AMERICAN ATHEIST

November, 1983

A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

$2.50

THE TRICK QUESTION ...

1963

1983

of

AMERICAN ATHEISTS
In 1959, the Murray family started a legal case which was destined to reach the United States Supreme Court
to be decided there on June 17, 1963just twenty years ago. The name of the case was Murray u. Curlett and the
decision of that august body was that bible reading and unison prayer recitation in the public schools of the land
were both unconstitutional exercises vis-a-vis the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The road from 1959 to 1963 was hard and long. Scores of attorneys were contacted to handle the case and
each and all were afraid of it. Indeed the attorney who drafted the original complaint which was filed with the
court quit the case a week thereafter. The Murray family insisted from the beginning that it should be known
that they were opposed to the exercise of bible reading and prayer recitation because they were Atheists, and
no attorney wanted to mention that in the case. But, Madalyn Murray insisted, and finallyone attorney asked
her to draw up a short statement (about 250 words) on what an Atheist was that would be put into their petition
for relief. That statement was written - and became famous as the media across the land reproduced it
everywhere. Now, these twenty years later, we reproduce it here for you:

"Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves
himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for
which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist
accepts that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner
conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.An Atheist
accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find
the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
"Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to 'know' a god. An
Atheist accepts that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist accepts that a
deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in lifeand not
escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life.He accepts that we
cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
hereafter. He accepts that we are - in a sense - our brothers' keepers in that we are, first,
keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is
now . "

~*
AMERICAN ATHEISTS

P.O.BOX 2117

AUSTIN, TX 787682117

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

(VoI.25, No. 11)

November, 1983

REGULAR FEATURES
Letters to the Editor
Editorial
News and Comments: "Reinstated Insanity"; "The State/Church
Wall Crumbles"; "Better Late Than Never"; "On the
Bright Side/Phoenix Chapter Award"

2
3

On The Cover
7

Atheist Masters: "The Failure of Christianity"

-

Emma Goldman

35

Dial-An-Atheist
American Atheist Radio Series: An Earlier (1900s) Effort
to Tax the Church
Convention News

38
39
40

FEATURED COLUMNISTS
Science, Scientism, Scientists - G. Stanley Brown
Doomsday Prophets - Gerald Tholen
Wanted: An Ethic Of Responsibility - Margaret Bhatty
On Tolerance and Illogicality - Michael Battencourt
Facts On The Sunday Funnies - Jeff Frankel

14
29
31
33
34

SPECIAL FEATURES
Psychology Today/Nonsense,

Drivel, Babble and Slobber

19
20

- Jack Catran
Jonestown Remembered

1978-1983
Islam: In The Name of Allah the All-Merciful!

- Stephen Roane
22
Viewpoint Of A Peace Activist Concerning Israel's Foreign Policy
- John Burton
24
What Is To Be Done - Conrad Goeringer.
26
Atheism Abroad: Mouvement Humaniste Athee
37
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
Daniel Flores
Non-Resident Staff
G. Stanley Brown
Jeff Frankel
Merrill Holste
Margaret Bhatty
Fred Woodworth
Clayton Powers
Michael Battencourt

Austin, Texas

The American Atheist magazine is published monthly at the Gustav Broukal American Atheist Press, 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756, and 1983 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

What's the reason for it all? Just

this!
The word reason has two meanings which, with proper application,
are quite different. Definition #1
usually refers to a "cause" or "motive" for certain thoughts or actions.
The second meaning is the "application of" or "capacity for" rational
(logical) thinking.
Healthy minds use the latter concept (of reason) in making constructive decisions and quality judgments.
In so doing, reasonable people must
call upon experience, know lege of
fact, and/or verifiable information in
order to decide whether or not to
accept certain concepts or to engage
in certain activities. As a rule, society
generally considers such individuals
to be "ethical" or "normal."
On the other hand, people who
ignore the application of knowledge
and experience do things and/or
have thoughts totally without reasonable cause. (To be constructive and
pertinent, a thought must have conscious foundation). The acclaimed
motivation for religious orientation is
"faith." To have "faith" is to accept
without evidence - to "believe"!
That type of thinking is therefore
random and unstable. It allows for
decisions that are based entirely on
"emotion."
The thoughts of such a person can
therefore be quite docile if the person is in a tranquil mood - quite
villainous ifthe person feels hostile or
provoked.
Our cover collage therefore represents the "visions" of a religious mind
- capable of proliferating violence
and human suffering at one moment,
then, with no more than a change of
mood, be esoterically tranquilized by
the arts or natural beauty.
A better definition for such radical
psychological dichotomy is - insanity; i.e. religion.
Gerald Tholen

Cover Art
Rex Lindsey

November, 1983

Page 1

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Editor,
We have just received the October issue
of the magazine and noticed the ad for the
annual Convention included "Mr. Larry
Flynt," publisher of Hustler magazine as one
of the principal speakers.
The last time I heard Flynt's name
mentioned, last night on a news broadcast,
it was in relation to the story that the
Editor:
Stapleton woman (sister of Jimmy Carter)
I recently received a copy of The Bible
the evangelist who just died, was responHandbook, and what a relief it proves to be!
sible for turning Flynt into a born again
I was raised by religious grandparents who
christian.
severely abused me as a child. They (my
If that story is true, what purpose does
grandparents) could not see any dichotomy
Flynt
serve as a speaker at an Atheist
in reading the bible and torturing a helpless
convention, unless it is to be the "devil's
innocent child. At long last I can expunge
advocate''?
them and their filthy book from my mind!
Or do you have some evidence that the
A kind-hearted Atheist friend lends me his \
story of Flynt's conversion is not true?
copies of the American Atheist magazines,
Either way, I'd appreciate a response.
which I appreciate. I also enjoy hearing Ms.
Either way, continued good luck in all of
O'Hair when she is a guest on the Neil
your valiant efforts and to all the gang at the
Rogers show on WNWS. It breaks me up
center.
when Ms. O'Hair strips the facade off the
" .
William Axelrod
judeo-christian phonies, and exposes them
California
for what they really are: stupid, arrogant,
cruel, fraudulent, and vindictive.
Bill,
I would like to contribute the following:
Larry, after a recent operation on his
the holey bible in a NUTshell
spine, woke up to find that he was off both
the old twistament: SADISM;
drugs - (1) those which relieved his pain,
the new twistament: MASOCHISM
(2) jesus!
Each fulfillsthe other. Think about it!
Editor
With appreciation,
Romulus Roberts
Florida
Dear Mrs. O'Hair,
You have done, I believe, many wonderful
Dear Romulus:
things for the cause of Atheism, and we all
We are glad to have another in the ranks
owe you a great debt for this. Because you
of the rational and love your summary of
are so influential, I would like to offer you a
the "holey bible."
suggestion.
Editor
Over the years, the main thrust of your
effort in behalf of Atheism, at least as far as
Dear Friends,
the outside world is concerned, has been in
It is, of course, very unfortunate that so
the direction of overcoming the injustices
many of the court decisions have gone
visited upon Atheists by our laws and rules.
against us and our movement lately. The
You have fought the injustice of forcing
Atheists to participate in prayers at schools,
question of separation of state and church
the halls of legislatures and in public places.
has been muddied by the Supreme Court
itself - the very branch of government that
You have fought the injustice of Atheists'
was supposed to clarify such issues.
having to pay taxes which, in effect, subIt is certainly not a time to throw in the
sidize non-taxpaying religious institutions.
And so on.
towel, but it is rather a time to redouble our
efforts to try to bring a degree of sanity to
I realize that the advantage of such
campaigns on your part is that they get
the system. I personally am a hard-nosed
written up in the press, thus apprising some
Atheist and have no intention of folding my
tent and sneaking quietly away. I am
people of the Atheist cause. The topic of
injustice is popular with newspaper editors.
committed to the long-term haul and I will
However, there is the disadvantage that
not back down.
the average non-Atheist - and the average
I feel confident that all of you good people
Atheist, too, for that matter - gets a picture
will continue to hang tuff (sic) also. There
of the Atheist as a person subjected to all
are no summer time soldiers at the Center.
You all are the cream of the crop.
sorts of injustices. I suggest that such a
We are hanging in there with you, come
picture can be discouraging to anyone who
what may.
is an Atheist or is contemplating being one.
It's equivalent to, say, trying to persuade
In atheistic fellowship,
"Andy" and Betty Kahn
people to convert to judaism because then
they'll be kicked out of the country club.
Louisiana
Page 2

November, 1983

As you know, there are many advantages

- as opposed to disadvantages - to being
an Atheist. An Atheist has the joy of seeing
life as it really is instead of seeing it painted
with the camouflage of religion. He sees his
lifeas being under his own control instead of
subject to the whims of some imaginary
benevolent despot in the skies.
I know I'd feel better about being an
Atheist myself if the world at large knew
more about the advantages of being an
Atheist than the disadvantages. Even more
important, potential converts to the cause
would feel they were getting into something
that would be to their advantage, not their
disadvantage.
I know, it doesn't matter what others
think as long as you know you're right. But it
does matter what others think if you're
trying to convert them to your cause. And
converting them, of course, is our ultimate
goal.
My suggestion, then, is more going out
and preaching the advantages of Atheism
and less being dependent on the press for
spreading the disadvantages.
Yes, I do practice what I preach. I have
spoken about the advantages of Atheism to
others.
.Sincerely,
Art Maier
Florida
Dear Art,
We have been so busy fighting for our
rights we have not had time to glorify our
fortes. You're right, Art. We need to be
reminded now and then.
MMO'H
Editor,
I am submitting the following material for
publication in the American Atheist magazine should you see fit to accept it. It is a
definition of religion.
RELIGION is an environmentally and
intentionally induced, specific and limited,
culturally linked, socially acceptable, community and governmentally encouraged and
nurtured, parallel mental illness, wherein
the individual so affected often has a great
fear of eternal punishment after death, is no
longer able to perceive reality in its entirety
and substitutes preinduced fantasies and
delusions (usually consisting of, but not
limited to, myths about gods, sons of gods,
mothers of gods and including angels, holy
ghosts, saints, devils, life-after-death, hell,
and heaven, together with stories to explain,
in an unscientific manner, the creation, and
purpose for the existence, present condition and future, of human, and the earth on
which they live), for the portions of reality
which he is unable to perceive or comprehend.
Ralph Bell Shirley, J.D.
Texas
The American Atheist

REPLY TO A
SMALL TOWN ATHEIST
Some months ago the American Atheist organization which
publishes this journal sent out a survey to former members and
former subscribers of American Atheist. The purpose of the mailing
was to ascertain the reasons why a given individual failed to renew
their membership in the organization or their subscription of this
journal. Many replies were received, some positive and some
negative. The majority of the negative replies were for economic
reasons. The individual simply was now out of work and could not
afford any "memberships" or "subscriptions" and had let them lapse
to a number of publications. Of the positive responses one was
received from a small town location here in Texas that was, in a single
reply, a good example of the thinking of many Atheists generally. In
my wide travels both inside and outside this country, it has been my
pleasure to meet a number of Atheists of many varieties. The
particular reply letter of which I speak was so "typical" of most of what
I have heard from individuals across the country that I felt it was of
value to reproduce it here in its entirety and to comment upon each of
its points one by one. What follows is the exact and entire text of this
reply with only the identity of the respondent omitted:
"Mr. Jon Murray, President
"American Atheist Organization
"P.O. Box 2117
"Austin, TX 787682117
"Dear Sir:
"I greatly admire the courage and convictions of you and Dr.
O'Hair. I have thoroughly enjoyed and been tremendously
influenced by your fine magazine and literature.
"However, I decided not to renew my membership when it
expired nearly a year ago for two reasons. I shall attempt to
explain since it occurred to me that others may sometime feel
the same.
"1. Religion - or the lack of it - is just not an important part
of my life. Nor do I see it as a threat to my way of life as the
authors of Holy Terror do. I've come to believe that it's not that
big a deal with most people. Even those who attend church
regularly. In fact, to a great many, church is a SOCIAL
OUTLET - their only form of community contact and
involvement. Many business people are motivated strictly to
make contacts. I'm convinced it's their only incentive to attend.
What better place than a large prosperous congregation to find
insurance clients; sell your wares or services; and find support
for your candidacy!? When a person moves to a new
community, what better place to meet the people of a clannish
town or neighborhood (as most are), and be immediately
accepted? I've lived in this town two years now and I'm as much
an obscure stranger and outsider as the day I arrived. The
praying and worship is a minor and most often a secondary part
of church. A great many take it with a grain of salt. I believe that
most would never admit it, but they don't have any clear,
strong, well-thought-out belief system. Other than a few
irrational fanatics, the only time most give religion serious
thought in a busy lifeis when they are old, sick and preoccupied
with dying. Otherwise, most simply do not have the time or
inclination. My wife is typical. She was born and raised a
catholic. When we met she had little knowledge of the bible and
was totally indifferent on the subject of religion.
"2. Being a non- participating member of your organization
Austin, Texas

just isn't fulfilling enough!! I eagerly read with great interest

your magazine and ordered your booklets. I believed with all
my heart what you had to say. I got excited and motivated. For
what?? Let's face it; I am powerless to act. My need to be an
activist is frustrated and so, I lose interest. I then put things in
proper perspective and face reality. There is no local outlet no nearby chapter in which to get involved, attend meetings,
interchange ideas, etc. I alone can't organize a group. I don't
know anyone - don't have the finances, experience, influence
or know-how. I don't have the confidence that I can articulate
well enough to proselyte, persuade and motivate others. Yet I
feel a great need within to be an activist. So, I turn to what is
available - community affairs, civic organizations, and politics.
For example, I expect to put forth an enthusiastic, wholehearted effort in support of the Democratic candidate for John
Tower's senate seat. I will be involved, if only as a precinct
worker.
"There is a limit to what every individual can be genuinely
interested in. Everyone must make a choice as to what will
occupy his or her limited attention, time and energy. You have
dedicated yourselves to a cause. You have made it your life's
work. It is the cause you perceive to be the one most vital. I
admire you very much, wish you well, and will continue to
support your organization in what has to be a small,
insignificant way.
"It's easy for you to be vocal on the subject, but I question the
wisdom of the Atheist layman to be outspoken in his or her
convictions. Who, but those of you making Atheism a career
can afford to alienate employers, employees, clients, customers, neighbors and associates??? We laymen have to live
everyday among those who may not be strong believers
themselves, but are nonetheless intolerant of strong sentiments against religion. Contrary to what you would have us
believe, the fact is, most people, religious or not, tend to
distrust one who readily professes to have no belief system at
all. To me, it's a personal thing best kept to myself and those
few I know share my feelings. Here and now, that few
comprises a very tiny minority! I can't afford to lose any friends
over something as unimportant as god.
"Here are two suggestions I humbly submit that may help
your members feel more involved in your important movement:
"I wish you would consider offering a seminar to be held in
Austin on HOW TO ORGANIZE A LOCAL CHAPTER. Offer
instructions on how to become an active, involved member of
the American Atheist movement. I feel sure there are many,
such as I, who would pay to attend such a conference. Second,
every magazine Iread regularly from Time to Mother Jones has
a 'Letters-To-The-Editor' or 'Forum' section, in which your
readers can comment and express their opinion on your
various articles. It seems to me that it would give you valuable
feedback to encourage comments from fellow Atheists,
freethinkers, and even theists now and then. Often you readers
may agree with your basic premise but take exception to a
point. I can even imagine an enlightened, intelligent challenge
from a liberal-thinking christian - perhaps even a minister would be of profound interest. Of course, I don't mean to
suggest publishing irrational right-wing fundamentalist hate

November, 1983

Page 3

letters, but only good sound logical decent (sic). To me this

would be healthy involvement.
I don't like to think that all your articles are from a small
intellectual elite staff who sits somewhere in an "ivory tower"
cranking out Atheist ideology. That is much too similar to
catholic monks cloistered far from the real world in their lofty
monasteries, meditating and writing church dogma that the
masses must believe and obey."
The author of this letter numbers his first two points. Ishall refer to
those numbers in my thoughts here.
1) I would have to agree that, as an Atheist, religion is not an
important part of my life.Taken from a personal perspective, religion
is irrelevant to "life" in general for me. I am a second generation
Atheist and that makes me unique even among Atheists. Religion to
me is nothing but a set of rules for operating within a fantasy system,
much like the rules to a Monopoly game. The game is not "real." It is
just a game. The rules, within the context of the game, are very
important, though. Without them there would not be a game at all.
Religious dogma to me is like that - just the rules to a game. Outside
of the game, in real life, the rules are meaningless and irrelevant. I am
not so naive as to discount the relevance of religion to persons who
spend part of their time mentally in reality and part of it richly outside
of reality. Don't take me wrong; we all get involved in fantasy on a
daily basis. When I pick up a novel and read it, I get involved in the
story line and the characters, etc. I am then involved in a small
fantasy. I can, however, close the book at any time and by that simple
act of putting it down on the table, I withdraw from the small fantasy it
has provided, and I become totally involved in the real world again. A
religious person cannot do that with the bible, for example. Some of
the fantasy spills over into their everyday life.

