinions and find those who
do threatening. There are two reasons they find you threatening: 1) they're lazy and they avoid intellectual challenges where possible - they
don't want to deal with the points you raise; 2) your self-assurance makes them feel inferior - they prefer to think that everyone is as confused
as they are. So, they resort to a vicious, irrational insult to silence you and regain their illusory sense of intellectual well-being.
That being the case, how should we react to remarks such as, "You're so fanatical! You're just like christians!"? The first thing to do is to
REMEMBER: You have just been grossly insulted. You, a rational person, have just been equated with members of a religious cult which
cruelly oppresses women, which makes virtues of submissiveness, irrational belief, and blind obedience, and which is directly responsible for
the deaths of millions of human beings in witch hunts, the inquisition, and religious wars. The second thing to do is to REMEMBER: The person
who just insulted you doesn't respect you opinions. If s/he did, s/he wouldn't have made the remark.
And the third thing to do - assuming you're in no danger of physical assault - is to insult the jerk who just verbally abused you. You'll feel
better for it, and it might even jolt her/him into doing some thinking. I'd recommend saying something like: "That's a really stupid statement!
You're obviously not interested in what I have to say and I have better things to do with my time than to spend it with jerks who insult me.
Goodbye." If you are in danger of physical assault, it would probably be better to say, "You're obviously not interested in what I have to say.
Goodbye."
Atheists have meekly taken abuse for far too long. It's time to RETALIATE. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. I hope you
won't either.
Chuck Buie
Austin, texas

January, 1984

Page 35

INTERNATIONAL
"PLANNING AHEAD"
L

et's talk about "colonization." I think there may have been some
significant misgivings about colonialism throughout history. In
actuality the word "colonialism" means: a policy by which a nation
maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies. Sounds
simple, doesn't it! We all know what the words control and foreign
mean. The word control means to regulate or direct - to dominate or
otherwise influence. The word foreign is even more simple to
comprehend; i.e. a place other than one's native land!
When viewed through the eyes of the world history student,
everything seems therefore to be gallantly proper. Can't you just
visualize the barefoot "savage" waiting anxiously on an ominously
hostile, rocky coastline as the "benevolent" explorers oar themselves
across a pounding surf, their magnificent sailing ships tossing at
anchor in the distance. How poetic! Also, how naive!
Let's reinvestigate the entire scenario. To do so we have to back up
a bit to the original definition, i.e. to maintain or extend control over
foreign "dependencies." WHO was dependent on whom! Are we to
assume that the "barefoot savage" was "dependent" upon the
opportunists who were rowing in to take over? I hardly see how this
could be possible when, only minutes or hours earlier, the "savage"
was totally unaware of the explorers' existence. What could he (the
"savage") have "needed" from someone whom he had never met and
of whom he had absolutely no knowledge at all!
The person (or group of persons in this case) who were
"dependent" were actually the explorers! How is this so? Very simple.
Why were they "exploring" in the first place. Again - very simple.
They were looking for something they (or rather, their native land) did
not have! The motive was, for want of a nice word, mercantilism, or,
the acquisition of needed or desired goods through "trade." Inclusion
of the word trade here implies that the explorers felt they had
something of equal value that the savages "needed." Yet, by the same
token, how did the "explorers" presume to know (or understand) the
"needs" of the inhabitants of newly discovered lands whose customs
and existences were totally foreign! The fact was - they didn't give a
tinker's damn what the "savages" needed. What they were really
interested in was their own needs. Surely, no one can think that so
much trouble and expense went into these expeditions for the prime
purpose of benefiting those who were to be visited! In this instanc;e
mercantilism might more accurately be described as greed. At any
rate, explorations and colonizations continued on an increasing scale
and at a parallel pace to the needs of the nations who were conducting
such explorations/colonizations. And, all the while, competition for
"new lands" fanned the flames of international greed. There was no
logistical planning designed by which fair treatment of all concern'ed
could be metered. The only "planning" was the calculated opportunistic persistence of nations desiring to enhance their own
economic structures. The welfare of mankind in general could
"whistle" for its needs!
Later on in history, after global explorations were fulfilled, a new
type of "colonization" ensued. This was more properly a form of
recolonization. Colonies originally established by one opportunistic
nation were becoming the "colonies" of other nations by way of
treaty, war or purchase. Alas, the welfare of the "savages" (original
inhabitants of same) was of even less importance than before! We
now had a situation of "the jackals quarreling over the spoils." As a
matter of fact, many once-great nations such as China and, India
became no more than "colonies" belonging to other more aggressive
Page 36

