Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
-'"
C)
1ft
.:Ii
AMERICAN ATHEIST
January, 1984
$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 .
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.
(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
Austin, Texas
January, 1984
is Lying."
Page 1
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
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
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
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
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
January, 1984
Page 5
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. ~
14TH ANNUAL
AMERICAN ATHEIST
CONVENTION
April 20th, 21st and 22nd, 1984
(Friday, Saturday & Sunday -
Easter weekend)
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.
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
January, 1984
Page 7
A26
M,,,,,/ ,,Il~,r/o
,",/'llt/
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.
Y.so
p
I
I
I
I
I
I
NoD
ma'i..~il\'
hOIllI"ll:I
defl'llSl..'
l'it,if
f}f.!u/,ll'.
lll'lU'Ot"k,
4.
urri!lt" ,)iect..~and
1)\1(')'
4. Cancelled
the
of
While the Soviets have been building: up during the last decade, we have:
Sincerely,
2. umcdled
the production
Ilwn missiles.
of MinuteReverend
Jerry Falwell
11II
.Dear Jerry,
0 Yes
0 No
Name
aimed
Address
0 No
City
in
State
Zip
I
I
I
I
I
I
~------------------~
n">(Ki"..Hd
Page 8
,I
NoD
Y.so
/)(.,"nit
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
God.
2.
'0<10(,',1"",1
January, 1984
t.O"(ul, ,
v","
p""" ""
January, 1984
,
Page 9
January,
1984
WTTG-TV
11:30
Channel 5 Friday
Atheist
THE DESK OF
=5
Nelson
JERRY FALWELL
nm
OF TOTAL
RETREAT!
w.
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
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
January, 1984
Page 11
SPECIAL BRIEFING
ns
INVENTORY WARHEADS
BY AVERAGE AGE OF LAUNCHER
OPPOSING AN
IMMEDIATE
lEI
I ftAIIS OLD
NUCLEAR FREEZE
<Ii
I.
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
!8i!IIu.s.
J.LLt.
LLLt.
TANKS
I . 10YLUIS
January, 1984
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
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.
/ January,
1984
----._-------------------,
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
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
procesa1ng
Sincerely
.'
yours,
,.
.'
.:
( . <..
J es K. Hall,
Chief
. Preedo. of InforaationPr ivacy Acts Section
aecords Manageaent Dblaion
Itnclosurea
(3)
.(j
-.ora.cIa _1
u.s.~"'J_
F 8)-635
NATIONAL
SECURITY
"~INOTON.
D.C.
COUNCIL
10*
Btl(:~
&-
Directo~V.
Office of Information Policy
and Security Revie",
January, 1984
IN
~r:P " :
SOC!ETY Of !:NR';!i,,:::srs.
Page 13
January, 1984
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
SOVEREIGNTY
Page 16
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
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
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,
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
HEROES
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.
January, 1984
3t
Page 19
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
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.
"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.
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
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
---:
"~~--p~~~ r.,.~~at
""',""
,~,,"---;'-1
t~'~
.....".
/-
SOULS;'
ONt:'!
January, 1984
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. ~
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
January, 1984
Page 25
January, 1984
January, 1984
Page 27
January, 1984
~~0:~'~~~'
~~~~
January, 1984
Page 29
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
-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.
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
(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
(201) 777-0766
Denver, Colorado
(303) 692-9395
(505) 884-7630
(518) 346-1479
(305) 584-8923
(813) 577-7154
(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
(515) 266-6133
Dial-a-Gay-Atheist
(713) 457-6660
Lexington, Kentucky
(606) 278-8333
(801 ) 364-4939
(504) 897-9666
Northern Virginia
(703) 370-5255
Boston, Massachusetts
(617) 969-2682
(804) 588-0118
Austin, Texas
January, 1984
Page 31
GOD'S SCOURGES
/
Page 32
January, 1984
Jack Catran
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
i .
Beth M. Applegate
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
Page 40
January, 1984
by
JoMph
McC.be
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
American
Atheist
HERE ARE
SOME
MESSAGES
ANEW
APPROACH
TV Forum
&
Radio
Series
access
channels
from
coast
to
Each sticker
is
$1.00
Hear Historical
Radio Broadcasts
The American
ORDER DIRECTLY
FROM THIS AD
BY CIRCLED NUMBER
ADJACENT TO ITEMS
1
~
~6
only $IO.OO/tape
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
Texas residents
order to American
TX 78768-2117
to:
Name
Address
Or charge
Number
City
Bank No./Ltrs.
State
Zip
Signature
my 0 VISA
0 MASTERCARD
_
Exp. Date'
AMENDMENT I
CONGRESS
t'I1
t'I1
'J)
--l
>
~
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
'J)
::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
1I0 :~03113H.l