"Very little socializing is done before or after in

the church. You will socialize after church at a
brunch, for example, but that socialization
period has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the
content of the sermon you just sat through or
with its purpose."
I do see this as a "threat to my way of life" only in the instances
when the part of the religious fantasy that spills over into real life
influences the day-to-day action of an individual, particularly in their
relations with others. A good example is president Reagan. He cannot
separate the fantasy concepts of "good v. evil" scenario gained from a
novel, the bible. That does affect me in that it increases the chances of
my becoming a casualty of war, nuclear or conventional. He is a
"threat to my way of life." The public officialwho decides that alcohol
cannot be sold on a particular day of the week or that stores in general
cannot be open on a certain day of the week, again based on the
fantasy stories in a novel, affects me. The censor who dictates what
should be available for me to read is a "threat to my way of life." The
problem lies in the fact that these "threats" are mostly covert and not
overt. If a storm trooper came into your house and arrested you for
not going to church you would see religion as a threat. The fact that
you cannot buy certain things on Sunday or that you don't find any
criticism of religion allowed in the media is much less immediately
threatening. Those things are minor inconveniences now but an
accumulation of them over a period of years can easily lead to those
storm troopers at some time down the line. It is hard for the average
person to put all of the little things together into an overall picture.
When you do, however, you see that we live in a society that
systematically discriminates against the person who does not allow
fantasy to mix with reality. The threat is that over a period of time
persons such as myself who keep fantasy and reality in their separate
spheres willbe bred out of the culture. By sticking to my separation of
reality and fantasy I am helping to preserve an endangered species,
me.
The author of the letter next says essentially that religionists are
hypocritical. They go to church for social reasons and really don't pay
Page 4

November, 1983

much attention to the dogma. I think we have some common fallacies

here to deal with. In the first place going to a church "worship service"
is about like going to a movie. You go in, either by yourself or with
your family unit, sit quietly and listen to a presentation, get up and go
home. Very little socializing is done before or after in the church. You
will socialize after church at a brunch, for example, but that
socialization period has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the content
of the sermon you just sat through or with its purpose. The socializing
is something that you are very capable of doing on your own with no
reference to the church dogma. The only thing that the dogma does is
to mentally condition the religionists, like Pavlov's dogs, to congregate in the same spot at the same time each week when the bell
rings. The very same people from the very same neighborhood could
get together for a meal or recreation, etc. every week at the same time
and same place on their own very easily. The church is only relevant
to such gettogethers in that it is emotionally and psychologically
motivates persons to gather together rather than taking the chance of
letting them do so on their own initiative. It would be better and far
healthier if they did so on their own.
Week after week the message in every church is the same. You are
worthless, impotent and need to be outer- directed by a "force" of
some kind or you will surely run screaming up and down the street
with murder in your heart. Every churchgoer receives this subliminal
message along with the message that they must return for more of the
same next week, same time, same place, every Sunday. You must
return to that "holy" spot to meet a mate, to make your business
work, to solve your family problems, to make your kids pay attention
to you. Of course, persons return to the church to "make contacts,"
because they are conditioned into thinking that they are incapable of
making those contacts in any other context.
Where else can you make contacts? You can make them in school
(of any level), at your place of employment, and in your neighborhood. That is about it. So, the churches see to it that your school,
your employment and the stores in your neighborhood are closed on
one day of the week so that you only have one option open for social
contact, "the church."
It is not any even trade to take indoctrination in return for a social
outlet. Alternative social outlets to school and employment can be set
up by citizens on their own without the emotional and psychological
illsof religion as a tradeoff. Just like a dog is perfectly capable of eating
when it is hungry instead of when the ringing of a bell tells it to be
hungry, we are capable of socializing on our own when and how we
please without waiting for a church bell to toll to tell us when to
socialize.
Now, I must admit that this kind of thinking makes me an "obscure
stranger and outsider" here in Austin, Texas just as the letter writer
sees himself in his town. The fact that I am an outsider does not
bother me in the least. I have made up my mind that the tradeoff price
that I must pay to be an "insider" is too high. It is sometimes not
pleasant being an outsider all the time, but in the long run it is much
healthier.
I also used to think that churches were social places and the
persons therein could not possibly believe all that baloney. I have
disabused myself of that kind of thinking over the years, though. One
cannot get dressed up to the point of being uncomfortable, go into a
darkened place, sit for hours and get picked on, abused and
downgraded, and then go home and look forward to doing it all again
next week unless he or she is psychologically hooked on that kind of
abuse. It has to be like a drug addict who will endure the pain of the
needle and the other side effects for that moment of being "high." I
cannot see enduring all of the abuse just to get a chance to "mingle"
before and after. Why not just get together and mingle without the self
abuse?
A final aspect about the perceived "social" role of church
attendance jealousy on the part of the Atheists. The writer is envious
of the churchgoer who has a place to congregate on Sundays even for
a hoped-for, if not a real, meeting with others in the community. It is
normal to be jealous when you see others having what you perceive to
be a social outlet and "good time" that you would like to have and find
yourself left out. That jealousy is nothing to be ashamed of. It is
The American Atheist

natural. I know probably better than anyone that we Atheists need a

meeting place in every communty where we can congregate. That is
where the similarity would end, however. I envisage a meeting place
where persons could get together and have a learning experience. A
lecture or film or seminar where they could ask questions afterwards
and discuss the topic of the week with persons knowledgeable
thereon. A place where people were forced to meet, please; that is,
families and couples were forced to split up and not sit together.
Instead of rank and filepews, how about round tables where persons
would have to sit with strangers and face each other and exchange
ideas?
A desire on the part of Atheists for this kind of thing is why many of
them end up in such institutions as the unitarian church. The problem
with that setting is that it is still too rank-and-file and retains too much
of the church atmosphere. Unitarian churches have the form of a
church without the substance. They try very hard to mimic traditional
church form with a change of content. I think that it is far better to
abandon the content and the form altogether. The form of traditional
churches is set up to work hand in hand with the dogmatic message
content being delivered. The hard pews, the rank-and-file, the
genuflection, all have the purpose of reinforcing the message.
2) This brings us to part #2 of the letter. I have to start out here, too,
in agreement with the writer when he says "Being a non-participating
member of your organization just isn't fulfillingenough!" Even in my
position as a national spokesperson for Atheism I feel like I am not
participating enough on a daily basis. It is very difficult, indeed, to truly
"participate" in anything. How much does one person on the mailing
list of an ecology group or a peace group or an economic-reform or
social-reform or even a political group really "participate." They
don't. They sit at home and get a newsletter or a magazine or other
publication mailed to them each month reporting on what the fulltime
salaried persons in the particular movement have done or are
planning to do with a plea for funds. At most, a member can once a
year attend a convention or a demonstration or a local lecture by one
of the national leaders who happens to be in their area. In a political
movement you can do precinct work perhaps for one or two months
out of the year at most. Once the election is over, that's it. You really
don't get an opportunity to get politically "stirred up" for another two
or four years in most cases.
Considering the way in which our social and governmental and
economic system are set up today, to "participate" in anything means
to spend money. It is money more than your time that makes you a
"doer" instead of an "onlooker." This is true in two ways. If you have
plenty of money that frees you from the need to work, you have all the
time'in the world to participate in anything you like. Ifyou have plenty
of money you can donate to a number of "causes" and feel fulfilledin
that you are helping them reach their goals with your money. In many
cases you can buy a great deal of the say so of which goals are laid out
to be attained, ifyou are a large enough donor to a small organization.
It is very difficult, indeed, for any organization to provide some
activities for its members while at the same time trying to conduct an
educational, often also legal or quasilegal, campaign among the
persons who do not already side with them on a particular issue, or
among those of social or political clout who can help the organization
persuade. The problem with every cause organization is, no matter
what the cause, that you must ignore your own membership to a
certain extent to concentrate your efforts toward change in society at
large. Every group is organized with one ultimate goal in mind - to
change the thinking and! or behavior of society at large. While a small
group of persons labor in a mercenary relationship for those who
already share their views among the general public, they tend to lose
sight of the those backers. It is very much like a football game. If you
are a fan, you yell and scream and you may put in money to help buy
the uniforms and equipment and pay the coach; but when the players
actually get onto the field, they don't pay any attention to the cheering
at all. A player is worried about finding a running opportunity or about
how hard he is going to be hit by another player, and the crowd is
vague background noise at best. All cause groups work in the same
way. At the pep rally beforehand, the leaders (or the team)
acknowledge the supporters and talk with them and take their
Austin, Texas

encouragement and ideas. When the game starts, however, they are
very much preoccupied with making the next first down and cannot
.be bothered with the supporters until the post game party. Those are
simply the realities of the way the game is played. Members of cause
groups just have to be content with helping financially or through
moral support and not being able to play in the game.
Of course, you feel "powerless." You feel powerless because the
logistics of cause groups necessarily limits your involvement to a
sideline support role. Only so many persons can actually be trained
and get out on the field and play at one time. Logistically speaking, it is
only practical to have local chapters or groups of cause organization
primarily in big cities. In a big city there are more members and more
things going on relative to the particular cause. More things to
comment on, more things to protest, more things to march about.
That is why cities like Washington, DC are teeming with cause
groups. All of the persons they hope to influence are there, and all of
the meaningful places to march or hold similar protests are there.
State capitals are also very popular places.
The finances of any given group and the amount of exposure they
are given by the media limits the number of their persons who have
any experience or know-how enough to be active. How many of you
Atheists out there reading this journal have ever been on TV or radio
in your life, for any reason? Very damn few. The media will only
acknowledge and come to a handful of persons from each cause
because there are so many causes. So, only a very limited number of
persons' get the opportunity to have media experience and get the
training to be activist. Should they take that training and use it to try
to train many rank and file members to do the same when the media
willonly acknowledge a couple of them? No, that would be a waste of
time. The few who have the experience must use it to further the ends
of the cause as a whole. In the long run it is desirable for the
continuance and survival of the cause to train others to be activist. In
the short run, however, it hurts the group. Cause organizations are all
stuck in the "short run" mode of operation because of money
problems and because social and political situations in the 20th
century now change very rapidly. It is hard to plan for anything but the
short run in a cause group. Twenty years from now, the situation
socially and politically may make American Atheists, for example,
obsolete as a cause group.
This columnist is involved in many other political and social
organizations in addition to American Atheists. My involvement is,
however, a sideline supportive-type involvement. I get their newsletters and I send them a donation from time to time and I buy one of
their books and read it with interest - just as the letter writer does
with American Atheists and then says "For what??" I think the best
answer to that in both cases, the letter writer and mine, is that it
makes us feel good. That is not a cop-out answer. It gives me
satisfaction to know that I am, in some small way, helping the
furtherance of a point of view that I feel is correct on a particular
subject. It does upset me that I cannot do more. I know that
realistically I must do what I can do and stop at that. Every time I
watch the evening news I get infuriated over a dozen topic areas and
want to jump into activism on behalf of all of them. Then I get up the
next morning and I forget all about those "cause celebres" until I get
home again in the evening and something on the news or in a paper or
in a book rekindles my interest. I am sure that the vast majority of
Atheists and non-Atheists alike do the same thing. My doctor, at the
time of an annual physical, said something to me that I will never
forget and that is appropriate here. I have a lot of gastrointestinal
trouble brought on by too many hours at work and too much stress.
After examining me, he said "It is o.k. to be concerned about many
things, from a health viewpoint, but not o.k. to be worried about
them." All that American Atheists asks with this journal and its other
publications is that Atheists become concerned about various issues.
We don't ask you to be worried about them to the point where you will
drop your concern altogether if you can't get into a real good fight
over them on a personal level.
I have to agree with the writer about the wisdom of having Atheist
laymen be outspoken on his or her convictions. This is to be
encouraged on a one-to-one level among co-workers or peers but not

November, 1983

PageS

on a public media level. Ifone is to speak out on any topic on a public

level, especially with the media, they had damn well better know of
what they speak. I have to strongly disagree about extrapolating from
not making a fool of oneself on TV or radio to going back or remaining
in the closet with an Atheist position. Sure, religionists distrust you if
you "readily profess to have no belief system at all." They are envious
of you as well. They wish that they could operate without a
dependency system and be a freethinker like you. Ifyou stand by your
convictions, they willrespect you for that in the long run even though
they disagree with you. You will not lose or alienate clients,
employers, employees, customers, etc.You willgain their respect. I
have been personal witness to hundreds of examples of that around
the country. I know a small town restaurant owner who thought that if
everyone in the little town knew he was an Atheist it would be all over
for his business. Well, one day if came out loud and clear. His
business has never suffered. The people in the small town respect him
for his views and still trade at his restaurant. Of course, there are the
few bigots who refuse to come to eat at his place; but they are so few,
they are hurting themselves by depriving themselves of his products.
As far as neighbors and associates and peers go, do you really want a
"friend" that cannot respect your right to your opinion? I don't desire
to have friends like that. They are not friends worth having. Anyone
can afford to lose plenty of "friends" because new ones are readily
obtainable. What is most important: having friends or being honest
with yourself? Any friend who makes their continued friendship with
you conditional on agreement with their point of view on a given
subject, or complete avoidance of that subject, are not friends worth
having. I can talk with any of my friends on any subject whether we
agree or not. It is far better to have a smaller set of friends like that
than to have a large set of inflexible ones.

"What is most important, having friends or

being honest with yourself? Any friend who
makes their continued friendship with you
conditional upon agreement with their point of
view on a given subject, or complete avoidance
of that subject, are not friends worth having."
The idea of seminars on "How to organize a local chapter" is a good
one. For some time now I have felt that organizing without such
training sessions is foolish. American Atheists has organized without
such seminars, however, simply because of many letters (such as the
one being commented on here) which pressed for immediate chapter
formation. American Atheist leadership allowed the outcry for local
activity to override the better judgment of the leadership and went
ahead with local chapter programs without sufficient training or
material being available from the national headquarters. American
Atheists now finds itself in trouble in many local areas because of that
decision. Organization on a local level should not have been
attempted until the national organization was strong enough to
provide the required level of support and training for those locals. It
cannot do that to this day after twenty years as a national group.
There are simply not enough funds and not enough national persons.
with the required experience to teach the seminars to make it
practical. The only practical way it could be done at this point is to
have seminars set up at a single national location and require those
interested to travel and house themselves at their own expense, just
like going to college, to attend.
As far as letters to the editor are concerned, this journal has
reactivated that option in its pages. I do agree that it needs to be
expanded and that more letters of disagreement need to be published
than currently are being chosen. I have taken it upon myself as a
columnist and editor to see to it that this becomes the case in future
issues of this journal. I would invite not only letters to the editor but
fullcolumns by persons of differing opinions who wish to comment on
what any of the "regulars" have to say. As for letters.from "liberal
thinking christians," I think that they have plenty of journals of their
own in which to voice their opinions that greatly outnumber the single
Page 6

November, 1983

Atheist journal in print. We should not be made to devote precious

column inches to religionists, liberal or not, who can submit and have
their views printed almost any place. Atheists have a very limited
forum indeed where their views can be published uncensored.
I really don't think of myself or other columnists of this journal, past
or present, as being "somewhere in an 'ivory tower' cranking out
Atheist ideology." I hope that I don't come on as having lost all touch
with the average activist or would-be activist Atheist. I think, on the
contrary, that I know all of you pretty well; perhaps better than some
of you know yourselves. We shall always strive in this journal to bring
you, the reader, a variety of Atheist news and thought reflecting and
analyzing the "real" world. We don't ask our readers to believe
anything. We ask them to read, analyze, question and be concerned
with those of us who write for this journal.
In summary I would like to thank the author of the letter
reproduced here this month for a well written and thoughtful piece. I
have attempted to be honest and straightforward and not patronizing
or placating with my responses. The fact that I have left the letter
writer in the same position as when he started is because he has asked
for things that I cannot give him at this time. I only hope that he and all
of you readers understand why you must be content with a
supportive role, for the most part, in any cause organization. IfI could
make it possible for you all to be activists overnight I would - and so
would the church. Even the church has the same problem. There are
leaders and there are supporters, and only so many cooks can stir the
broth at once. I think the moral of all of this, if there is one, is that we
must all do what we can with the means that are available to us and
not try to knock ourselves out trying to do it all. I would like everyone
reading this editorial to go away with at least one message. Do not
become discouraged or disgruntled when you support a cause, any
cause, and the leadership thereof does not stroke you personally in
return or call you off the bench to carry the ball. Be content with their
success in the overall fight and take some inner pride in the fact that,
small as it may seem, you helped. That is so important, and the
persons on the front lines have a very special place in their hearts for
each and everyone of you who help (again, in any cause). They have
not forgotten you. Without you who would they be playing the game
for? ~

IT IS TIME TO
SUBSCRIBE TO

m~~Mt1~m~
MAGAZINE
1Year $25

\.,__
Make checks/money

. .:>.
/

_ -::::f7

orders payable to:

AMERICAN ATHEISTS.POB 2117.

I~

_-....