January, 1984

states. Prior to World War I Germany "owned" many colonies as did


lesser international powers like Portugal and Spain. Shifts in
international "ownership" continued the never-ending process of
map-changing. And, as usual, the "colonies" were the unavoidable
puppets of the "colonizers."
Through it all one thing is certain: if the colony in question was a
debit on the "king's ledger" there was little interest in it! In a logistical
sense, who in the real estate business wants to own a property if it
won't "turn a profit"?
Even the great explorers of history - the Magellans, the
Columbuses, the Cooks, etc. - conducted their explorations with
the hope of achieving personal gain; i.e. fame and/or fortune! They
did not travel endlessly in an effort to find indigent peoples for whom
they could care and provide.
So, you see, "planning" the exploration/colonizations was quite
coincidental or conditional. Ifthe natives were somehow occasionally
treated with civility, it was usually because those particular natives
were quite "childlike" and therefore of little danger to the exploration.
One can hardly regard such treatment as philanthropical!
So what? - we Atheists might say. What's the Atheist connection?
As an Atheist, I have come to understand why livingconditions on this
planet are no better today than they are. It is because our perceptions
of historical events are quite blurred when looked at closely. Our
historical records reveal precisely what we might like them to reveal
rather than what they should actually reveal! "Life" under the
auspices of religion has suffered considerably. Not only do the major
religions like christianity and mohammedanism chastise their own
contingents, but they spread their self-abusing practices like thistles
in the wind. Ifonly legitimate education and true concern (by altruists)
had been administered in a similar manner, where might humanity be
now?
In the case of explorations and colonizations, both visitor and
visited would at least have had the opportunity to establish an honest
relationship and perhaps have changed the concepts of "humane"
treatment and dignity. And so it is that once again deficient
educational practices and experiences have lessened the quality of
life. I don't know about you, but that concerns me.
Unfortunately, past colonizations did not end the practice. Not by
any stretch of the imagination! Colonization is still very much with us
today. True, the manner by which today's states acquire colonies has
changed considerably. No longer sails the salty sea-faring entrepreneur. Neither are we likely to see a great recurrence of treaty
agreements between nations. Let's face it, Victorian statesmanship is
dead! Lastly, it is quite insane to think that anyone purchases colonies
anymore! The price of real estate is something awful. No - there are
new ways: international terrorism; power-based intimidation; actual
invasion and occupation; long-term economic infiltration; invasions
under the guise of "defense" and "peacekeeping missions"; in short,
any imaginable method that a militaristic state can devise in order to
get a foothold, a military base, a missile site, or whatever, in any
desirable location on the globe. It is all colonialism in the real sense!
And, no matter what any bureaucrat tells you, such colonies, once
established, are intended to be just as lasting as the colonies of old!
As evidence for this statement I offer this: With populations
increasing on an international scale and with the accompanying
expansionism, real estate is becoming more scarce. Certainly anyone
can usually detect this in his/her own neighborhood with the rising
The American Atheist

costs of lots and housing. Do you think it is no less true for nations?
Perhaps the occurrences are less dramatic; but still, we we must
recognize that it is this condition that usually sets up border
disagreements and that it is animosity in trade practices which sets
state against state and culture against culture. Once minor agitations
begin to fester, "big brother" nations are ready to move in to
"protect" (colonize) an area, island or country and the maps soon
change again!
I am continually amazed that people - nearly all people - fail to
grasp what is really happening. Need anyone be told again that there
are no freebies. When a nation - any nation - spends millions
"defending" another nation, look for the "stinger." It will always be
there no matter how cleverly it may be disguised. Such moves are
made in order to bring advantage to the nation making them - in
every case. The nation being "aided" may also be naive, as were the
barefoot "savages" back in history. But, somewhere down the line
they willpay, some way or another, for that "aid." Usually it willcost
them their sovereignty, their individuality, what little wealth (in
resources) they may have had, their lives, and/or their identity. They
may, of course, be allowed to continue flyingtheir flag, but even this is
intended for the benefit of the invading state. It keeps them from
openly being charged with imperialism. However, that is of little
consequence when one understands that it is a flagwithout a country.