Austin. TX 78768

The American Atheist

NEWS AND COMMENTS / November, 1983

REINSTATED INSANITY
Last month the entire text of the decision
in the suit Crockett u. Sorenson was printed
in the October (Vol. 25, No. 10) issue-of the
American Atheist magazine, beginning at
page 11. Substantively, the case dealt with
bible classes which had been held in Bristol,
Virginia elementary schools, grades 4 and 5,
for 43 years. The classes had been financed
and taught during that time by religious
zealots who believed that there should be an
intrusion of religion into the public school
system. The classes included bible teaching,
prayers and the singing of hymns. They
were taught by non-certified religious enthusiast teachers. It was found during the
trial that there was pressure on the students
to make an election to enroll in these bible
classes exemplified by the school year of
1982-83. Of the 589 fourth and fifth grade
students in the system during that school
year, only 18 had elected not to take the
bible classes.
A challenge was brought by a member of
the City Council on behalf of his daughter
and the case was heard - after much
publicity - in the Federal District Court for
the Western District of Virginia, Abingdon
Division and the decision reported in the
October issue of this magazine was handed
dnown on July 29th, 1983.
The judge found that the manner of bible
teaching was such that the exercise was
unconstitutional and then, unbelievably, in
his decision gave cautious and deliberate
instructions to the offending School Board
as to how it might circumvent the unconstitutional aspects of the existing program. Federal judges, generally speaking,
are under a burden to strictly apply existing
law to the facts of each case before them.
They are enjoined by legal and judicial ethics
not to undertake speculative or advisory
opinions. That this particular federal judge
did so was a breach of such ethics. Addressing himself to the School Board which
had, improperly and according to his own
evaluation - unconstitutionally, permitted
the intrusion of religion into the public
schools of Bristol, Virginia, he carefully gave
eight specific instructions so that the School
Board could, in his opinion continue to
teach the bible in such a way as to defeat the
United States Supreme Court's definition of
violations of the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The judge's actions were
brash, unethical and dishonest.
Basically, his recommendations
were'
that, first, the administration, financing and,
teaching of the classes should be taken from
the ministers and lay religious persons and
vested in the School Board itself. Just this
Austin, Texas

recommendation, the financing of religious

instructions in the public schools, is blatantly in derogation of U.S. Supreme Court
guide lines on the First Amendment. Second, the judge suggested that the teachers
who would provide religious instruction be
hired directly by the local School Board and
not by the religious group involved. Again,
this is the most basic constitutional "no-no."
There are literally scores of cases in which
the U. S. Supreme Court has laid down that
especially the financing of religion is unconstitutional. It is true that the same court
has often, then, itself permitted such fi'nancing, but even "the man in the street"
understands that this is exactly what the
founders of our nation were trying to
prevent. Third, the judge stated that the
teachers should be certified in elementary
education by the Commonwealth of Virginia. It has been the practice in every state
of the union for the religious community to
fight the requirement that their teachers be
certified. In this case, again, the women
involved were more religious zealots than
teachers. This recommendation was clearly
to protect the religious teacher from attack
as being unqualified, rather than to protect
the rights of the children to have a qualified
teacher. Fourth, whereas the teachers had
been persons who had felt that they had
been called by god to teach in the public
schools, the judge suggested that no inquiry
be made to determine the religious beliefs of
teacher applicants. Again, this is most
helpful to a religious fanatic who need not
divulge just how bizarre are the religious
feelings held. Fifth, the judge cautioned that
the school board, rather than the religious
group formerly involved, should prescribe
the curriculum, select the teaching materials and even the particular version of the
bible to be used. Again, the U.S. Supreme
Court has emphasized in scores of cases
that the government may never prescribe
what is orthodox in religion. But, the
selection of curriculum, of teaching materials and even the version of the bible is a
pronouncement
of orthodoxy: what is
acceptable to the School Board. The Douay
bible must be utilized by roman catholics;
the King James is most often used by
protestants and the jews prefer their rabbinical versions of the Torah which excludes
the New Testament completely. Any school
board is automatically in difficulty the
moment that a text is chosen. Sixth, the
course should be offered as an elective and
those children who chose not to attend
needed to be offered a more reasonable
alternative than sitting in the principal's
office as under the old program. Such "an
November, 1983

election" simply is not possible in any school

situation where peer pressure comes to
bear on small children. In this case, the
children are in the fourth and fifth grades;
that is - they are approximately 10 or 11
years of age. With the bible classes given the
obvious endorsement of the school administration, it would be a rare child indeed
who could challenge the authority of teacher, principal and peers and remain away
from the classes. Seventh, the judge
instructed that the School Board might find
funding from private organizations. This
was a green light for the diverting of the prior
religious organization's money into the
school through a different route. And, since
the money would simply add the step of
being laundered through the School Board,
the judge was advising an entanglement of
government and religion which, again,
according to the many U.S. Supreme Court
decisions which speak to this issue, is
unconstitutional. Eighth, the judge felt that
any bible courses should be taught in an
objective manner, not as an indoctrination
of the child "as to either the truth or the
falsity of the biblical materials." This admonition is incredible. Any child being
taught "facts" from a bible, by a teacher, in a
public school, would have a great deal of
difficulty challenging any statement as a
"falsity." The judge obviously meant that the
bible represented only the "truth" and that
any challenge of its being in the classroom
was the "falsity" of a perverse mind.
Anyone reading the decision would, by
necessity, immediately prognosticate that
the judge's careful eight point plan was a
blueprint for action by any religiously
infected school board. Your editor, in fact,
predicted that the studies would be introduced into the nation's public school systems, as soon as it was humanly possible so
to do. The last thing in the world that
American Atheists wanted to see was that
forecast come true.
It is one month later and the reality is
upon us. Events have been fast paced.
Seizing upon the pronouncement of the
federal district judge that "The First Amendment was never intended to insulate our
public institutions from any mention of God,
the Bible, or religion." the School Board of
Bristol immediately called for a return of
bible classes under the general guidelines
laid down by the judge. The cry had to come
from the members of the School Board
since the judge had, unscrupulously, advised them of the necessity of the public
school system itself undertaking the sponsorship of the classes.
Now, a reporter found that in an earlier,
Page 7

NEWS AND COMMENTS / November, 1983

1970, case, Vaughn u, Reed, 313 F.Supp ..
4331 (1970), the federal judge who had given
the eight-step outline of what the School
Board needed to do to make the classslegal
had been a School Board attorney defending similar bible classes, the mandatory
nature of which had been challenged. Now,
in the case of Crockett u, Sorenson, instead
of recusing himself for bias, the judge
adopted the earlier decision with the single
exception that the classes should be voluntary instead of mandatory.
The reporter also discovered that the
bible class supporters had raised $55,000 for
the case, defending the use of the bible
classes in the public schools. It was a classic
commingling of religion and government.
This had not been a fact before the court but
the religious judge would probably have
ignored the implications of the situation
anyway. As the media followed the story to
see if there would be a reintroduction of
bible classes to follow the unconstitutional
guidelines laid down by the judge, the
Superintendent of schools made it publicly
known that he felt such a monetary investment by the religious group, which had
supported the religious exercise in the
public schools, constituted a call upon him
to reinstate the bible classes. A School
Board meeting was called to vote on the
matter.
Meanwhile the disappointed head of the
bible teaching gambit was also vocal in the
community with his concerns over the
judge's decision that the teachers not be
"The classes could just as well
be taught by an Atheist or a
secular humanist," he whined.
"Ifyou don't believe the Bible is
the truth, I don't think you can
teach it properly."
Immediately a deputy undersecretary for
planning and budget in the federal Department of Education notified the media that
President Reagan had been watching the
Bristol bible case. The Department of
Education of the federal government, during
and after the case, had voiced support for
the Bristol school system's effort to continue the classes. These efforts had, the
deputy undersecretary stated, given the
President cause for hope that the judicial
system would return religion to the public
schools.
When the Bristol, Virginia school board
met on August 10th, two members of the
Bristol, Tennessee school board attended.
The entire thrust of the meeting was how to
effectuate the "suggestions" of the federal
judge in order to legitimatize the "constitutional" practice of bible classes in the
schools. The Superintendent of Schools'
position was, "I think the community has
pretty well mandated what they want." That
issue being settled even before the meeting,
the principal concern of the school board
Page 8

was only with what the additional expense

would be. This was roughly calculated at
"around $18,000," the cost of certified
teachers since the court had indicated that
the religious group could no longer pay their
salaries. There was a minor worry as to what
to do with students who did not opt for the
bible classes, as well as the expenses which
might be incurred because of alternative
programs which might be needed to satisfy
the federal judge.
Within a week, August 15th, the Bristol,
Tennessee school superintendent publicly
stated that he was looking for leadership
from Bristol, Virginia and would revamp his
schools' bible curricula to parallel those of
Virginia. His school board, meanwhile,
voted to discontinue the classes until such
new curricula could be approved, but added
an order to the superintendant to come up
with new bible class plans.
On August 31st, the School Board in
Bristol, Virginia met and voted unanimously
to continue the bible classes in public
scho~ls at 4th and 5th grade levels. A copy
of the suggested curriculum was sent to two
expert witnesses who had been brought in
for testimony to the trial by the religious
bible class sponsoring group. One was a
female professor at Alabama State University. Even translated through a friendly
newspaper, her ideas were obviously based
in religious fundamentalism. She stressed
that the "main thing" the schools needed to
avoid was using any terms that "sound
religious" in order to keep the classes
constitutional. A rose by another name
would, then, not smell like a rose. She
cautioned that "Bible teachers can expect a
continued harrassment, no matter how
splendidly they are doing their jobs." Apparently the inculcation of religion into 10
and 11 year old minds was viewed by the
expert as "splendid," especially under any
name for the inculcation except one which
would "sound religious." Her specific suggestions which she believed would make the
proposed bible curriculum constitutional
were:
1. Public school teachers should recognize that the word "Christ," the title by
which the founder of the christian faith is
generally known around the world, is
understood as a confessional term. To be
safe, the teachers should therefore use
"Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth," which she
saw as personal names and which she felt
were beyond controvery and "less problematic" to use. In other words she cautioned the teachers to practice deceit.
2. "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are the most commonly understood
designations for the divisions of the "Christian" bible, but these are "christian terms"
with which people of the jewish faith are
uncomfortable. Therefore, she cautioned
the teachers to refer to the Old Testament
November, 1983

as the "Hebrew Bible" and to the New

Testament as the "Greek Bible" although
such new labels would be awkward and
troublingly ambiguous for young people. In
other words, she was advocating that
practictioners of the jewish religion should
be identified as an ethnic group and christianity be attached to the glories of ancient
pagan Greece!
3. In the public schools where children are
likely to come from jewish as well as
christian homes, the Old Testament should
be stressed as "our common heritage." She
noted that additionally, the Old Testament
is longer, more literary, and contains a
majority of the favorite children's stories.
The New Testament could be worked in,
even for the jewish children, because many
subjects of art and literature are taken from
it. She, here, was advocating that emphasis
on literature or art could be a cover for
religious indoctrination through content.
4. In teaching the New Testament special
care should be taken to emphasize the true,
exciting human personality
of Jesus
through the narratives of the gospels,
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Since the
so-called letters of Saul/Paul contradict or
ignore the narratives of these four gospels,
the professor was selectively emphasizing
those which would stifle inquiries of young
minds.
5. A teacher should be prepared to
explain the customs reflected in biblical
stories and these should be based on bible
dictionaries, bible commentaries and so on.
She was particularly careful to emphaize
that Hebrew battle practices should be
explained by jewish Law. Again, the expert
eschewed any references to secular history
or study and deliberately cautioned to
explain the barbarities in the Old Testament
by the rationalizations that rabbis have used
to white-wash the bloody, barbaric, inhuman practices.
6. Dating biblical events can become a
touchy issue. Since the jews have a different
calendar than do the christians, this could
cause some difficulties. She cautioned the
teachers to tell the children that some
historians and scholars prefer to use c.e.
(common era) and b.c.e. (before common
era.) instead of a.d. (anno domini - the year
of our lord) and b.c. (before christ.) Her
emphasis was that in either method, "the life
of Jesus remains the determining dating
factor." The expert is a christian teaching to
emphasize christ as the major factor in
world history.
7. Many teachers in the public schools feel
that it is especially appropriate to make
quite clear to their students the "jewishness" of Jesus, that he came from a pious
jewish home and that, to the very end of his
ministry, he practiced the jewish religion. To
put the blame aright on the heathen Romans, the expert cautioned that it was also
The American Atheist

NEWS AND COMMENTS / November, 1983

well to note that Jesus was executed by
crucifixion, the Roman form of death penalty, rather than by stoning which was the
custom of the Jews.
8. The theme of blame placing was
emphasized in this next admonition that the
pharisees are sometimes seen as the antagonists of Jesus. But, this group within the
jewish faith holds an honored place in jewish
hsitory. It would be well for the teacher to
point out that those who contended with
Jesus were a minority within a sect otherwise known for its defense of the jewish
religion at all costs. She cautioned that the
intellectual achievements of the pharisees
should also be called to the attention of the
children. All of this was evidently to placate
the jews in the city.
9. In order to give credence to the claims
of the bible this expert cautioned the
teacher against the use of the word "myth"
which is used frequently in contemporary
commentaries of the bible. Also, she noted,
the word "legend" gives the idea of historical
inaccuracy. Therefore, when the teachers
were dealing with the 10 and 11 year olds it
would be better not even to use the word
"story" - as in "Bible story." It was better
by far to use the word "narrative" with the
kiddies since this would be understood by
them to be a factual report.
10. While most christians, and practically
all christian art, have interpreted the Old
Testament in the light of the New Testament and found it filled with images and
prophecies of "the Advent of Christ," it
should always be remembered that jewish
people find their bible quite complete and
comprehensible without any reference at all
to Jesus. It is best, then, in the public
schools to avoid using the one testament to
interpret the other - except with art. She
would not want interrelated use to "become
doctrinal and therefore illegal" in the
schools.
Another expert, a professor of theology
at the Dallas Theological Seminary, recommended that any reference to Jesus as
the christ be omitted. The "miracles"
performed by Jesus should instead be
referred to as "events in the lifeof Jesus." Of
course, this would give historicity to the
miracles.
This theologian suggested the Old Testament study of Ruth and Esther particularly
to add a female perspective to the time.
After all, young females must be entrapped
early.
It was particularly interesting that he
cautioned that the story of how the bible
came to be, how it was written, and how
there are various translations "could be
omitted."
Having obtained these expert opinions,
settled that the bible class sponsors should
funnel its money as a private donation to the
city council where it was to be put into the
Austin, Texas

city's general fund, the school board felt that

the new program would meet the guidelines
set forth by the judge to reconstitute the
bible classes which could start within 6 to 12
weeks.
A "Study Outline" was then proposed
and this was given to the attorney who had
represented the school board during the
trial. He declared:
"I have reviewed the program
in light of the court's written
opinion and in light of the
Judge's remarks during the trial, and I do believe the program
as now outlined meets all of the
constitutional guidelines set
forth by the court."
The following are copies of the study outline
and bible class curriculum:
STUDY OUTLINE
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the bible in the schools
program are threefold:
(1) To develop in the pupils an increasing knowledge, understanding, and
appreciation of the bible.
(2) To show the influence of the bible in
History, Literature, Culture and institutions.
(3) To present the course of study
within the framework approved by the
Bristol Virginia School Board.
REQUIREMENTS
The course requirements for the bible
teaching program are as follows:
1. Supervision and control of the
course willbe under the exclusive direction
of the Bristol Virginia School Board;
2. The School Board shall do the hiring
and firing of teachers for the bible course in
the same manner as it does for all other
teachers;
3. Teachers will be certified in elementary education by the Commonwealth
of Virginia;
4. No inquiry shall be made to determine the religious beliefs, or the lack
thereof, of teacher applicants;
5. The School Board shall prescribe the
curriculum and select allteaching materials,
including the appropriate translation of the
bible.
6. The course shall be offered as an
elective. Students who choose not to take
the course will be offered a reasonable
alternative course.
The principal of each school in which this
program operates is responsible for the
overall scheduling and supervision of the
alternative instructional activities for pupils
who do not participate in the bible literature
program.
Once the election is made to attend or not
to attend the class by parents and students,
each principal shall promptly notify - the
November, 1983

parents
of the alternative
teachersupervised courses and activities available
for each particular child.
Alternative instructional activities must
be provided for any pupils who do not
choose to participate in the program. These
alternative instructional -activities shall include individualized, small groups, tutorial,
or regular class activities which are teacherdirected. The activities themselves should
correlate closely with or provide additional
instruction in the basic curriculum areas
such as reading, mathematics, social studies, science, music, art, individual research, physical education, band, computer
education, etc.
Alternative instructional activities will be
coordinated by the principal and the regular
classroom teachers.
The principal of each school where bible
classes are offered shall review the course
study outline and shall attend the bible
classes at least twice a year.
The principal also shall review lesson
plans for five class sessions submitted by the
bible course teacher on the first "school"
Monday of each month;
7. The course shall be taught in an
objective manner with no attempt made to
indoctrinate the children as to either the
truth or falsity of the biblical materials.
Prayers and singing of hymns will not be
conducted. However, non-denominational
music may be continued; and
8. The bible teaching position and
course will be contingent upon receipt of
funds from the Bristol Virginia City Council
to operate the program. Contributions from
private organizations for the purpose of
funding any or all costs of a bible class willgo
to the Bristol Virginia City Council, not the
Bristol Virginia School Board. If funds are
not available, the course willnot be offered.
BIBLE CLASS CURRICULUM
The following is a proposed course of
study, developed by the Bristol School
superintendent for the teaching of bible in
fourth- and fifth-grades. The curriculum has
been approved by the school board.
Outline For Fourth Grade
Overview: The course of study for fourth
grade pupils is taken from the narrative
stories in the first five books of the Old
Testament and the Life of Christ as told in
the New Testament Gospels. The study is
divided into seven units, four in the Old
Testament and three in the New Testament.
OLD TEST AMENT STUDIES
Unit 1. The Book of Genesis (Chapters
1-11): Creation of the World and Mankind;
The Garden of Eden; Cain and Abel; Noah
and the Flood; The Tower of Babel.
Unit 2. The Book of Genesis (Chapters
15-20): Abraham's Call and Journey; Abraham's Test of Faith; A Wife for Isaac; Jacob
and Esau; Jacob's Journey and New Name;
Page 9

NEWS AND COMMENTS / November, 1983

Joseph the Dreamer; Joseph the Ruler; The
Tribes of Israel.
Unit 3. The Book of Exodus: The Early
Life of Moses; The Call of Moses; Moses
and Pharaoh; The Journey From Egypt to
Canaan; The Ten Commandments; The
Tabernacle; Moses' Death and Joshua's
Call.
NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
Unit 1. The Early Life of Jesus Christ:
Birth of Jesus; Boyhood of Jesus; Temptation of Jesus, Calling of the First Disciples.
Unit 2. The Ministry of Jesus: Events in
the life of Jesus; Miracles - Power Over
Nature (a. Feeding 5,000 persons, b. Catching Two Ship Loads of Fish, c. Calming a
Storming Sea); Miracles - Power Over
Sickness (a. A Man Who Couldn't Walk, b.
A Man Born Blind, c. A Ruler's Son);
Miracles - Power Over Death (a. A
Widow's Son, b. A Ruler's Daughter, c. A
Friend of Jesus; Parables of Jesus (a. The
Good Samaritan, b. The Prodigal Son, c.
The Sower of Seeds.)
Unit 3: The Last Days of Jesus on Earth;
The Last Supper, Arrest and Trial, The
Crucifixion; The Resurrection.
Outline For Fifth Grade
Oueruiew: The course of study for fifth
grade pupils is taken from the historical
books of the Old Testament (Joshua
through the Prophets). The New Testament
study is from the Book of Acts and the
writings of Paul the Apostle.
OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES
Unit 1. Conquest of Canaan (Joshua):
Crossing of the Jordan; Battle of Jericho,
Sin of Achan and Ai; Canaan Divided.
Unit 2. Canaan Without Leadership
(Judges): Gideon, Samson, Samuel.
Unit 3. Kingdom Period: Saul, the First
King; David, The Greatest King; Solomon;
The Wise and Unwise King; Kingdom
Divided.
Unit 4. Fall of the Kingdom: Elijah - Elisha;
Daniel; Ezra - Nehemiah.
Unit 5. The Prophets (As Time Permits):
Jonah; Isaiah (at Christmas Time).
. NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
Unit 1. Review of the Last Week in Jesus'
Earthly Life.
Unit 2. Book of Acts (Chapters 1-12):
Ascension - Coming of the Holy Spirit
(Chapters 1-2); Miracles of Peter and John
(Chapter 3-5); Growth of the Early Church
(philip, Chapter 8), (Cornelius, Chapter 10);
Early Persecutions (Stephen, Chapter 6-7),
(Peter, Chapter 12); Conversion of Paul
(Chapter 9).
Unit 3. Christianity Spreads to Europe:
First Missionary Journey; Second Missionary Journey; Third Missionary Journey and
Paul's Arrest; Paul's Writings.
HOW THE BIBLE CAME TO US
How the Bible was Written; Translations.
(This may be given either at the beginning or
the end of the year.)
Page 10

MEMORY WORK
During the first two-year cycle of study,
students are encouraged to learn the books
of the Bible and memorize the following
passages: Psalm 8, 23,100,121,24; The Ten
Commandments; John 3: 15-18;Luke 2:8-16
(Christmas Season); Matthew 2:1-10; Matthew 28:1-16 (Easter Season); I Corinthians
13; Ephesians 6:8-16; II Timothy 4:6-7;
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8; Matthew 28:18-20.
TEACHING RESOURCES, AIDS
Resource materials are used throughout
the year to supplement the study of the
bible. Teaching aids used are as follows: The
Bible (King James version); flannelgraphs;
filmstrips; View Masters; records; visual
songs; missionary storybooks; slides - The
Holy Land, Christmas, Easter; Books Bible Atlas, etc.; workbooks for students.
The decision to accept the "Study Outline" and the "Bible Class Curriculum" was
accepted unanimously by the School Board
on August 30th. The classes began immediately. Meanwhile, in Yuma, the Scott
County School Superintendent ordered an
end to the only bible class taught in Scott
County. There, the program was threedecades old. The progam had once proliferated throughout most of Scott county
schools but had been phased out since, the
Superintendent explained, "We just saw the
The decision to accept the "Study Outline" and the "Bible Class Curriculum" was
accepted unanimously by the School Board
on August 30th. The classes began immediately. Meanwhile, in Yuma, the Scott
County School Superintendent ordered an
end to the only bible class taught in Scott
County. There, the program was threedecades old. The program had once proliferated throughout most of Scott county
schools but had been phased out since, the
Superintendent explained, "We just saw the
writing on the wall." However, the last
school to end it was the Yuma Elementary
School where the bible classes were taught
by a minister. The gospel minister had spent
about 30 minutes in each class, kindergarten through the 7th grade, once a month.
Although participation by students was
"voluntary," it was always 100 percent.
In Kingsport bibleclasses began as usual.
However, there the head of the Week Day
Bible Teaching Association announced that
they would be conducted after school
hours. The classes were to be taught to
fifth-graders alone, one day a week for 30
minutes. The School Board reaffirmed its
decision to end the classes and refused to
allow the bible-teaching group to continue
offering the classes during the school day.
Feeling that it had the federal courts behind
them, the religious group rented the classroom for $9.35 an hour and planned to
continue its work in the 1983-4 school year.
This fundamentalist group also sponsors
November, 1983

classes in four Sullivan County elementary

schools: Indian Springs, Lynn Garden, Miller Perry and Rock Springs, Two other
groups sponsor classes in county schools:
the Bancroft Chapel Ministry and the
Appalachian Gospel Crusade.
In a surprising editorial titled "Bristol
'Solution' No Solution at all."on September
1st, the Kingsport Times News newspaper
roundly condemned the new bible classes
plans. Starting out, the editor noted, "Members of the Bristol, Va. School Board must
have enjoyed their visit to federal court last
month. They're certainly begging for a return engagement. ...
The Bristol, Va.
School Board, whether it likes to admit it or
not, lost that case. The classes were ruled
unconstitutional. ... But Judge Kisser also
offered some suggestions on how the school
board might construct the classes to make
them - in his opinion alone - constitutional. .. ,
"The 'new' Bible curriculum and course
outline, revealed Tuesday night (August
27th) after reporters demanded to see them,
aren't new at all. . . . The school board has
drafted a proposal that makes only cosmetic
changes .... the 'new' Bible classes will be
just as patently illegal and blatantly unconstitutional as their predecessors for the
last four decades .... the school board has
taken one of Judge Kiser's suggestions putting the classes under its control - and
tried to pretend that doing so willchange the
nature of what is being taught in them and
how it is being taught.
"Nothing could be further from the truth.
"Bible classes are Bible classes are Bible
classes. Euphemistic terms disguising the
intent of the classes cannot change that fact.
Laundering private funding of the classes
through another public body - the Bristol,
Va. City Council- cannot change that fact.
'Expert' advice from admittedly biased allies
of the school board cannot change that fact.
"The Bristol, Va. School Board - and
other boards looking to that body to provide
a model for making Bible classes constitutional - continue to misinterpret opposition to offering those classes in the first
place. And the school boards continue to
ignore the danger of state-sponsored religion in the public schools of our region ....
"We recognize our voice will not meet
with much agreement from citizens of this
region. But refusing to express opinions
because they may be unpopular is the stuff
of which weak newspapers, bad government and injustice are made. We call again
for the removal of Bible classes from the
public schools of our region, regardless of
the sponsorships of those classes."
It was one of the bravest editorials that
has euer been written in our land. And,
every Atheist in the nation should send a
congratulatory letter to the publisher: Davis
The American Atheist

NEWS AND COMMENTS / November, 1983

Rau, for having the courage to openly
support the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in an area which
is a hotbed of fundamental religions.
Kingsport Times-News Newspaper
701 Lynngarden, P_ 0_ Box 479
Kingsport, TN 37662
In the scathing point-by-point indictment
of the classes. which followed the upfrorrt
blast, the publisher noted that the study
outline says, "No inquiry shall be made to
determine the religious beliefs, or the lack
thereof, of teacher applicants" of the bible
course. But the previous statements of the
superintendent made the statement a mockery, and the editor quoted them: "We'll
retain the teachers, although one of them is
retiring. They can be certified to teach in
Virginia - that's no problem." It's apparent,
therefore, that no inquiries about religious
beliefs or lack thereof need to be made. The
board already knew the religious beliefs of
the teachers - hired by and salaries paid by
a religious organization - since they are the
same ones who conducted the classes in the
past.
The publisher was even more angry with
the volunteerism of the plan. "The 'elective'
status of the classes under the proposed
study outline is a sham. The outline presents
a facade of volunteerism masking a foundation of persuasion. It's the old, discriminatory practice of allowing those who agree to
do nothing, while forcing those who disagree to take action to express their disagreement. Parents who want their children to
attend Bible class need do nothing to affirm

that choice. But it's a different story for

those who oppose attendance. Far from
offering an 'elective,' the board actually is
telling parents, 'We intend to teach Bible to
your child until and unless you step forward
and tell us you don't want us to do so.' "
And, it is just there that the sore spot is
hit. For the Atheist and the agnostic quake,
hidden in their closets while the religious
fanatics take the day. There is a persistent
theme in our culture of the rational giving in
to the irrational. It is based on the premise
that the rational person does not want to
stoop to get into a dirty fight. They are too
hoity-toity to get their hands dirty. They are
too intellectual to condescend to a battle.
And, while they sit in their ivory towers, the
grub worms of religion change our nation to
a theocracy. There is not one religious
person who retires from the skirmish. They
are there in full force to take the field. They
glory in their anti-intellectualism. To them
the absurd is the exhalted.
.Currently in the United States there is a
push for "local option" which is reinforced
by the churches, veterans' associations,
nationalist groups, para-military associa, tions such as the Boy Scouts, the organizations of neo-fascism, the American Bar
Association, the American Medical Association, Chambers of Commerce, the military
industrial complex, the radical right political
wing and the Republican party generally.
This is the standard modus operandi of
reaction in our nation. The single remaining
grass-roots organization in the United
States is the churches. It is at the local level

THE STATE/CHURCH
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
-SENATE
September 22, 1983
AMENDMENT NO. 2189

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
-SENATE
September 22,1983
AMENDMENT NO. 2189
(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of United States diplomatic relations
with the vatican)
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 24, line 20, immediately
following sec. 121, insert the following
new section:
"United States Diplomatic Relations With The Vatican
"Sec. 122. In order to provide for
the establishment of United States
diplomatic relations with the vatican,
the Act entitled "An Act making Appropriations for the Counsular and
Austin, Texas

that the uneducated, the influenced, the

mindless and the faceless can rule. "Local
option" has been used to enforce "dry"
counties, to stop the distribution of cinema,
books, magazines, to enforce censorship, to
stop gambling and state lotteries, to prohibit
massage parlors, to close down abortion
clinics, to intercept the American Atheist
magazine, to intimidate local residents.
Local option has always been the Ku Klux
Klan - and its mentality. Local option has
stopped sex education in public schools,
inhibited the action of every birth control
information outlet, including Planned Parenthood,
It is with "local option" that children will
be again indoctrinated into religion. And, a
quotation from the 1970 case of Vaughn v.
Reed, supra is enough to convince.
In respect to bible classes in the public
schools, the judge stated that: "If the course
is taught within constitutional limits, every
student should be required to attend. If the
course is necessary to the education of one
child, it is equally necessary to the education
of all children .... Once the school board
determines that a particular course should
be taught in the schools, the court sees no
justification for allowing a student or his
parents to decide that the student will not
attend."
As indicated above, "The handwriting is,
indeed, on the wall." IfAtheists do not stand
up now, they willbe unable to stand up later.
The issue is joined in Bristol, Virginia, and
across our nation, and it is joined now.

WALL CRUMBLES

Diplomatic Expenses of the Government for the year ending thirtieth

June, eighteen hundred and sixty
eight, and for other purposes," approved February 28,1867, is amended by repealing the followingsentence
(14 Stat. 413): "And no money hereby
or otherwise appropriated shall be
paid for the support of an American
legation at Rome, from and after the
thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven."
Mr. LUGAR.Mr. President, this amendment would repeal the prohibition, enacted
in 1867 by the 39th Congress, against the
expenditure of funds to support a diplomatic mission to the vatican. This would
permit, but would not require, the reestablishment of full and formal diplomatic relations with the holy see, and I anticipate that
the President, in all likelihood, would take
this action once this impediment is removed.
The United States maintained consular
relations with the vatican states from 1797
u~til 1848 and official diplomatic relations
from 1848 until 1867. The decision in that
November, 1983

year to withhold funds from the American

mission in Rome was rooted in controversies arising from the struggle for Italian
unification. Its continuation today is an
anachronism.
Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon,
Ford, Carter, and Reagan, recognizing the
diplomatic importance of the vatican, chose
to appoint personal representatives to the
vatican, and this awkward charade continues today. President Truman in 1951
proposed to regularize relations by appointing gen. Mark Clark as Ambassador to
the vatican, but this effort provoked public
controversy and general Clark withdrew. In
1977, however, the Senate passed the Stone
amendment which, like my amendment
today, would have repealed the 1867 provision. This was deleted in conference.
In short, diplomatic relations with the
vatican are consistent with American tradition, have been carried on in substance if
not in form by most administrations since
the 1930s, and, in my judgment, should be
regularized. Juridically, the vatican is a
sovereign state and is formally recognized
as such by over 100 nations. That its status
Page 11

NEWS AND COMMENTS / November, 1983

is historically unique, and that the status of
the papacy has, in past centuries, been the
subject of varied controversies, should not
bar us from recognition of the fact that the
vatican is a sensitive diplomatic forum and,
with the courageous leadership of pope
John Paul II,is a significant political force for
decency in the world. Over 100 other nations recognize these realities. The United
States, in practice, does so as well. It is time
to legitimate our current practice.
The language of this amendment is identical to paragraph (b) of S. 1757, a bill to
permit the restoration of diplomatic relations with the vatican which I introduced on
August 3 of this year. I am proud to count as
cosponsors of that measure Senators Biden, Dodd, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger,
Hatch, Helms, Huddleston, Johnston, Kennedy, Laxalt, Moynihan, Murkowski, Pell,
Pressler, Quayle, Zorinsky, Glenn, Denton,
and Nickles. A similar measure has been
introduced in the House by the chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with the
support of both majority and minority members of that committee. The time for this
initiative is right; indeed, it is long overdue,
and I urge all Senators to join in support of
this amendment.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, this amendment was offered originally by Senator
Stone in 1977. It was adopted by the Senate
but was then dropped in conference.
I know of no objection to this amendment

on this side of the aisle, and unless I hear

such objection, we would accept the amendment from the standpoint of the majority
and turn to the minority to determine ifthey
have been able to clear it properly on their
side.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I think it is an
excellent amendment and hope it is approved.
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. President, 116 years
have passed since the United States last had
formal diplomatic relations with the vatican.
The time has come to change this.
It is a pleasure to join my fellow colleague
from Indiana who is seeking to make this
change possible. The United States has
been remiss in not taking action sooner and
the Senate has the opportunity today to
correct that wrong.
From 1848 to 1867 the United States
maintained formal diplomatic relations with
the vatican. Then in 1867 the funding for the
legation was stripped. Yet, since that time,
various Presidents have appointed special
representatives to the vatican. We have
continuously had a representative there
since President Nixon was in office.
Last week Nepal was the 107th country to
officially establish diplomatic relations with
the holy see. In fact, the United States is one
of the few countries not to recognize the
vatican as a sovereign state and the pope as
the chief of state.
On a practical level, such a recognition

would be in the best interests of the country.

It would improve the exchange of information and establish more formal and
effective channels of communication.
But, there is a more important reason for
our establishing formal diplomatic ties with
the vatican. Under the courageous leadership of pope John Paul II, the vatican state
has assumed its rightful place in the world as
an international voice. It is only right that
this country show its respect for the vatican
by diplomatically recognizing it as a world
state.
Under the guidance of pope John Paul II,
the vatican has come to have tremendous
political and moral influence in this world of
ours. This was most recently illustrated by
the pope's successful intervention with Polish leaders on behalf of the people of his
native land.
The United States should remove itself
from the list of remaining nations yet to
grant the vatican fulldiplomatic recognition.
There is no question but that this is the right
thing to do.
And in conclusion, Iwant to commend my
fellow Hoosier Senator for taking the lead
on this important issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2189) was agreed
to.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER

Everywhere more and more persons are
taking up the cudgels against christianity's
intrusion into every facet of our culture. The
people challenging and litigating the state/
church separation issues may not win in the
legal struggle but they are gutsy.
In Hammond, Indiana, five (5) township
residents are up in arms over a crucifix in
Wicker Park. The statue of christ created a
controversy when it was first placed and
then dedicated as a war memorial by the
Knights of Columbus in October, 1955.
Finally in mid-August, 1983, a mere 28
years later, a suit has been filed for the
removal of the crucifix. The suit contends
that the monstrosity "is clearly visible from
many areas within the park as well as from
the public highways which run along the
park." This, the five litigants claim, infringes
upon their use and enjoyment of the park.
One litigant noted that the statue was
erected because "In the 1950s there was a
big religious move and the cold war." But
the reason it has taken so long to litigate was
laid bare by another. " ... the suit should
have been filed years ago. I would have filed,
but because of my business (real estate) I
didn't feel I could alienate clients."
Page 12

All of the litigants felt the statue violated

constitutional rights. A township official
opined that there was "quite a controversy
when the statue was erected. It was one of
about five ... erected by the Knights of
Columbus Council, a catholic men's organization. There was a lot of protest that
the statue violated church and state."
The owner of a car wash in Gary, Indiana
said the statue "irritated me since it was
placed .... I never felt it was right."
The litigants expressed that they were not
opposed to religious statues, but do not
believe they should be on government
property.
The litany is always the same. The
religious community is feared; suits are
delayed; litigants are timorous when confronted by the media. The government
entity sued always enters into a war of
attrition. It delays, runs up costs, lavishly
uses taxpayers' moneys, obfuscates the
issues and generally precludes progress
away from the religious absolutes it harbors
and protects.
In the final analysis, however, it is better
that there is protest through litigation rather
than no protest at all.
November, 1983

On The Bright Side

Occasionally, something good happens to Atheists! We recall that some time ago the Atlanta
Chapter was quite "surprised" and delighted to
find that they were on the popular side of the
creation controversy. In their undaunted attack
on the proposed introduction of "creation science" into Georgia's public schools they were
joined by other groups - even including representatives of professional teacher groups. Bob
Campbell, John Heise and Marty Martinez along with all of the other Atlanta Atheists - were
elated to find that they had become regarded as
local patriots and heroes rather than the "villainous heretics" usually implied by the religious.
Similar incidents have been noted by virtually
all of our affiliated American Atheist Chapter
groups on occasion. The most recent incident
took place in Phoenix, Arizona. Much to their
surprise, the Phoenix chapter was the recipient of
a local media award (see reproduction on page
13). The (local) Valley News and Arts Journal
presented them with the BEST Solo Entertainment award. The most significant aspect of this
honoring was that it was decided by a VOTE by
the Journal's readers - they were actually declared best by folks in their area! Of course, the
award carried with it additional mention in the
Journal in the form of column comment and
publication of the Dial-An-Atheist phone number.
Cheers to all the folks in the Phoenix Chapter!
Thanks to Walt and Patricia Wilkinson for notifying and sending a photocopy of the award.