Currently there are only two what-you-might -call great" explorers"


left - the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. It is hard to judge which one has
more "colonies" at this point. How ironic it seems, to me at least, that
England now might be considered a "colony" of the U.S. Isn't that
quaint!

"How ironic it seems, to me at least, that


England now might be considered a 'colony' of
the U.S. Isn't that quaint."
.
One thing I do know for sure! There are millions of "barefoot
savages" standing wide-eyed and wondering what the hell became of
their native land.
Yet, it wasn't actually "planned out" that way. The last great
planner, in respect to recolonization of nations, was Hitler. He failed
in his attempt. So, in a sense, this type of "planning ahead" seems to
be less than productive. It is the exacting and opportunistic nations,
aided by contemporary conditions and synthetically induced situations, who are the real modern-day colonizers. At least, until they
finally blow each other up! ~

A THEIST MASTERS / Charles Bradlaugh

WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?


Charles Bradlaugh was perhaps the most outspoken Atheist that England ever produced. Born on September 26, 1833 in Hoxton,
London, he was the eldest of seven children of a law clerk and a nursemaid. From his seventh to his eleventh year he received all the
education which his family could afford to give him. For the rest he was self-taught. At age twelve, he went to work as an errand-boy at
the law firm which employed his father. However, about the same time he questioned the thirty-nine articles of the British official
religious faith and found himself in difficulty with his bishop. Because of this he took to the open grounds, which have always been
provided in England, to debate. There he met a "freethinker" who quickly caused the young Bradlaugh, then age 16, to abandon his
religion as untenable. Given an ultimatum "to change his opinions or lose his situation" he took his elders at their word and left
employment and home on the third day. He quickly developed into an open-air lecturer and debator. But, there was no money to
support him in the effort and on December 17, 1850 he enlisted in the 7th Dragoon Guards, East India Service, being then age 17. Later,
a relative bought him out of the service since he quickly learned that training for war was not his forte. Out of the army he again
resumed work as an errand-boy in a lawyer's office, slowly working himself up - by 1868 - to be managing clerk. During these 17
years he wrote freethought propaganda under the nom de guerre of "Iconoclast." He insisted on lecturing but England was not
receptive to criticism of religion and often he was assaulted, mobbed, insulted, hooted and stoned. Often his lectures became riots.
When arrested he argued his own cases, often winning them. Frequently slandered by the clergy, he sued them for libel and often won.
In 1868 he sought hisfirst public office and was heavily beaten at the polls since he was then exposed as an Atheist. However, by this
time he was earning 1,000 pounds annually with his lectures. By 1870 he was organizing around political issues. Meanwhile, he ran for
a seat in the House of Commons time and time again. He championed the fight of Atheists for distribution of birth control information in
England, specifically the booklet thereon written by Dr. Charles Knowlton.
In 1880, twelve years after his first appeal to the electors of Northampton, he was elected to the House of Commons by the
Liberal-Radicals. In Parliament, however, he would not accept office by taking an oath and instead proposed that as an Atheist he be
permitted to affirm. Thus was his famous battle joined.
The English Parliament would not seat the Atheist. His fight was with the famous Prime Minister, William Gladstone. In a continuing
struggle to be admitted as a representative from his district, he was unseated, evicted, arrested. His seat was thus vacated. But, he ran
again and on April 9th, 1881 was returned to Parliament by popular vote in his district. As his struggle continued at one point he
attempted (on August 3rd) to enter the House, was seized by 9fficials, and, resisting, was forcibly ejected after a struggle.
But, Bradlaugh was once more elected from Northampton on March 2nd, 1882. As he continued to present himself, asking only to
pledge allegiance to his country by affirmation as an Atheist, rather than by an oath to god, he was fined, ejected, charged with
misdemeanors, brought to trial. Yet, again on February 19th, 1884 he was reelected for Northampton. In his continuing effort to be
seated Bradlaugh finally gave himself the oath, without benefit of god, and was promptly charged for "illegally" taking the oath. The
procedural legal moves against him lasted for months, being taken afresh as often as possible. On November 25th, 1885 he was again
elected for Northampton and when he made application to be accepted by the Parliament, the new Speaker permitted him to take his
seat.
But, once in the House of Commons his record was exemplary as he fought for the rights of truckers, for pensions, against
interference of the peers in elections, on Market Rights and Tolls. He was a continuing advocate of Free Speech and Free Press. His
solicitude for the poor was legendary and he often gave legal aid gratis to them. During the entire time, he was totally committed to the
struggle to make Atheism acceptable in his home land. He founded ajournal and an organization in England; he attended international
meetings; he met with the heads of other Atheist organizations from other lands. He worked and wrote tirelessly.
But, it was not until he lay dying that the House of Commons passed a resolution on January 27th, 1891 expunging from the Journals
of the House the resolutions excluding him in former years.
It is only through the resolved fight of this man, that the "affirmation" was finally also accepted in the United States and other
Austin, Texas