The American Atheist

New Times proudly proclaims

has the best

in 1983

Nem
~~~
and Arts Journal

Austin, Texas

November, 1983

Page 13

LOOKING UP / G. Stanley Brown

SCIENCE, SCIENTISM,
SCIENTISTS
Atheists frequently mention science as a preferred source of
many of their ideas. These include evolution, cosmology,
geology, and psychology. The progress of research in these
areas has devastated past theological opinions. Scientific
techniques have proven so powerful that more people than
Atheists are tempted to view science as having weak alternatives, or no alternatives. So it is appropriate to discuss whaf
science can and cannot do. For this we need to know from
where science starts, and how it works. Hopefully we can
become more discriminating in judging when a believer is
risking scientific contradiction. Fortunately, science deals with
most aspects of human experience, and science has influence
with our judicial system. Thus science limits the physical,
practical, and legal scope of theology.
This paper discusses scientific values, assumptions, methods, guidelines, and phenomena. Examples of scientific values
and assumptions are given from daily life, plus their opposites.
A discussion of the limits of science and the personality of
scientists follows.
* * * * *

Uniformity concentrates on identifying characteristics which are

the same for all observers at all times. In science, uniformity is
assumed to exist. Ifthe same experiment is conducted ten times, and
the results are the same nine times, then a variant result occurring
once is regarded as probably due to a mistake. Uniformity is valued
because it minimizes distracting variation so that attention can be
directed to a few aspects. Police expect criminals to have a "method
of operation" which is the same in different crimes. Insurance
companies assume uniformity in accident rates among the population
of a large city. Chefs assume their usual attention to quality and detail
will produce food as good as usual. Welders assume hot metals will
interact the way they have in the past.
Chaos is the opposite of uniformity. Instead of looking for what is
the same in the events of life, many people are attracted only to what
is different. They delight in exceptions to the rule and ambiguities.
They find meaning in what is rare, rather than in what is common.
They rarely look for common elements to the successes of some
people, or the failures of others. They feel they have little control over
what happens to them. Gambling is attractive to them as a way of
beating the uniformity of their salary.

"Fortunately, science deals with most aspects of human experience, and science has influence
with our judicial system. Thus science limits the physical, practical, and legal scope of theology."
Consistency concentrates on eliminating conflicts in ideas when
they are approached from different starting points. An everyday
Values are usually associated with culture and ethics and people.
example involves the change received when a purchase is paid for.
Science is usually thought to be value neutral, a system for The cashier can count upward from the cost to the amount of money
discovering facts. However, there are values which are implicit in the
received. Or he/she can subtract and then hand out the result.
scientific way of looking at the world. Ifyou share these values but talk
Consistency requires that you receive the same amount of change in
to someone who does not, you may become aware that continued
both cases. In science, consistency requires that determinations of
discussion willlead to disagreement. Values influence us profoundly,
how much there is of something, via different methods, achieve
and it is not always possible to show that one set of values is better
compatible results. In social ethics, it requires that a man not expect
than another. "Better" is itself a value judgment.
one form of behavior in his sister, and another form of behavior in
The scientific values are objectivity, uniformity, consistency, ideas,
women outside his family.
and some others which more people appreciate.
In contrast to this value, the writer Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:
Objectivity concentrates on what is true for allobservers. It ignores
"A foolish consistency is the hobglobin of little minds, adored by little
cultural background, personal bias, vested interest, or inhibition.
statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great
Objectivity prefers to concentrate on what can be known without
soul has simply nothing to do." Emerson did not say what was
regard to the characteristics of the observer. In fact, a machine is "foolish." He did not include scientists. He did consider a "great soul."
preferable to a human ifthe information can be obtained by it. A video
His view is popular among people who wish to assert more than one
camera can be more reliable than a human witness to a crime.
opinion and ignore potential for conflict resulting from their opinions.
Lawyers, upon becoming judges, disqualify themselves from hearing . Such people are more interested in the present than in analyzing the
cases they have participated in. There are rules requiring that public future.
officials not have conflict-of-interest. Contests are held in athletics to
Another scientific value is ideas. Emphasis on ideas stresses
provide an objective answer to who is better. Consumer Reports
principles and concepts which can be communicated via the written
exists because of public desire for objective ratings of products.
word. Ideas should be compelling via the cogency of their logic and
Subjectivity is the opposite. Subjectivity places great value on the
care taken in the research which produced them. They should be true
individual reaction of the human observer. People choose music,
regardless of where they are discussed and be understandable by, at a
clothes, food, and home furnishings on the basis of how they feel minimum, the peers of the writer. Scientific ideas have value when
they contain instructions describing how to resolve difficulties or
about them. Friends, lovers, and religion are not so passive, but are
when they explain how something works. Asking perceptive quesselected by the same criterion. Conversations are evaluated for their
content of approval or rejection. There is minimal interest in tions is also a good idea.
understanding different points of view. Speculation on the merits of
Opposite ideas we have emotions. These change with time and are
different values is perceived as a threat requiring avoidance or
more effectively communicated by face to face encounters between
counter-attack. For subjective people feelings, never the situation
people. Emotions motivate people to do things, but do not provide
independent of the way it makes them feel, have the highest value.
detailed instructions necessary to accomplish many tasks. Emotions

VALUES

Page 14

November, 1983

The American Atheist

,
\

are enjoyed by all people, but not all people enjoy ideas. There are
parallels between the two. Both can be destructive or beneficial. An
idea can be changed by another idea, and an emotion by another
emotion. But getting an idea to change an emotion is difficult.
Emotions change ideas in most people with ease. But emotions have
no effect on the ideas produced by scientific research.
Other scientific values are intuition, imagination, creativity. Some
people may think that scientific advance proceeds via a plodding
sequence of logical steps. The gathering of data may be plodding; but
the analysis of data, the insight into, its meaning, can make great
strides because of the intuition of the researcher. He creates the idea
of what to look for. His imagination guides his initial plans. If he is very
experienced, he may have a scientific intuition which saves a lot of
time over trial and error methods.
Top scientists are very creative. They constantly think of new
things to investigate and new ways to do it. Lesser lights spend most
of their time following up on the bright people's proposals. Creativity,
intuition, and imagination are valued as much in science as they are in
the arts. And we may add hard work. Even brilliant ideas require work
to verify them, and work to get them into widespread usage. Less
brilliant ideas may require even more work to make them convincing.
Nature reserves her secrets for talented hard workers.
A final value we may mention is respect for precision in verbal and
numerical concepts. Scientists choose their words carefully. Scientists look at numbers, to what the numbers are applied, and they
know whether the numbers are plausible. Exaggeration, superfluous
words, mathematical mistakes, typographical errors - all are
shunned. Perhaps the Internal Revenue Service has a scientific
attitude toward your Form 1040. The bank does the same when you
apply for a loan and describe your ability to pay.
So science has values. And many people stay with their opposites.
Few people evaluate themselves or their loved ones in an objective
manner. The majority does not apply uniform standards to their
friends and strangers. They do not worry about having consistent
ideas. They prefer going by feelings about situations over working
with ideas. On the other hand, some people value objectivity,
uniformity, consistency, and ideas as a part of their daily life.They are
often occupied with trying to figure things out. They gain pleasure by
using their minds to solve problems. They dislike exaggeration.
Is it possible to rate the scientific values versus their opposites?
Suppose we say that scientific values have given us technological
progress and raised the living standard of billions of people. The
opposite view is that technological progress has given us the ability to
destroy the human race. People dying of nuclear war would probably
think they would be better off ifscientific values had not been utilized.
But this makes as much sense as refusing to have fire in a house for
heat and cooking because the house could catch fire. Using scientific
values does not guarantee world destruction. Failing to use scientific
values does guarantee mortality rates like those preceding the
Renaissance, and a lesser quality of life for the living.
Regarding the particular scientific values, a lack of objectivity leads
people into bad marriages. A lack of uniformity makes a bad manager
of people. A lack of consistency confuses children. A lack of ideas
leads to boredom. A lack of intuition, imagination, and creativity
provides a life of "monkey see, monkey do." A lack of precision
wastes time and money. Which of these do you have too much of?

ASSUMPTIONS
In addition to values there are assumptions in science. To those
who have spent years making them, it is difficult to relate to people
who do not make these assumptions. It is helpful to identify them so
that dialogues do not proceed from different starting points.
Science has some common sense assumptions. These include:
there is a real world, other people exist, and objects exist whether or
not they are observed. Some people may doubt these, but few of
them are movers and shapers of life.
The major scientific assumptions are: effects result from causes,
principles are constant, analogies are meaningful, and criticism is
welcome.
Austin, Texas

The connection between cause and effect is basic to scientific

interpretation. Anything that happens is assumed to depend on
circumstances which precede it in time. There are some difficulties
with this concept on the cosmological (see American Atheist, Vol. 25,
No.3, page 4) and quantum levels, but in between the assumption has
never been contradicted. It is particularly obvious for inanimate
objects. People are more complex. But medical science searches for
causes for every sickness. Scientists expand this notion to include
human behavior and experience. They assume that behavior which
can be observed and measured, i.e. natural behavior, has natural
causes. They find no reason to exempt human experience from
natural causes.
The value of uniformity is supplemented with the assumption that
rules (principles) connecting events do not change in space and time.
Thus water always boils when sufficient heat is applied. It happened
before man tried it and will happen if the astronauts try it. Any
deviation from this guarantee is assumed to be due to one or more
contributing causes which have been overlooked. When an automobile runs out of gas it stops. This principle is true in any country of
the world and willbe true so long as the car has a gasoline consuming
motor. Ifa person continues a hunger strike, he willkillhimself. This is
always true. And there are other reasons that cars stop and people
die. The people and cars may change, but the reasons do not.
Use of analogy to explain things is assumed to be a method of
enhancing understanding. Analogy can be defined as the extension of
concepts drawn from some relation within experience to suggest a
possible mode of coordinating other experiences. It is a suggestion of
similar patterns or structures of relationships in different contexts.
Analogy implies understanding what one thing does, or the relation
between two things, and analogy applies the doing or relation in
another context.
Analogy is not always possible in science. If one were to ask the
question "What is light, really?" there can be no simple answer. There
is no familiar object or macroscopic model to employ as an analogy.
Instead a consistent and unambiguous theoretical explanation is
found in James C. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and in the
quantum theory. Understanding these requires experience with
higher mathematics.
Another assumption of science is that criticism is welcome. Any
person who can identify an error, confusion, ambiguity, or unnecessary complexity in a scientific explanation is encouraged to do
so. The goal is to improve the explanation, regardless of how it
originated or by whom. Of course, criticism is itself subject to
criticism and if an improvement is not being offered, then the original
should stand until an improvement is actually offered.
Let us consider the opposite of scientific assumptions. To abandon
cause-effect is to abandon any hope of a person controlling his/her
world. This would mean expecting a random response to any action
we take. Permitting exceptions to the cause-effect assumption in
particular macroscopic instances is a rejection of the scientific value
of uniformity. If a cause is not apparent, we can be sure we have
insufficient knowledge of all the relevant causes.
The same may be said of dropping the assumption that principles
do not change in space or time. An apparent failure of principle may
be due to conditions being different and not recognized as such.
Scientists usually try to prevent such an occurrence by limiting the
number of possible variations in their work. This makes it easier to
track down some new effect and decide whether a new principle is
involved.
Analogy emphasizes relationship. The opposite would be to
concentrate on only one thing and try to say what it "is." But saying
what something "is" is meaningless, unless the intent is to describe
attributes. A rock is hard, but "hard" does not say what a rock "is." If
a rock is granitic, what is granite? A chemical formula could produce a
repetition of the question, with more names in answer, and the same
question repeated, on and on. So the opposite of analogy is the use of
the verb "to be" and this is meaningful only if it indicates attributes.
For example, a question about the "true" or "ultimate" nature of light
is presently unanswered, and the answer is irrelevant to its exploita-

November, 1983

Page 15

tion for human benefit.

Criticism is often disliked by people. Criticize their appearance,
what they do, or how they do it, and you willget less attention from
them. But science does not deal with these issues. It is directed to
abstractions. If people choose to get emotionally involved with
abstractions, that is their problem. Occasionally, a scientist willinvest
so much of his time and energy in research on an idea he has
developed that he willbe reluctant to accept research which identifies
error in his idea. However, his peers are very competitive. They will
review all the 'research and form their own opinion.
Let us consider the consequences if the scientific assumptions are
not made. The connection between food, sleep and comfort will be
lost. The downhill skiing industry willfold because people willnot be
sure of the principle of gravity for the next winter. Education will be
trivialized without analogy. Relationships, professional and personal,
willbreak up, to the surprise of one person, without the feedback of
criticism.

METHOD

time, space, amount of material, and electrical charge. Then using a

computer he calculates what should result and what it should look
like. If this prediction matches what telescopes reveal, progress has
been made. The astronomer can explain what is going on because his
calculation replicated the observations. His calculations are his
experiment.
There is also model building without computers. The models are
built with equations, lots of equations. To a theoretical physicist,
equations are a precise and meaningful explanation. Often they lay
the foundation for computer models and promote the design of
significant experiments.
At this point the theorizing, measuring, calculating, and analyzing
may be finished, but not the science. Another step is required:
publication. The work must be described on paper in coherent form.
It must be submitted to the editor of a technical periodical, who will
forward the paper to an expert in the subject matter of the paper. The
expert, known as a "referee," willread the paper and recommend for
or against publication. Often he will recommend publication if
improvements he specifies are made. These are usually requests for
more detailed explanations, more supporting data, elimination of
oversights, or more consideration of work by other researchers on
the same subject. When the referee's objections are met, the editor
publishes the paper.
The final step is the independent investigation of the same subject
by other researchers. They may use similar or different methods to
get results. But if the results are different, they must be explained.
Either or both investigations may be flawed. Fraud in the first
investigation is a possibility. Research willcontinue until a consensus
is reached. When it is, the results are considered useable as input to
other investigations, and the march of science goes on.

Science has a method, a way of doing things, and the elements of

this method can be seen in papers in scholarly journals. The purpose
of the method is to minimize the chance of error in the writer's work.
Reader's time is valuable, and they do not want to read work that has
less than the minimum quality checks. The elements of the method
are knowledge of previous work, description of problem, proposed
solution, experimentation, publication, and independent verification.
The first step in the method is obtaining a knowledge of previous
work in the research area considered. Graduate students will have
read and understood the papers of the leading researchers in their
specialty. Faculty and industrial scientists will know the leading
researchers personally through scientific meetings and conferences.
A paper in a technical journal begins with a description of the
GUIDELINES
problem. This could be how something works, how it is constructed,
In addition to values, assumptions, and a method, science has
or how much there is. Next the researcher proposes an explanation
guidelines. These have some aspects of value and bring conflicts
or procedure for measuring. Tentative explanations must be followed
between science and religion into sharper focus. Two are restrictions:
by a discussion of an experiment performed to check on the truth of
no personal bias added to data, and no individual emotional
the explanation. The results of the experiment must have an
experience as data. A third requires enough data, and a fourth
unambiguous effect on the proposed explanation. Usually ifthe effect
disavows truth.
The first guideline is that personal biases of researchers must not
is negative, i.e. it contradicts the explanation, no report appears.
alter their work. Particular results may be anticipated, but if they do
Readers are interested in explanations which are verified. And the
not appear, fraud cannot be committed to make them appear. A
details of what was done must be explained well enough to minimize
scientist may develop an explanation of a phenomenon that is
doubts in the reader's mind.
particularly emotionally pleasing to him. But he must proceed in an
A key aspect of this pairing of proposed explanation, or hypothesis,
and experiment is the falsifiabilityof the hypothesis. The experiment
impartial manner, following his data wherever it may lead him. This is
is designed to check the truth or falsity of the hypothesis. If it cannot
in accord with the value of objectivity. The science determines what
the results willbe, not the scientist.
do that, the experiment serves no purpose. This is a distinguishing
feature of science. Scientists, doing science, discover explanations
The second guideline is more obvious in discriminating between
which have been checked against the measurable world. They do not
science and non-science. It requires that only data which is obtained
explain without risking a demonstration that they are wrong. Any
via machines or the five senses be considered in investigations.
explanation offered is not contradicted by the evidence currently
Machines can measure things that people do not experience, but
available. But the offerer knows that new data obtained with more
people can use their eyes to receive the signals the machines
produce. Technological advances have resulted in machines prosophisticated instruments may render his idea obsolete.
Experiments represent a radical departure from the techniques of
ducing numbers more often than not. Numbers are exactly what
philosophy and religion. They are an act of human control over
scientists need for doing science.
nature. Instead of passively looking at the world or reading a book,
This segregation of information makes individual emotional experifollowed by thinking, the experimenter is an aggressor. Instead of . ences unsatisfactory as a source of data. These are not perceived via
letting a god make things happen, a man makes them happen. Man
sight, hearing, taste, touch, or smell. The scientific value of uniformity
also rejects the individual aspect. Science can certainly investigate
controls a situation, makes changes, and observes and records the
result. This human control immediately raises man's evaluation of
emotions, but many people must be involved to provide data. There
must be safeguards to prevent collusion and intentional misrepresenhimself, and his ability to understand the connections between his
actions and results raises his evaluation still further. It also promotes
tations. And ways must be found to separate personal certainty from
an attitude that control and observation should be applied to