January, 1984

Page 37

countries, for entry into offfice, for giving testimony at trials, et cetera.
Had it not been for Charles Bradlaugh in England a hundred years ago and more, there would not be an American Atheist
organization in the United States today. His courage, foresight, and determination gave the English speaking world its first inroads of
Atheism. And, his boldness then is still boldness today - as evidenced by only one of his articles, reproduced below.
(In its original form, the tractate in which the following
passages occur was published in 1860, under the title of Who
Was Jesus Christ? Another and enlarged edition was issued in
1874, and other editions appeared subsequently. It was these
later editions that contained the chapter on "What Did Jesus
Teach?";
* * * * *
he language in which Jesus taught has not been preserved to
us. Who recorded his actual words, or if any real record ever
existed, is all matter of guess. Who translated the words of
Jesus into the Greek no one knows. In the compass
of four
pamphlets, attributed to four persons, of whose connexion with the
gospels, as we have them, little or nothing whatever
can be
ascertained, we have what are, by the orthodox, supposed to be the
words in which Jesus actually taught.
What did he teach? Manly self-reliant resistance of wrong, and
practice of right? No; the keystone of his whole teaching may be
found in the text: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven." Is poverty of spirit the chief amongst virtues,
that Jesus gives it prime place in his teachings? Is it even a virtue at all?
Surely not. Manliness of spirit, honesty of spirit, fullness of rightful
purpose, these are virtues; poverty of spirit is a crime, When men are
poor in spirit, then the proud and haughty in spirit oppress them.
When men are true in spirit and determined (as true men should be)
to resist, and as far as possible prevent wrong, then is there greater
opportunity for present happiness, and, as even christians ought to
admit, no lesser fitness for the enjoyment of further happiness in
some may-be heaven. Are you poor in spirit, and are you smitten; in
such case what did Jesus teach? - "Unto him that smiteth thee on
the one cheek offer also the other." Surely better to teach that "he
who courts oppression shares the crime"; and if smitten once to take
careful measure to prevent a future smiting. Jesus teaches actual
invitation of injury. Shelley breathed higher humanity:
"Stand ye calm and resolute,
Like a forest close and mute,
With folded arms, and looks which are
Weapons of an unvanquished
war."
There is a wide distinction between passive resistance to wrong and
courting further injury at the hands of the wrongdoer.

A CULT OF MENDACITY
In the teaching of Jesus, poverty of spirit is enforced to the fullest
conceivable extent: "Him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to
take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him
that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again." Poverty of person is
the only possible sequence to this extraordinary
manifestation
of
poverty of spirit. Poverty of person is attended
with many unpleasantnesses;
and Jesus, who knew that poverty would result from
his teaching, says, as if he wished to keep the poor content through
their lives with poverty, "Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom
of god." "But woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your
consolation." He pictures one in hell, whose only related vice is that in
life he was rich; and another in heaven, whose only related virtue is
that in life he was poor. He affirms it is more difficult for a rich man to
get into heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. The
only intent of such teaching could be to induce the poor to remain
content in this life with the want and misery of their wretched state in
the hope of higher recompense
in some future life. Is it good to be
content with poverty? Is it not far better to investigate the causes of
poverty, with a view to its cure and prevention? The doctrine is most
horrid which declares that the poor shall not cease from the face of
the earth. Poor in spirit and poor in pocket, with no courage to work
for food, or money to purchase it, we might well expect to find the
man with empty stomach also who held these doctrines; and what
Page 38

January,

1984

does Jesus teach? "Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be
filled." He does not say when the filling shall take place. The date is
evidently postponed until men will have no stomachs to replenish. It is
not in this life that the hunger is to be sated. "Woe unto you that are
full, for ye shall hunger." It would be but little advantage to the hungry
man to bless him by filling him, if a curse awaited the completion of his
repast. Craven in spirit, with an empty purse and hungry mouth what next? The man who has not manliness enough to prevent wrong
will probably bemoan his hard fate and cry bitterly that sore are the
misfortunes he endures. And what does Jesus teach? "Blessed are ye
that weep now, for ye shall laugh." Is this true, and, if true, when shall
the laughter come? "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be
comforted."
Aye, but when? Not while they mourn and weep.

"Jesus teaches that the poor, the hungry,


and the wretched shall be blessed. But blessing
only comes when they cease to be poor, hungry, and wretched. Contentment under poverty, hunger, and misery is high treason, not to
yourself alone, but to your fellows. Slavery
spreads quickly wherever humanity is stagnant and content with wrong."
Weeping for the past is vain: a deluge of tears will not wash away its
history. Weeping for the present is worse than vain - it obstructs
your sight. In each minute of your life the aforetime future is present
born, and you need dry and keen eyes to give it and yourself a safe and
happy deliverance. When shall they that mourn be comforted? Are
slaves that weep salt teardrops
on their chains comforted in their
weeping? Each pearly overflowing as it falls rusts mind as well as
fetter. Ye who are slaves and weep will never be comforted until you
dry your eyes, and nerve your arms, and, in the plenitude of
manliness:
"Shake your chains to earth, like dew
Which in sleep hath fallen on you."
Jesus teaches that the poor, the hungry, and the wretched shall be
blessed. But blessing only comes when they cease to be poor, hungry
and wretched. Contentment
under poverty, hunger and misery is
high treason, not to yourself alone, but to your fellows. Slavery
spreads quickly wherever humanity is stagnant and content with
wrong.
A GOSPEL OF HATE
What did Jesus teach? "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
But how if thy neighbor will not hear thy doctrine when thou
preachest the "glad tidings of great joy" to him? Then forgetting all
your love, and with the bitter hatred that a theological disputant alone
can manifest, you "shall shake off the dust from your feet," and by so
doing make it more tolerable in the day of judgment for the land of
Sodom and Gomorrah than for your unfortunate
neighbor who has
ventured to reject your teaching. It is mockery to speak as if love
could really result from the dehumanising and isolating faith required
from the disciple of Jesus. Ignatius Loyala in this, at least, was more
consistent than his protestant brethren. "If any man come unto me,
and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and
brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
disciple." "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came
not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at
variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and
the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's foes shall
be they of his own household." "Everyone that hath forsaken houses,
or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or
The American