impersonal reality.
Intuition should not be confused with emotional experience.
everything.
Astronomy is a science with a big problem. Experiments cannot be
Intuition is an idea which suggests a direction for a research program.
done with stars. The universe is the astronomer's laboratory, but he
Emotional experience, on the contrary, suggests feelings, ideas,
cannot control it. So astronomers collect a lot of data, scattered over
answers, with no further investigation or opposing information being
time and direction in space, wherever things are happening relevant
necessary.
People having revelations or visions could claim their experience
to what they want to study. Next they add the technique of model
building. The models are mathematical. They are calculations using
was scientifically noteworthy because they "saw" something. But
another guideline requires repetition. If a phenomenon cannot be
laws of physics. The astronomer assumes conditions measured by
Page 16

November, 1983

The American Atheist

repeated upon human command, then it must recur often enough

that scientists are prepared with their machines to examine it.
Machines promote objectivity on the information gathered, and
repetition identifies errors and refines observations.
Lastly, science has a guideline which is a-mixture of humility and
arrogance. It is this: a scientific theory is never proven true; at best it is
seen to be more fruitful, consistent, comprehensive, and simple than
the alternative theories currently available. Thus Isaac Newton, of the
seventeenth century, was not shown to be wrong by Albert Einstein
of the twentieth century. Newton's research did not produce truth, it
produced ideas which were more fruitful, consistent, comprehensive,
and simple than any others at the time. Einstein's ideas fit this
description better. So scientists are humble enough not to assert that
they know the truth, and they are arrogant enough to claim that they
are closer to it than other people.

PHENOMENA
Observers of scientific work willnotice some characteristics which
are always present. Two are part of the method: abstraction and
observation. A third is very convincing. It is the ability to predict. A
fourth is the tool which is absolutely essential to life as we know it:
mathematics. Two more are results: cumulative knowledge and
demythologizing. The last is idea fertility.
First, scientists try to simplify their investigation, they try to
abstract the essential parts of the problem they are studying. Real life
is very complex; it has many changeable aspects. So the scientist tries
to immobilize as many changes as possible and allow variation only in
what he wants to investigate. One benefit of this isthat it makes the
principles considered context-independent, Different contexts have
many different variations, but ifall but a few variations are fixed, then
those remaining can be studied without reference to all the particular
circumstances. Some people may object that abstraction is avoiding
reality. Actually, abstraction makes reality comprehensible and
manageable. By studying many of the parts of a complex situation,
piece by piece, we can later put the results together and have a
chance of understanding the complex whole.
Another habit of scientists is their continual reference to observetion. They take measurements of things in the observable world, do a
lot of hard work, get results, go back to the world to recheck their
data, or check a prediction about the world implied by their work.
Whenever there is a conflict between the measured world and a
scientific explanation, the latter is the loser. New measurements may
invalidate an old understanding, but that is fine. It gives the scientists a
chance to improve on their predecessors. This use of experiment and
observation is what sets science apart. Science must constantly
measure up to the measurable world. This constant goading has
trained and produced a real competitor (science) for other ways for
thinking.
Mention was made of prediction. This is a really important test of
any system for understanding what is happening: the ability to predict
what will happen. Some astrologers make predictions, but different
astrologers are inconsistent. They make several predictions, but only
one, or none of them, comes true. They may try to smooth this over
with vagueness. NASA scientists are not vague. They announce
when the Shuttle will touch down, with an error of a minute or so.
Architectural engineers decide how much power willbe necessary to
heat a building, and they are proven right after construction. With
supercomputers, meteorologists make better weather forecasts than
were possible before the computer age. This proves that their
understanding of the atmosphere is good.
Mathematics is often seen in the work of physical scientists. It also
shows up in the work of biologists, sociologists, psychologists, and
economists. It is often a barrier to laymen interested in these subjects.
Why is mathematics so popular? First, it is a way of saving time. It is
quicker to write D = ST than to write distance equals speed multiplied
by time. Second, mathematics describes relationships between
things which are not addition or subtraction or multiplication or
division. Words describing these relationships are very cumbersome
and not always specific enough. One example is how bright a light
looks through a fog, if the distance of the light is changed. Multiple
Austin, Texas

uses of mathematical relationships can describe more complex

situations. Such combining of basic ideas is also found in music and
chess, and the results are delightful.
One more comment should be made about mathematics,' by
Galileo Galilei. In 1623 he wrote when physics was yet to be named,
and was called philosophy by default. "Philosophy is written in that
great book which ever lies before our gaze - I mean the universe but we cannot understand if we do not first learn the language and
grasp the symbols in which it is written. The book is written in the
mathematical language ... without the help of which it is impossible to
conceive a single word of it, and without which one wanders in vain
through a dark labyrinth."
Two effects of science should be noted. First, science is cumulative. Scientists study and learn and publish. Their work becomes
the starting point for other scientists. Younger scientists do not
repeat the work of older scientists. They accept it, if they have no
reason not to, and go on to make their own discoveries. Thus science
is constantly" building a stronger and more impervious edifice of
thought. Its foundations have been stressed and an army stands
ready to replace parts that may prove defective. Part of that army is
actually looking for a better foundation to support the work built by
the rest of the army. They are looking for a Grand Unified Theory
(GUT) which will combine gravity, electromagnetism, quantum
theory, and cosmology in a few equations. If they succeed, they will
not overturn present science. They willimprove it and make it more
convincing.
Second, science continually serves to demythologize life.It attacks
confusion, vagueness, and ignorance. It replaces myth with fact. No
failure in its efforts is accepted as final. Instead a probability of success
is quoted. Scientific progress may seem slow, but good scientific
answers are not quick answers.
People have interesting reactions to scientific demythologizing.
Books which debunk popular mysteries do not sell well. Also, there
was opposition to laboratory investigations of human sexuality by
Masters and Johnson in St. Louis. Some writers said they preferred
keeping mystery in the bedroom. Masters and Johnson ignored
them. In the past, historians have documented the attacks of the
pious on scientific explaining. Every mystery explained is one less
arena in which religion can be influential.
Another key aspect of science is its fertility for new ideas. Research
which produces results, but suggests no new investigations, is
considered dead and dull. Scientists with genius can develop new
ways of understanding which has implications in many areas: They
can find evidence which will start a whole new area of research.
Highest praise is reserved for research later labeled a "seminal
investigation." This distinguishes science from" dogmatic arenas of
thought, where new is not welcome and old is considered to be best.

SCIENTISM
Scientism is the belief that science can provide the answer to
almost any question and willprovide a "better" answer than any other
system of thought. Also, if science cannot provide an answer, the
question is not worth answering. Scientists are often accused of
practicing scientism. Detractors argue that there are areas of thought
where science is irrelevant. They assert that science never "intended"
to deal with some subjects. These are frequently religious subjects.
This assessment should be considered carefully, in view of the
power already demonstrated by science. Science takes things apart
and measures them and discovers new things to investigate. So
science works with simplifications of measurable things. It is clear that
science can provide indisputable help in matters of food, water,
shelter, and safety. But what about complex unmeasurable experiences that concern people? Psychology provides help with human
emotions. Psychology is steadily improving its explaining power with
regard to people. So what facet of human experience is not covered
by science? It is religion. Religion is like a cat, roaming thither and yon,
safe from that vicious dog, science, which is chained to the
measurable world.
Scientists cannot measure religion. They can only observe people
who claim to be religious. Alternatively they can observe people that a

November, 1983

Page 17

third party claims are religious. However, scientists rarely accept

someone else's judgment about what qualifies an individual for
inclusion in a group. Scientists are very much concerned about
allowing bias in their data. So, if asked, they would probably select
religious people from as broad a cross section of the human race as
possible. But what next? Asking people's opinions is rarely done,
because opinion is what is received. What people do is more reliable.
Behavior is measurable, but what can it be correlated with? We
cannot add or subtract doses of a god. We cannot place individuals in
hell, retrieve them and measure the effects. Perhaps a preacher could
anoint them with the "holy spirit." But he cannot use half of a holy
spirit and contrast the effect with a whole holy spirit.
So the fact that religion cannot be measured means that science
cannot prove or disprove an assertion that good people are religious.
Scientists could probably agree on what constructive behavior is and
then note that conflicting opinions are expressed by different people
who exhibit constructive behavior. Some are theists and some are
Atheists. Destructive behavior can also be recognized. Theists and
Atheists both make destructive personal attacks on their own kind.
The correlation between belief and behavior is ambiguous.
Fundamentalists use this situation to make self serving assertions.
They may say "If everyone were christian, we would have no
dishonesty." It is equally true that if everyone were ethical, there
would be no dishonesty. If everyone adhered to moslem law, there
would be no dishonesty. The fundamentalist is attempting to cast
favor on his religion by emphasizing a part of it. That part is a
standardized component found in many brands of religion.
So religion cannot be examined by science. And r"iigion'sadvocates enjoy the smug complacency of knowing their ideas are safely
out of reach of science. Yet they pay a price for this invulnerability. To
maintain it, they must not offer a religious opinion about a nonreligious subject, or they risk being contradicted by science. On the
other hand, some people willcling to religion in the face of scientific
expertise. A most prominent example involves the purity of the water
of the Ganges River in India. The river is obviously polluted by raw
sewage and half finished cremations. Yet hindu theology says the
river is sacred and pure. Many Indians are offended if you tell them
otherwise.
Ifreligion and science are mutually exclusive, what would happen if
religion were to vanish? Practically speaking, what would happen ifall
people who support themselves financially by propagating religion
were to change careers? Religious buildings would have no pastors or
priests or rabbis. Large religious charities would lose their leaders and
cease to function. To this writer, such changes would be no worse
than the effects of Chrysler Corporation and Lockheed Corporation
going out of business. Of course, the United States Congress saw fit
to prevent such changes. The point is that while a minority would
suffer, other dealers in the generic products of these corporations
would come forth. Similarly, public needs for education, health, and
welfare would be met by non-religious vendors. If not, perhaps the
need is not great enough.
Apparently the issue boils down to efficiency. If science cannot
investigate the validity of religion, it can compare the productivity of
the two groups. Is a religious group more efficient than a non-religious
group, or vice-versa? Such a study would be difficult because it
requires two groups with equal ability and motivation, one religious
and the other not. But if we consider the Americans to be christian
and the Japanese to be non-christian, then being non-christian is
more efficient.

interactions with his peers. He is.eager to talk to people working on

research problems related to his own. He can gain information from
them and enjoy helping them. Both directions promote progress in his
field of work.
A researcher may consider himself to be unconventional, to have
many interests, and to be popular. But his unconventionality and
interests are in the form of ideas. He may like unusual music or
literature, or contribute to strange causes. He may be well liked
among a small group of professional friends. A layman may see
conventional clothes, constant work, and few friends. He cannot see
the range of ideas in the scientist, or appreciate his preference for
quality over quantity in friends. The conventional clothes and
constant work are the result of enjoying thinking about work more
than enjoying thinking about clothes.
Scientists are often thought of as being cut off from the realities of
the real world. This is because scientists who receive media coverage
are successful enough to have no financial or political insecurities.
They spend a lot of time thinking about rare abstract problems, which
is what they are paid to do. But their personal lives have problems like
the lives of everyone else.
It is common for scientists who make a splash in the media to get
letters from the lay public. Similarly, famous observatories, like Mt.
Palomar, get letters. Many of these letters are from people whose
chief interest is in gaining attention. They often want opinions on
some speculative ideas. The more presumptuous assume a scientist
will want to comment.
Lay people sometimes form negative opinions of scientists who are
not interested in their ideas. But science is like any field of human
endeavor where great achievement is possible. Winners of nationally
televised foot races are not likely to be interested in who wins local
races. U.S. Senators are not likely to be interested in who is elected to
the city council. The time of high achievers is limited, and there are
thousands of lesser achievers wanting attention. A high achiever
understandably chooses to apply his attention to ideas produced by
his peers. There are fewer of them and there is more likelihood of
quality from them.
Scientists vary in how much science affects their personalities and
habits. Some are overweight and smoke; others are long distance
runners. Some are church goers, and some are Atheists. The
churchgoers usually have strong family ties. The ability to do credible
science is no guarantee of desire to protect physical, mental, or
financial health. Personal values and emotional needs have a limited
correlation with talent.
Most scientists knew by the time they finished high school that they
would try to become scientists. They found mathematics and intense
concentration easy for them. They very much enjoyed learning how
things work. They were rarely among the better athletes and rarely
elected to be leaders of people. So they chose to do the same thing the
prettiest girls in their class did: exploit the superior talent they were
born with. For the young science enthusiast, that means years of
arduous training and gratificationdeferral.It means risking preparing
for a career in which there willbe a shortage of jobs. But it does have
the advantage of not failing in mature years, as athletic prowess and
beauty do. A scientist is not guaranteed a job. But his ability with
words, numbers, and abstractions makes him more employable than
many.

SCIENTISTS
Now that we have some understanding of science, it is relevant to
consider the nature of the few people who are able to make a living
doing science. Their views of themselves and the views of the lay
public of them are not the same. Scientists are far more diverse than
the narrow confines of their disciplines would suggest. Their professionallife is no guarantee of what their personal lives are like.
Much of the difference in views of scientists is due to their work
environment. A researcher may consider him/herself sociable,
approachable, and informative. He thinks this way in terms of his
Page 18

November, 1983

RECOMMENDED READING
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, by Andrew Dickson White, currently printed by Peter Smith
Publishers in Magnolia, Massachusetts. This is a classic by the first
president of Cornell University. It documents the opposition of
organized religion to the promotion of human happiness prior to
1895. It makes unmistakably clear the fact that our standard of living
today is owed to the victory of science over theology. ~

The American Atheist

Jack Catron

PSYCHOLOGY TODAY
Nonsense, Dr-ivel, Babble, and Slobber
To become a perfect person, it is currently the fashion to get in
touch with your feelings. It is also imperative that you scream,
encounter, est, meditate, follow your stars, lay back, let it allhang out,
and desensitize yourself. And on top of it all, you had better keep up
with the endless flow of how-to books that talk down to us like we
were a pack of derelicts.
Two current best sellers topping all the lists are: Marriage - A
Solution to the Divorce Problem by Lassativo Purgante, M.D., the
Howard Cosell of the couch set, who should have hung it up long ago
and preserved what's left of his memory. The other one is something
called All of a Sudden - The Handbook of Social Spontaneity by
Milton Drinnen, Ph.D., an over-the-hill psychotherapist whose first
loyalty was always to his pocketbook.
It is a disservice to hand people who are trapped in a web of
inappropriate behavior a nonsensical load of "shoulds" to help them
to emotional health and happiness. Behavioral problems are not
symptomatic of anything, but are learned responses to specific,
sometimes generalized, stimuli. There are other factors that play
important roles, such as personality, life crises, and genetic endowment, but for the most part, what was once learned can be unlearned.
Our behavior obeys laws, like all else in the universe, and the only way
to change it is to change our controlling environment. To believe
otherwise is to believe in magic.
One of the more celebrated books around these days, which I have
had the misfortune to read, is entitled Ventilating Your Way to
Mental Health by Myron Grepser, Ph.D., an obtuse treatise based on
a flimsy premise.

internal computer, makes decisions, thinks constructively, creates

profound newspaper pieces, probes the secrets of the universe, and
shrewdly contemplates himself in the process.
We cannot simply be motivated: environments must be designed in
which we can acquire behavior useful to ourselves and our society.
To rid ourselves of corruption in government, it is the conditions
which give rise to Watergates that must be changed, not the
Watergaters. What should be manipulated is the world in which
nations make war; it is a waste of time to talk about strategic arms
limitations.
Elliptical explanations, heavily laden with abstruse language such
as "acute depression," "paranoid depression," and "depressive
stupor" do nothing to change the environment of which we are the
product, nor are books that offer simplistic formulas any more
helpful.
It's high time that the hacks and quacks, like the elephants of fable,
carted their books off to some jungle graveyard and buried them.
Their methods are vague, their treatments are long-drawn-out and
expensive, and more often than not their results are banal and
unimpressive.
I repeat that we are all products of our environment and our genetic
endowment. To treat a person in an office for an hour and return him
to that same environment accomplishes little. Curiously, sometimes
the techniques of psychotherapy do come off luckily, but when they
work they work for other than the reasons given. The technique
gropes because its premise is fallacious; there are no interminably
stored experiences of our childhood inside of us, and no mysterious

"We are simply changed by experience, and the only way to change lis again is by new
experience. "
Dr. Grepser informs us, in language easily understood by any
non-professional, that most Americans are suffering from "a manicdepressive psychosis caused by a pseudopsychoanalytical tangential
mania, mainly of the endogenous type, in contrast to the exogenous,
which cannot be mediated, either in its anatomical integrity or in its
pathological alterations. This view is the one generally prevalent."
Confusing? Wouldn't it be wonderful to kick Dr. Motormouth right
square in his behind, Charlie Chaplin style? In the 16th century,
Erasmus called lawyers "a learned class of ignorant men;" the
reaction of the non-scientific public to the mystique of psychological
jargon is similar to its awe of legal language. Such a reaction is based
on the primitive assumption that naming reifies the named, that
words convert hypothetical abstractions into concrete realities.
Years ago scientists assumed that all life was the result of
spontaneous generation. Paul Muni, or Louis Pasteur, whomever you
prefer, demonstrated that the chemical fermentation of buttermilk
was caused by minute organisms present in the atmosphere and not
spontaneously generated in the liquid.
Today the spontaneous generation theory is considered absurd as
it should be, yet the idea of the spontaneous generation of behavior is
still widely held. The use of such terms as "self-motivation," "looking
out for Number 1," and "taking charge of your life" presumes that we
are autonomous and spontaneously-driven, steered through life by a
little man peeping out of our eyeballs who frantically operates our
Austin, Texas

past conflicts buried there to surface later. We are simply changed by

experience, and the only way to change us again is by new
experience.
Applied science and technology are transforming the world. The
day of shoddy goods, poverty, tension, and their attendant behavioral
problems is coming to a dose, while our self-styled "therapists"
waddle about aimlessly, frantically grabbing all they can in the
hysterical process of maintaining themselves professionally and
physically.
Admittedly, the scientific method has produced weapons of
inordinate deadliness. But more dangerous are the hungry, unhappy
80% of the earth's population, who are not particularly concerned
with getting in touch with their feelings and letting it all hang out. Our
scientists should assign the highest priority to solving that problem.
For only those whose guts are well fed can afford the luxury of
ventilating their way to mental health and taking the first faltering
steps toward social spontaneity.
Jack Catron is a behavioral scientist and the author of Is There
Intelligent Life on Earth? He is presently involved in the design of
future cities. ~
.

November, 1983

Page 19

JONESTOWN

REMEMBERED

1978-1983

THE LESSON OF JONESTOWN

Sadly, this month is the 5th anniversary of the infamous, religioninduced, mass drug suicide, commonly known as the Jonestown
Tragedy. It occurred in Jonestown, Guyana, South America, on
November 18th, 1978 when Jim Jones, the "father" of the People's
Temple, induced or coerced his followers to drink Kool-Aid laced with
cyanide. Paradoxically, many thought the colony was "an idea whose
time had come." It was hailed by many at its inception who
idealistically believed that this "paradise" was created to prove true
socialism; yet those who believed that a truly restructured social and
political system could exist (but, of course, not in the United States)
never dreamed that this religious "utopia" would culminate in a most
ruinous and heinous manner.
Typically, as with most events of social significance and import in
our era, specifically those of an adverse nature, Americans were
insulated from the tragic event at Jonestown. It was merely a media
event, another horror on the screen. The mass suicide took place on
a27,000 acre settlement, surrounded by thickly vegetated jungle, 150
miles from Georgetown, the capital of Guyana - accessible only by
airplane or boat, with no communication with the outside world
except by shortwave radio. It was just another "incident" in South
America, quite distant from our problems in the United States (i.e.
inflation, unemployment, taxation, energy).
'.
"Emancipating" us from our sense of social responsibility, the
victims were predominantly Black and of lower socio-economic
stratas of our society. They were social rejects. With our typical
attitude towards death ("predestination," "god's will,"etc.), countless
Americans reacted as they have been programmed to react, i.e.
"That's horrible. But it's a cult. It's a good thing we're good normal
christians."
There were in fact, however, several groups of Americans who
were either fortunate or unfortunate (depending on how one looks at
it) in having been selected to clear the Jonestown settlement of all the
dead victims of the Guyanan experiment and the ideology of their
fanatical leader.
One of those groups selected was a batallion size unit from one of
our CONUS Army military posts, with accompanying units of military
. advisers, of which Iwas a member. Technically, this group of advisers

A QUICK REVIEW
here is possibly no better expose of
the methodology of allchurches than
that given by a member (Deanna
Mertle, alias Jeannie Mills) of Jim Jones'
church in her book Six Years with God.
"We were writing letters opposing G.
Harrold Carswell's nomination to the Supreme Court. Jim said that Carswell shouldn't have the post, so he set a goal of 50,000
letters for our church members to write and
mail. The entire church membership was
being asked to write twenty letters a day for
this endeavor. Everyone was instructed to
use Christian (which meant false) names on
their letters. The instruction sheet given to
every member said, 'You can write several
letters to each legislator alternating your
handwriting with printing, typewriting, writing backhand, using different stationery,
etc. This way every politician willthink he is
hearing from hundreds or even thousands
of people.'
"I put the stamps on my fifty letters and
left them unsealed so they could be check-

Page 20

was trained to supervise an operation of this type. In reality, they were

along as part of a training mission or exercise - to assist and observe.
(In any nuclear war the disposal of the mass dead would be a critical
necessity.) Assist and observe they did. This realistic exercise all too
quickly brought home the fact that when one trains and trains, time
and time again that exercise does in fact prepare one psychologically
for war, for natural (geological and climatic) and man-made disasters,
such as Jonestown.
It can be dehumanizing; but to see, feel, breathe, and even taste the
massacre not only revolted but reaffirmed as well, to the Atheist, that
the so-called "spiritual world" is the product of a mind filled with fear.
The human mind, preoccupied with fear, compounded with superstition, anxiety and guilt, trained to feel inadequate and to think
irrationally, cannot function in a reasonable manner. This was all too
obvious in Jonestown. "Father" Jones realized this. Other religions
exist to achieve the same sort of control over their adherents but use
different means. Jones' ideology was self-defeating and resulted in
self-destruction. For those of us who had the cleanup job, it was
simply a clear lesson of how very warped "reasoning" can become.
There were bodies of young and old alike lying in large masses,
families lying together, their docility in the face of death quite evident.
Most of them may not have been physically forced to drink the
cyanide-based Kool-Aid, but like blind sheep, psychologically
drugged, they followed one after another to their death. Fortunately
(if that can be said about induced death), it was all over in five to ten
minutes.
Because over 1,200 people died at Jonestown, including "Father"
Jones, because it happened in another country, because the victims
were predominantly Black, poor, and illiterate, because the People's
Temple was a" cult" and not a "religion" whose leader was an insane
man who believed he had "special powers," most Americans were,
and continue to be, desensitized to the whole affair. Their fascination
was in watching the drama unfold like just another horror story on
TV.
It could never happen "here" anyway.

ed. I knew that the boxes of letters gathered

at the weekend meeting would be sent all
over the United States to be mailed from
different post offices so it would appear the
whole country was opposed to Carswell's
nomination. It was difficult for me to justify
this practice, so I asked Lind. She assured
me that it wasn't illegal. 'We only do this
because so many people outside of the
church are too lazy to write even though
they feel as we do. We are actually writing
their letters for them.' ...
"That evening the entire church heard the
results of our long hours of letter writing.
Someone brought a radio in so we could
hear the announcement that was being
repeated every hour. 'All the previous polls
had indicated that Carswell would be confirmed, but at the last minute many of the
legislators changed their votes due to the
flood of mail they received from all over the
United States. Carswell has been defeated.'
Now we could understand why thousands
of our letters had been mailed from other
states. No one could possibly know they all
November, 1983

Dan McAleavy

originated in the tiny hamlet called Redwood

Valley. The meeting that evening was a
celebration. Jim's wisdom and ability to
sway politics had been proved in a powerful
demonstration that no one could dispute."
"Jim," of course, was the rev. James W.
Jones, pastor of the People's Temple of the
Disciples of Christ, in Redwood Valley, CA,
a member church of the Disciples of Christ
Christian Church. And, just 15 months after
the Jonestown murders, Jeannie Mills, the
author of Six Years with God, and her
husband, AI, were shot to death, execution
style, in their Berkeley, CA, home.
Jim Jones, a small-town (Indiana) but
ambitious, religious pentacostal, had accepted the position of student pastor in a
methodist church in 1952. However his
fascination with the pentacostals led him to
develop a racially integrated church of his
own, a mixed breed of methodist religion
and pentacostal ferver. He prospered in his
endeavor, which included, beginning in
1960, free soup kitchens for the poor and
the faithful.
The American Atheist

JONESTOWN

REMEMBERED

He learned from everyone he touched father Divine, the muslims, remnants of

Aimee Semple McPherson's church. Soon
he was encouraging the members of his
congregation to adopt children, particularly
young orphans of war-torn Korea. But his
idea of integration of all races did not sit well
in Indiana and after some frighteningexperiences he sought to move his church elsewhere. He explored the idea of Brazil where
he exiled himself for two years. But in 1965
he moved his congregation to Redwood
Valley in northern California. By 1971 he
had enough money to purchase radio time
for his message. His church was flourishing.
In September, 1972 he had temples in both
Los Angeles and San Francisco. His teaching mission became "a model of liberalism
and love." Politicians flocked to him.
But, as he liberalized his program to
include his own variety of socialism and nonconstrained sexual activity, difficulties began to surface in his church. Soon, he again
felt a need to escape and, as always, this was
to a zone which had been indicated as within
such an airwind pattern that it would escape
the radioactive fall-out of a nuclear war.
British Guiana was feeling the first stirrings for independence. In 1966that independence was declared and in 1968 the socialist
party swept the elections. On February 23,
1970 the country assumed the name of the
Cooperative Republic of Guyana. Jim Jones
applied for a lease of 25,000 acres of land in
1976. In 1978 his church was granted a lease
of 3,000 acres, rental being 25 an acre for
the first five years, with a minimum investmentof$l millionGuyanese ($400,000 U.S.)
during the first two years. And, Jim Jones'
people began to move as more and more
difficulties accrued for him in the states.
Probably the root cause was parents who
had left the church seeking to regain their
children who stayed. Public demonstrations. recriminations one against the other.
law suits, investigations plagued him. And
then, Leo Ryan, aU .S. congressman, decided to flyto Jonestown In Guyana and see for
himself ifpeople were retained in the church
against their will, as parents and relatives
complained.
Jim Jones thrust for life and security was
legendary, but following a confrontation
with the Congressmen, a shoot out at the
landing field and the death of both Ryan and
newsmen by his gunmen, Jones ordered a
mass killing-suicide. With Grape Flavor Aid,
laced with potassium cyanide, the deed was
done. Parents first killed their children who
died convulsed and vomiting. When it was
over in just a few short hours, Jim Jones'
congregation was dead, one thousand two
hundred men, women and children. Religion
had added yet another significant incident to
the history of humankind. And, no one,
anywhere, learned a lesson.
Austin, Texas

19781983

INSANITY AS A SACRAMENT
Edited and reprinted from the January, 1979 issue of American Atheist magazine

What in god's name goes on in America?

Shoot your wife, killyour child by refusing
medical treatment for him or her, handle
poisonous snakes so as to die from the
venom, "shun" a husband out of his home,
beat children in correctional institutions,
refuse blood transfusions and watch your
father die, force a woman to go through a
dangerous pregnancy and perhaps ultimate
death, permit a horribly deformed monster
to be born rather than to abort when the
fetus is known to have been harmed by
drugs or disease, blow your brains out with
mind-altering drugs, pretend to heal by
laying on of hands, rape the pocketbooks of
the misguided or the stupid, send fellow
humans into glossolalia schizoid episodes,
lay on burdens of guilt and anxiety, lead
1,200 or more persons into a mass involuntary suicide to meet in a promised
heaven "up there," start a religious war as in
Iran/Iraq, christians and moslems in Lebanon, catholics and protestants in Ireland,
or establish a religious fascist state as in the
Philippines, Iran or Israel. .
It is all kosher. All of it is acceptable ifyou
simply say that you are doing it for" god." Be
a "Son of Sam" and say that Jesus moved
you. Keep your dead mother in a freezer
and announce that the lord willed you to do
it. Flagellate yourself. Cut off a hand if it
offends thee. Pluck out an eye. Even if you
are the president of the United States, bow
your head and admit, ashamedly, that you
have "lusted in your heart," or endorse the
most fanatical religious fundamentalism and
attempt to alter the Constitution to make it
the law of the land.
Anything antihuman goes. Say your
crime was done for the lord and you have
your defense.
The United States government does
anything it can do for the zanies who drape
their neuroses in religious vestments.
Do you want free government land?
Claim you are a church and you have it.
Want reduced air fares on your trips? Just
say that you're a minister. Want to skip
paying your income tax, or inheritance tax,
or ad valorem taxes? Simply claim that you
are a church.
Want to start a con game selling pieces of
blessed cloth? Want free or cheap air time to
propagandize your insanities? You need
only proclaim yourself a church and the
treasury doors of our state, local and federal
governments willopen to you.
Want to receive a letter of recommendation from governors, the president, or from
November, 1983

the Education Secretary of the United

States? You need only drape your sickness
with the sanctity of religion and you willhave
your wish. Want to have power over
people? Claim that god speaks to you. Or
even to have sick fools end their lives at your
command? Say the bible tells you so.
Everywhere the insanity is sacrosanct.
Eat this wafer. It is the flesh of christ.
Drink this wine, for it is the blood of Jesus. Is
that any less insane than Guyana?
Get down on your knees and confess you
have had a bad thought: "Oh, father, I have
sinned!" Is that any less insane than Guyana?
Never take your blessed, moldy underwear off, for the church of jesus christ of
latter day saints wills it. Is that any less
insane than Guyana?
Kill a commie for christ! Is that any less
insane than Guyana?
Dancing is sinful, say the berserk baptists.
Is that any less insane than Guyana?
Progress is anathema, so damn education, say the amish. Is that any less insane
than Guyana?
, Burn down the movie houses, and the
innocent people in them, insist the moslems.
Is that any less insane than Guyana?
Religion has caused more misery to all of
mankind in every era of history than any
other idea. It is time the zanies were
stopped.
"Oh, Jim Jones and his followers were
just 'cultists,' " the religionists scoff paranoically.
But the presbyterians are a cult. The
methodists are a cult. Certainly the roman
catholic church is but a cult gone corporate
with a glut of bug-eyed adherents. The
lutherans are a cult, ad infinitum.
They are all cults of the irrational the
bizarre, the insane, the sado-masochistic.
They would reach out however they could
to destroy - and historically they have
done so.
Reading about Jim Jones, I can see each
minister in the United States in the inner
recesses of his mind insisting, "Oh, if only I
had that power! Oh, ifonly I could make my
congregation listen to me like that!"
Jim Jones was not a horror - he is a
model for others of similar "calling" to
emulate. He is the ultimate, the epitome, the
desired end of every minister. Who does not
yet know this? Who is kidding whom?
What in god's name is going on in
America?

Page 21

Stephen Roane

ISLAM

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE ALL-MERCIFUL!

Islamic fundamentalism has come to power in a number of

countries: iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya. It is the proclaimed intention of
the governments of these countries to rule in accordance with islamic
original doctrine as embodied in the Koran. It therefore becomes
important to study islam and find out what it is all about.
The first item to put to rest is the oft repeated statement by muslim
spokesmen that "islam is not simply a religion like the others, but an
all-encompassing way of lifewhich cannot be judged by the standards
we apply to other faiths." Islam is a religion like the others somewhat
different in doctrine but with sacred writings, mandated and proscribed actions, etc.1t only becomes a "way of life"when its tenets are
enforced by an "islamic government." In Egypt, for example, where
drinking a bottle of beer willearn you nothing worse than a scolding
from the local mullah, it is simply a religion ..Only in Iran or other
fundamentalist countries where drinking the beer earns you a flogging
does islam become a "way of life."
The place to begin the study of islam is, of course, the Koran.
Fortunately, it is readily available in English translation. Oelving
through it is something of a chore, because from a literary point of
view it is somewhat boring. (This may be the fault of the translation.) It
is not burdened with conditional modes or subjunctive moods. It is
not Hamlet-like "sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought." It does
not see different sides to a question. It is easy enough to pick out
passages horrendous to modern ears. For example, there is this
passage in Sura #5, "And the thief, cut off the hands as a punishment
exemplary of god." Also, death is prescribed for adulteresses,
(although not for adulterers) in the same Sura. Nor does the Koran'
come out exactly for the fqual Rights Amendment, Sura #4 states
"Men are managers of the affairs of women. For that, god has
preferred one of them over the other. Righteous women are therefore
obedient, and those that you fear may be rebellious, admonish,
banish them to their couches, and beat them."
Well, all this is perhaps playing dirty pool. The Koran is centuries
old. Any such ancient document will contain items offensive to
modern ears. And a muslim might well say "after all, it was not we who
showed implements of torture to the foremost scientist of his time in
order to convince him that the sun revolved around the earth; it was
not we who burned people at the stake for minor .theological
differences that nobody else even understood; it was not we who -."
Yes, yes, but all that was a long time ago. Besides, the muslims were
not exactly angels either, as the Armenians might remark. The point
Page 22

November, 1983

is that modern man with modern thought has left that sort of thing far
behind. We no longer burn people at the stake, at least not for
religious reasons. Even the "catholics" and "protestants" of northern
Ireland are not killingeach other on theological grounds. They are not
really concerned with the infallibilityof the pope, or the virginity of the
virgin Mary, but with real economic and political questions. The old
writings would be of historical interest only, except for the attitude of
all the fundamentalists - muslims, christians and jews - who
seriously propose to govern in accordance with their tenets. It is in
that light that they must be studied.
The Koran only sets forth general principles. The nuts and bolts of
islamic law are set forth in a document known as the Shariah which is
a compendium of opinions and interpretations of muslim scholars and
religious committees over the centuries. It bears about the same
relationship to the Koran as the Talmud does to the Torah in judaism,
or the church council decisions to the gospels in christianity. Finding
the Shariah translated into English is no easy task. It is not on the
best -seller list. I started off by looking under "islam" in the Manhattan
telephone directory. Sure enough, I found an islamic society listed on
Riverside Drive. The local imam of the society was very helpful and
was able to rattle off several English versions of the Shariah, or digests
of it. One of them, A Digest of Moohumudan Law by Neil Baillie,
MRAS published in Lahore, I was able to procure, and is the basis for
my understanding of islamic law. Paradoxically, I owe this to the
British raj.1t appears that like all successful empires, the British had a
policy of leaving the customs of their colonials alone as long as they
accepted British overlordship. Ifyou paid your taxes and honored the
queen, you could do your praying, marrying and dying as you had
always done. But this presented a problem for British judges assigned
to muslim areas of India. They had to enforce islamic law between
muslims, but they had no guidelines for this. The work by Baillie was
meant to provide this and indeed became the guide book on islamic
law for the British in India.
The first question to be considered is the islamic attitude toward
non-rnuslirns. It is not particularly tolerant. (Islam was a militant,
evangelistic religion.) The Koran in Sura #9 instructs believers to "slay
the idolators wherever you find them, and take them, and confine
them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush." In the same
Sura it is instructed to "fight such men as practice not the religion of
truth, until they pay the tribute, and have been humbled." The
Shariah codifies this. It divides the world into two spheres, the "Oar ul
Islam," or sphere of islam, and the "Oar ul Hurb," or sphere of enmity.
Residents of the "Oar ul Hurb" are known as "Hurbies," or enemies. If
apprehended within the "Oar ul Islam" they are to be slain or
enslaved. Only if they have what is considered legitimate business in
the "Oar ul Islam" are they given permission to come, and are granted
a "mustamin," or protection, during their stay by the authorities. The
mustamin is supposed to last only as long as it takes the infidel to
conclude his business but as a general rule should not last longer than
1 year. The mustamin may be withdrawn at any time. If it is so
withdrawn, the subject must leave promptly or suffer the fate of a
Hurbie.
Non-muslim residents of the "Oar ul Islam" are considered to fall
into two groups. "People of the book" (i.e. christians, jews, and - in
Iran - zoroastrians) are considered to hold beliefs precursive of
islam (Jesus and Abraham are both considered as prophets by the
Koran, inferior only to Mohammed.) All others are not recognized as
religions at all, but as idolators with no rights in an islamic state.
Members of the first group can, by the payment of a special head tax,
as token of their submission to islam, be considered as "zimmies"
The American Atheist

(from the word zimmut; submission). Zimmies are free to practice

their own religions without interference.
They are not subject to
muslim religious laws such as abstinence from pork or alcohol, or the
observance of fast days. Their own religious leaders are given some