Atheist

lands for my sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit
everlasting life." The teaching of Jesus is, in fact, save yourself by
yourself. The teaching of humanity should be, to save yourself save
your fellow. The human family is a vast chain, each man and woman a
link. There is no snapping off one link and preserving for it, isolated
from the rest, an entirety of happiness; our joy depends on our
brother's also. Jesus teaches that "many are called, but few are
chosen"; that the majority willinherit an eternity of misery, while but
the minority obtain eternal happiness. And on what is the eternity of
bliss to depend? On a truthful course of life?Not so. Jesus puts father
Abraham in heaven, whose reputation for faith outstrips his character
for veracity. The passport through heaven's portals is faith. "He that.
believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not,
shall be damned." Are you married? You love your wife? Both die.
You from first to last had said, "I believe," much as a well-trained
parrot might say it. You had never examined your reasons for your
faith; as a true believer should, you distrusted the efficacy of your
carnal reason. You said, "I believe in god and jesus christ," because
you had been taught to say it, and you would have as glibly said, "I
believe in allah, and in Mahomet his prophet" had your birthplace
been a few degrees eastward and your parents and instructors Turks.
You believed in this life, and after death awake in heaven. Your
much-loved wife did not think as you did - she could not. Her
organisation, education, and temperament were all different from
your own. She disbelieved because she could not believe. She was a
good wife, but she disbelieved. A good and affectionate mother, but
she disbelieved. A virtuous and kindly woman, but she disbelieved.
And you are to be happy for an eternity in heaven, with the knowledge
that she is writhing in agony in hell. Ifthis be true, Shelley was right in
declaring that your christianity
"Peoples earth with demons, hell with men,
And heaven with slaves."
It is urged that Jesus is the saviour of the world, who brought
redemption without let or stint to the whole human race. But what did
Jesus teach? "Go not into any way of the gentiles, and into any city of
the Samaritans enter ye not" were his injunctions to those whom he
first sent out to preach. "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel," is his hard answer to the poor Syrophenician woman
who entreated succour for her child. Christianity, as first taught by
Jesus, was for the jews alone; it was only when rejected by them that
the world at large had the opportunity of salvation afforded it. "He
came unto his own and his own received him not." Why should the
jews be more god's own than the gentiles? Is god the creator of all?
Did he create the descendant of Abraham with greater right and
privilege than all other men? Then, indeed, is grievous injustice. You
had no choice whether to be born jew or gentile; yet to the accident of
such a birth is attached the first offer of a salvation which, ifaccepted,
shuts out all beside.
ANTI-SOCIAL DOCTRINE
The general intent of christ's teaching seems to be an inculcation of
neglect of this life in search for another. "Labour not for the meat
which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting
life." "Take no thought for your life,what ye shall eat, or what ye shall
drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on ... take no thought
saying, what shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or wherewithal shall
we be clothed? . . . But seek ye first the kingdom of god and his
righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." These
texts, if fully observed, would be most disastrous; they would stay all
scientific discoveries, prevent all development of man's energies. In
the struggle for existence, men are compelled to become acquainted
with the conditions which compel happiness or misery. It is only in the
practical application of that knowledge that the wants of society are
ascertained, and disease, poverty, hunger, and wretchedness
prevented, or at any rate lessened.
Jesus substitutes "I believe" for "I think," and puts "watch and
pray" instead of "think, then act." Belief is the prominent doctrine
which pervades and governs all christianity. It is represented that, at
the judgment, the world willbe reproved "Of sin, because they believe
Austin, Texas

not." this teaching is most disastrous; man should be incited to active


thought: christian belief would bind him to the teachings of a stagnant
past. ...
WHAT DOES JESUS TEACH BY HIS DEATH?
Jesus, according to the general declaration of christian divines,
came to die and what does he teach by his death? The rev. F.D.
Maurice well said, "That he who kills for a faith must be weak, that he
who dies for a faith must be strong." How did Jesus die? Giordano
Bruno and Julius Caesar Vanini were burned, charged with heresy.
They died calm, heroic, defiant of wrong. Jesus, who could not die,
courted death that he, as god, might accept his own atonement, and
might pardon man for a sin which the pardoned man had not
committed and in which he had no share. The death Jesus courted
came, and when it came he could not face it, but prayed to himself
that he might not die. And at last, when on the cross, iftwo gospels do
him no injustice, his last words were a bitter cry of deep despair, "My
god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...
IfJesushad indeed been god, the words, "My god, my god," would
have been a mockery most extreme. God could not have deemed
himself forsaken by himself. The dying Jesus, in that despair,
confessed himself either the dupe of some other teaching, a selfdeluded enthusiast, or an arch-impostor, who in that bitter cry, with
the wide-opening of the floodgates through which life's stream ran
out, confessed aloud that he, at least, was no deity, and deemed
himself a god-forsaken man. The garden scene of agony is fitting
prelude to this most terrible act. Jesus, who is god, prays to himself; in
"agony he prayed most earnestly." He refuses to hear his own
prayers, and he, the omnipotent, is forearmed against his coming trial
by an angel from heaven, who "strengthened" the great creator.

"If Jesus had indeed been god, the words,


'My god, my god,' would have been a mockery
most extreme. God could not have deemed
himself forsaken by himself."
Was Jesus the son of god? Praying, he said, "Father, the hour is
come, glorify thy son, that thy son also may glorify thee." And was he
glorified? His death and resurrection most strongly disbelieved in the
very city where they are alleged to have happened. His doctrines
rejected by the only people to whom he preached them. His miracles
denied by the only nation amongst whom they are alleged to have
been performed; and he himself thus on the cross crying out, "My
god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...
THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS A FAILURE
Nor is it true that the teachings of Jesus are generally received.
Jesus taught: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall
not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover." How many of those who profess to believe in Jesus would
be content to be tested by these signs? Any person claiming that each
sign was to be found manifested in her or his case would be regarded
as mad. illustrations of faith-healing occasionally arise, but are not
always reliable, nor are such cures limited to those who profess faith
in Jesus. The gift of speaking with new tongues has been the claim of a
very small sect. Serpent-charming is more practised among hindus
than among christians.
Peace and love are alleged to be the special characteristics of
christianity. Yet the whole history of christian nations has been
blurred by war and hate. Now and for the past thirty years the most
civilised amongst christian nations have been devoting enormous
sums and huge masses of men to the preparation of war. Torpedoes
and explosive shells, one hundred ton guns and melinite, are by
christian rulers accounted better aids than faith in Jesus.

January, 1984

3t

Page 39

POETRY
CLOVE PINKS
I found these clove pinks,
Gray clumps of ragged foliage,
In her unkempt garden,
Spicing the air with pungent fragrance.
They are hardy remnants of those days
When she planted the yellow roses,
And the hollyhocks that still grow tall
Between the thick-leafed rhubarb
Along the back yard fence.
Clove pinks fillthe June evening
With nostalgic sweetness.
I hear the creak of a porch swing
Moving slowly back and forth.
Screen doors bang.
Somewhere, a hand-powered lawnmower clicks.
Mothers' voices call children home.
My mother walks again in her garden
Noting the progress of her day lilies,
Sniffing the sharpness of clove pinks.
They remind me of her.
Sweet, old-fashioned flowers that
Thrive in neglected gardens.
Simple, unpretentious flowers
Growing lustily in forgotten places,
Beauty to behold and to remember, as was hers.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH


The catholic church is based, you know,
On god beliefs of long ago.
It condemns the Atheist to hell
And incites hatred of the infidel.
It sainted Louis Ninth of France
For putting moslems on the lance.
It has punished jews for the crucifixion
When its gospels are transparent fiction.
Its claim to truth is pure deception.
It has battled hard against contraception.
Its teachings make it a people breeder
Yet it poses as a moral leader.
It picks out boys from the age of ten
To train as priests as they grow to men.
They tell their flocks that you must wed
Before you take a mate to bed.
But most priests make love before they die
Which forces them to live a lie.

i .

Beth M. Applegate

To shorten the punishment of the dead,


The poor give money they need for bread.
On Friday catholics once ate god;
On Sunday many still eat god.
The priest has followed a well-tried plan
Of flim-flamlike the confidence man.
Governments should not reward
Participants in this ancient fraud.
People are free to seek redemption
But if they shouldn't get a tax exemption.
Belief in god is based on myth.
We should abandon it forthwith.

WHAT IS LIFE?
The more I think about it,
The clearer it comes to me.
Life is nothing more than
Being alive in existence.
We're born into a world
Without any choice,
With extraordinary will
To live
And sit on the stage
On the wheel of fortune.
We play our parts
As well as we know how.
Some get called even
On the third bow,
But when it stops nobody knows.
Then all is over;
There isn't any more.

Christopher M. Drew

Bertha Goodall

THE SUPERIOR SUN


The sun
Comes close now ...
Bathes me, kisses me,
Tucks me into my hammock,
Lovingly touches
My forehead.
The sun
Is the only "Mother Superior"
I need.
S.H. Crane

Page 40

January, 1984

The American Atheist

by
JoMph

McC.be

ONLY ATHEIST MAGAZINE

AMERICA'S

Read, for the first time, realistically oriented articles sans religious non-sense and
"authority." Hear logically evaluated discussion of human conditions and efforts. You
will not find opinions similarly expressed in local newspapers or "popular" magaZine~
and periodicals simply because other publishers flagrantly censor the content of their
publications in order to condescend to the whims of the religious.
I-yr. subscription:
$25.00
~(Single
sample copy of the American Atheist magazine is only $1.00)
If you desire to become a member of our companion organization, American
Atheists, please check the appropriate box in the order form.

14

P3

SYMBOL OF
AMERICAN
ATHEISM
Atheists do not ordinarily lend themselves to
ornamental symbols as do the religionists. However, we do recognize that it is entirely proper that
some individuals may wish to reveal certain aspects
of their identity. That is why nations have flags.
I %" silver medallion
.. . . . . . . . .
$40.00
o/s" silver medallion
$16.75

BUMPER
STICKERS
*

* *

A POPULAR
FAD OF
MANY

MOTORISTS

See Atheist History


in the Making
Get your VHS video cassette
recordings of various American

American
Atheist

HERE ARE
SOME
MESSAGES
ANEW
APPROACH

Atheist TV Forum Programs duplicated from the original master


tapes that were aired on cable TV

TV Forum

&
Radio
Series

access

channels

from

coast

to

coast. Each tape includes 4 thirtyminute programs on various topics.


Price .....
only $30.00/tape

Each sticker
is
$1.00

Hear Historical
Radio Broadcasts
The American

Atheist Radio Se-

ORDER DIRECTLY
FROM THIS AD
BY CIRCLED NUMBER
ADJACENT TO ITEMS

ries is also available on standard


(audio) cassette tapes (in 111 sets
of four IS-minute programs). They
are made from the original tapes

produced by Madalyn Murray 0'


Hair and are an important first in
American broadcast history.
Price .....

1
~

~6

Please rush by return mail (postage prepaid) item(s) number(s):

only $IO.OO/tape

. Order a complete catalog of


TV and audio tapes for $1.00.

WHY I AM AN ATHEIST
A special cassette (audio) tape set entitled "Why I Am An
Atheist" by the famous Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair is also
available at only $14.95 (two hours listening time). This tape set
was originally recorded in 1%0 and relates the personal views
and positions of Dr. O'Hair at a time when the litigation of the
prayer-in-school controversy was being argued in the courts in
America. The case resulted in the Supreme Court decision
which removed mandated prayer and bible recitation in public
schools.
$14.95

o Membership

Total amount enclosed

Send check or money


Send merchandise

Texas residents
order to American

include 5% state sales tax.


Atheists/P.O.
Box 2117/ Austin.

TX 78768-2117

to:

Name

Address

Or charge
Number

City

Bank No./Ltrs.

State

information packet only

Zip

Signature

my 0 VISA

0 MASTERCARD
_
Exp. Date'

AMENDMENT I

CONGRESS

SHALL MAKE NO LA W RESPECTING


--l
~

t'I1
t'I1
'J)

--l

>
~

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

'J)

(1) That armament firms have been active


in fomenting war scares and in persuading
their own countries to increase their armaments.
(2) That armament firms have attempted
to bribe government officials both at home
and abroad.
(3) That armament firms have disseminated false reports concerning the military
and naval programs of various countries in
order to stimulate armament expenditure in
others.
(4) That armament firms have sought to
influence public opinion through the control
of newspapers in their own and foreign
countries.
(5) That armament firms have organized
international armament rings through which
the armament race has been accentuated by
playing off one country against another.

::c
~

t'I1

--l

."

:N

t'I1

r....

-z

o
v

o
~

-e
~

o
~
....
~
....

-o
--l

--l
~

t'I1

-n

:N
Conclusions of the Commission to Inquire into
the Private Manufacture of Arms, 1921.

t'I1

tT1
tT1

><
tT1
:N

n
.....
'J)

tT1

~O "MO'HJ33dS

~O W003311~ 3H.l ONIOOIlIHV

1I0 :~03113H.l

Potrebbero piacerti anche