authority over them and generally represent them in relations with
the state. They are to be represented (in minor numbers) in legislative
bodies. On the other hand, the Shariah subjects them to a number of
disabilities. They may not testify as witnesses against muslims in a
court of law. They cannot inherit from a muslim, although a muslim
can inherit from them. A zimmie man cannot marry a muslim woman,
although the reverse is permitted. This flows from the concept of men
as managers of the affairs of women. Avzimmie man married to a
muslim woman would make a non-muslim manager of the affairs of a
muslim, an unthinkable situation. Civil servants, army officers, and
government officials must, of course, be muslims. Zimmies might be
called 1Yz-class citizens.
Members of non-muslim religions other than christian, jewish, or
zoroastrian are the true second class citizens. They are not recognized as being religions at all, but are lumped together and treated as a
group. They are not considered as legitimate members of society at all
but are fit subjects for massacres on suitable religious or national
festivals.

"Muslims who renounce islam, and thus

become apostates, are considered to be legally
dead. Their heirs inherit their property, and
their wives are considered as widows."
Muslims who renounce islam, and thus become apostates,
are
considered to be legally dead. Their heirs inherit their property, and
their wives are considered as widows. If caught in an islamic country
they would also become physically dead. This, however, is largely a
theoretical occurrence as few would be so dumb as to renounce islam
in a fundamentalist islamic state.
Of perhaps more concern is the case of those millions of nominal
muslims who take their religion as most of us take ours - not too
seriously. In an "islamic state" where the state enforces islamic law, all
the minutiae of religious practice is enforced on these nominal
muslims, including abstention from pork or alcohol, observance of
fast days, etc. An army of mullahs, mother hub bards in turbans, their
Shariahs clutched in their hands, go about harassing the population
with demands for conformance with religious law. Flogging is usually
available to them as an ultimate weapon. Of course, there are many
predominantly
muslim countries where church and state are kept
separate, and state force is not available to the mullahs, who cannot
go beyond preaching.
What of that half of the human race who do not happen to be men?
We have already quoted from the Koran on admonishing, banishing or
beating rebellious wives. As most of us know, admonishment
is not
very effectual with a rebellious wife. Banishment of a wife to her couch
is all very well for the rich man with four wives, but for the poor man
who can afford but one, it smacks a little of biting one's nose to spite
one's face. This leaves only beating. But this practice has fallen into
some disrepute among modern minded people. It is even againsrthe
law in several secular states. The Shariah, however, codifies the
relations between the sexes in much greater detail. Sexual relationships are legal only between a man and his wives or his slaves. Sexual
intercourse outside of these bonds is illegal and may be punished by
flogging in the case of men or unmarried women and stoning to death
in the case of married women.
In those muslim areas under control of the British this was
somewhat
modified. The British empire was not a beneficent
institution, and I feel uncomfortable appearing to justify it, but in spite
of their disinclination to interfere in the affairs of their colonials when
their own interests were not involved, flogging, stoning, cutting off of
hands, and slavery were a bit too much for them, so they prohibited
these customs. It goes without saying that they are also outlawed in
secular states with predominantly muslim populations.
Austin, Texas

If a man wishes to dissolve a marriage, no divorce of his wife is

required. It is called "renunciation."
He simply utters the required
words, and he is free of her. A woman, on the other hand, must apply
to the courts for a divorce and must produce proof of sufficient cause,
such as apostasy of the husband from islam. There is, of course, no
community property law, or alimony payments, or the like, but the
separated wife's family is entitled to the return of dowry under most
circumstances.
Small children are considered as requiring their mothers care, but
boys must be returned to their father's custody, or that of his family,
at the age of seven. Girls must be returned at the age of puberty.
The husband must maintain his wife or wives. (He may have a
maximum of four.) Wives owe obedience to their husbands. This
includes acceptance
of her husband's sexual advances anytime he
makes them. Arraying herself in such a way as to deliberately seem
unattractive to him is also considered a form of rebellion. The courts
have ruled that a husband cannot forbid his wife from going to the
mosque or from going to visit her sick parents, but he can and should
forbid her from going on frivolous errands.
When may a husband beat his wife? The Shariah is quite specific.
He may not beat her merely for a surly or rebellious attitude but only
for disobedience
of a specific command, for example, a disobeyed
prohibition
against going out. Even then the beating must be
administered "without great effusion of blood."
A husband has the obligation of treating all his wives Equally. No
favoritism is to be shown. This also applies to spending an Equal
number of nights with each wife. An important case before an islamic
court was tried when a husband spending the night with a wife in her
due turn slipped out for a while to visit another wife whom he
obviously preferred (no snickering, please). The wife went to court,
claiming that the night could not therefore be considered "hers" and
that she should be compensated
with a substitute night. The court
ruled that a husband's islamic obligation was to spend the night with
the wife. What he did or did not do during the night was no business of
- the court (or of allah). Also, short absences on his part did not
invalidate the night as far as the wife was concerned. He might have
slipped out for a smoke.
Feminists may disagree with the decision of the court. More
seriously, it is amazing that many militant women who insist on
women's rights to enter male locker rooms after a professional
athletic event will accept the above described treatment of women on
the grounds that "after all, it is a different culture and a way of life, and
we cannot dictate our own values to them." Is not oppression
oppression, no matter what the "way of life"?
Islam is a religion very much into private property, as might be
expected, since it originated with the merchant class. The Shariah is
full of lengthy codes regarding wills and inheritances,
sales and
contracts, and that pinnacle of private property - slavery (although
there is no evidence that slavery is now widespread in any islamic
country). I mention the strong islamic affinity for private property to
emphasize that talk of "islamic socialism" is unrealistic. Islam and
socialism are a contradiction
in terms.
The point, of course, is not to ridicule islam, tempting though this
might be. The point is that in a society where people are free to believe
or disbelieve, or believe in part, and disbelieve in part, the beliefs and
sacred writings are not that important.
It is only where the state
power is used to force conformity to religious doctrine (in this case
islam) that the result is tyrannous. That is why our country's founders
went to such pains to separate church and state. It was to prevent this
particular type of tyranny. And what is good for us in this regard is
good for Libyans or Saudis or Iranians, no matter what the "way of
life." As a matter of fact, as previously noted, many states with an
overwhelming muslim population have made this separation. They
are governed not by the Koran or the Shariah, but by a civil code.
These codes are not always what we (or Thomas Jefferson) would
consider ideal. Many of them fall far short of receiving endorsement
by civil liberties proponents.
But they do represent an effort to come
to terms with 20th century problems and conditions rather than to
govern by centuries-old religious writings. After all, even allah must
change with the times. ~

November,

1983

Page 2:3

John Burton

THE VIEWPOINT OF A PEACE ACTIVIST

CONCERNING ISRAEL'S FOREIGN POLICIES

In outlining how Israel's foreign policies are adverse to world peace,

I realize that the Arabs also merit criticism. But it is Israel which the
U.S. can influence by means of using our aid as a lever as we do
elsewhere in the world. By our consistent support of Israel in the
United Nations and by supplying it with financial and military aid, the
U.S. has to bear a degree of responsibility for its actions.
The American jewish community has a most honorable history in
good causes such as in civilrights and in the Vietnam affair. However,
devoted peace activists of independent minds should weigh all the
facts carefully before joining in the popular support of Israel. The
following are some aspects that we should be considering in this
assessment:
1. Religion as a Divisive Factor
Begin's claim to the West Bank as a biblical heritage for the jews is
unique in modern days. Israel's stated intention to permanently
occupy East Jerusalem, which it seized in 1967, is absolutely unacceptable to the moslem leaders such as those of Saudi Arabia; this
issue alone makes peace in the Mideast almost impossible.
A biblical reference to the granting to the jews of the land between
the Nile and the Euphrates has at times been supported by jewish
leaders. This must constitute a worry to the five Arab nations,
portions of whose territories lie within this area.
The second class of non-jaws in Israel and in the occupied
territories which Israel clearly plans to annex will continue as a
festering sore. Most peace workers believe that we will never have
secure peace'until we also have justice for all of humanity. Justice for
all peoples cannot be achieved with Begin's concept of the "chosen'
people" whose self-interest justifies any and all misdeeds.
2. Aggravation of Tensions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
In spite of the public's support for the idea of a Nuclear Freeze, it
has become clear that tensions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
are preventing a freeze from being achieved. Ground Zero has now
joined the ranks of those of us who believe that we willnot achieve the
Nuclear Freeze or any really worthwhile control or reduction of
nuclear weaponry until there has first been established a better
relationship between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. We have yet to
answer the question of what form this relationship might take and
how we might propose to achieve it, but there is no question that
exaggerated rhetoric against the U.S.S.R. is a barrier to progress in
this direction.
Page 24

Begin has joined the Pentagon and the Jerry Falwell evangelists in
promoting this hard-line theme with with the American public. He has
seen the political gains to Israel if he can sell Americans on the belief
that Israel is our mainstay in preventing the U.S.S.R. from taking over
in the Mideast and disrupting this source of petroleum. Of course, this
is contrary to the fact that the U.S.S.R. once showed an even-handed
attitude in the Mideast as when it voted in the U.N. for the
establishment of the state of Israel. But the historical record is ignored
by Begin when he astutely perceives the gains he will make in U.S.
arms and money if he can help to keep up the tensions between the
U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
3. The Destructive Effect on the U.N. Role in Keeping the
Peace
Israel's supporters have made much of the violent rhetoric in the
U.N. General Assembly against zionism and Israel. But peace

"A biblical reference to the granting to the

jews of the land between the Nile and the
Euphrates has at times been supported by
jewish leaders. This must constitute a worry to
the five Arab nations, portions of whose territories lie within this area."
activists must bear in mind that the United Nations Charter placed
the U.N. peacekeeping function in the hands of the U.N. Security
Council, not in the General Assembly.
All nations which signed the U.N. Charter in so doing pledged
themselves to respect the sovereign rights of other nations and to
refrain from aggression against other nations. By repeatedly violating
the non-aggression provisions of the U.N. Charter, Israel has
perpetuated the bad examples of the U.S.S.R. and of the U.S. in this
respect. By its flouting of the U.N. Security Council resolutions, it has
further weakened that body in its intended function in preventing and
penalizing illegal aggressions.
Using the United Nations' definition of "aggression," Israel was
clearly the aggressor in the 1967 war, the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear
reactor, and in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The numerous U.N.
Security Council resolutions flouted by Israel include Res. 242 of

November, 1983

The American Atheist

5. Israel's Role as a Merchant of Death

Israel has become increasingly allied with the Pentagon and
1967, which the U.S. has often affirmed as being an essential aspect of
munitions makers in the development and proliferation of new
a comprehensive peace settlement. Begin has repeatedly stated that
weaponry. By promoting the fear of the U.S.S.R., Israel gives support
Israel willnever give back the occupied territories as called for in this
to the Pentagon's demands for bigger military budgets. Israel serves
resolution.
as a useful proving ground for battlefield trials of new Pentagon
Israel has repeatedly refused to respect the U.N. peacekeeping
weaponry as it did recently in Lebanon. As a customer for our newest
forces; for example, when its army forcibly broke through the U.N.
weapons, Israel gets the support of our defense contractors.
peacekeeping forces in its invasion of Lebanon.
Israel has become an important arms supplier to oppressive
The peace plan proposed by prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia in 1981
regimes' throughout the world. About ~ of Israel's labor force is
emphasized that it was in accordance with all U.N. Security Council
resolutions. This was flatly rejected by Begin (and also by the . employed in the military industry. Its recent agreement to supply
arms to Honduras indicates that it may become a proxy to foment
extremist Arab nations but was accepted as a basis for negotiations
wars in areas where Congress may limit our direct involvement.
by the moderates).
Israeli arms sales have included South Africa, Zaire, Argentina, Chile,
Whether the U.N. Security Council had already been rendered
Nicaragua under Somoza, El Salvador and Honduras. Israel is
impotent as a war-preventing body is debatable. But there is no
moving into a position of an arms supplier to countries where human
question that the number of times the U.S. has had to use its veto on
rights violations may cut them off from U.S. supply.
behalf of Israel and the number of times that Israel has flouted
Security Council resolutions has resulted in irreparable harm to the
6. The "National Security" Myth
work of the Security Council.
The argument Israeli supporters most commonly use to justify all
varieties of wrong- doing is that of national security. The security-of4. Unrest in the Third World
Israel issue is used to justify its 1967 aggression, its 1981 bombing of
If the world survives the threat of a nuclear war between the two
the Iraqi reactor, its 1982 annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, its
superpowers, we willstill have the long-range threat from the poverty1982 invasion of Lebanon, its illegal settlements in the occupied
stricken peoples of the Third World. The huge malnourished portion
territories and its refusal to permit establishment of a Palestinian
of the world willincreasingly be a breeding ground for strife, terrorism
and war.
nation.
"National security" has been used worldwide as a pretext for all
What is needed is an input of developmental assistance from the
manner of illegal, immoral and stupid foreign interventions. Our own
developed world with the U.S. taking the lead. Instead, the peoples of
rightwingers see our own national security as threatened by comthe poor nations have had to watch Egypt and Israel receive more
munist uprisings in any part of the world (remember Vietnam?).
economic aid in 1982 than all of the poor nations combined. U.S. aid
President Reagan has proclaimed that a marxist government in
to Egypt is part of the price we had to promise to get the Camp David
Nicaragua is a threat to U.S. national security.
Agreements. Aid to Israel is the equivalent of $2,500 for an Israeli
To the extent that Israel's real security depends on reconciliation
family of four. A recent study calculated that when all the financial
with the Arabs, it might well have considered prince Fahd's peace
breaks Israel receives from the U.S. are included, American taxproposals which included guarantees of security for all Mideast
payers are providing $10 billion a year of benefits to Israel. Contrast
nations.
this with aid to the really poor nations which is figured in millions Peace activists must view with skepticism claims for foreign
not billions as to Israel. AIPAC brags that it has lobbied successfully
interventions being necessary for "national security." Israel has
for $2.5 billion in aid to Israel; who lobbies for Bangladesh?
carried to extremes the use of this phrase to justify all manner of
By its getting a disproportionate share of U.S. foreign aid and by its
militaristic and aggressive policies that have resulted in death and
refusal to give the Palestinians a homeland, Israel aggravates Third
destruction from wars and terrorism and with no peace in sight. So if
World tensions and bitterness toward the U.S. Many believe that
we are to attack the warmongers' interpretation of "national securiunrest in the Third World is in the long run as dangerous to world
ty," we might well start with Israel. ~
peace as the conflict between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.

a J.. Uarr
Austin, Texas

November, 1983

Page 25

Conrad Goeringer

WHAT IS TO BE DONE
Let's pretend for a moment. We have (sornehowl) come up with the
absolutely perfect theoretical statement of Atheist ideas. Whatever
happens, there will never be a serious theoretical disagreement
among Atheists again. If you think this would result in a straightforward march to the revolution, better think again.
Now and always, the question remains: what is to be done? The
phrase is famous as an old revolutionary, but the question probably
originated amongst a group of cave-folk tired of the priest hogging the
best part of the kill.
If you've spent much time in political groups, you have a pretty
good idea of how projects are picked. One or two people become
enthusiastic over some possible activity, push hard for the idea over
several meetings, and get at least a lukewarm consensus to go ahead.
There's really no objective standard against which to measure the
potential of a proposed project; instead it's a kind of contest between
enthusiasm and apathy.
My point is that this cycle is not inevitable and call be broken; in
fact, it has been broken in the past many times - most recently in the
1960's. It is something we can learn how to do consistently and
effectively. It is something we had better learn how to do or we are all
simply screwing around!

Objective Conditions
People always bring this up after a project fails, seldom before a
project begins. While enthusiasm runs high, people involved in a
project have this image in their minds of a little snowball becoming an
avalanche. Afterwards, they are reminded that most snowballs just
melt.
When we discuss a potential project, we should be as clear about
the meaning of failure as the meaning of success. We should define as
clearly as we can just what success and failure mean in the context of
this project. Someday someone's project may turn out to be the
beginning of the insurrection; but it's unlikely that such a project is the
one we are discussing today.
Objective conditions are never uniformly favorable. At the present
time (in North America) circumstances are probably slightly more
unfavorable than favorable. This means, as it usually does, that there
are some things we can accomplish without any sustained effort to
speak of, some things we can accomplish with a great deal of hard
work, and.some things we cannot accomplish at all ... no matter what
we do.

"Relying on 'dedication' never works (for us,

that is. Religionists and other authoritarian
groups can guilt-trip people into attempting
tasks beyond their ability; we, of course,
cannot)."
These are controversial matters. But the energy put into deciding
these questions before a project is launched willhave far more to do
with the ultimate success of the project than the energy re quired to
implement the project itself.
We are also part of the objective conditions. The people in our
group, being human, have strengths and weaknesses which have a
great deal to do with the potential of any given project. A project that
looks perfectly feasible can flounder for the lack of the proper "mix"
of human talents to carry it off. Look at yourselves as clearly as you
canwhen discussing a project - do you "have what it takes" to
Page 26

November, 1983

implement this project? Relying on "dedication" never works (for us,

that is. Religionists and other authoritarian groups can guilt-trip
people into attempting tasks beyond their ability; we, of course,
cannot). It's true in the short run that enthusiasm can substitute for
ability (just as sleep can be substituted for food). In the long run,
however, there's no substitute for competence.
Tied into the matter of ability is the matter of enjoyment. The
people involved in the project must enjoy what they're doing to
sustain it over a long period of time. Atheists live in the dismal present
as well as the glorious future; there has to be a present day reward for
their activity, otherwise they'll stop. We cannot bribe them or force
them to do it - hence the only visible reward is a personal enjoyment
of the work. I don't mean to suggest that it's all sugar and no crap - as
we all know, there's a lot of crap even in the best project. But we have
to have the sugar too!

Strategy
Strategy means what we expect to be the long-range impact of a
project. Whatever we decide to do, we want to pick something that
willhave the maximum impact. This can be measured in a number of
objective and subjective ways. One very easy way is to simply count:
how many people will this project organize? How many people will
hear about this project and (potentially) be affected by it?
Or one can ask what willbe the effects ifthis project succeeds? Will
some urgently needed reform be achieved? Will people in general
perceive the nature of religious society more clearly? If this project
succeeds, what is the next step?
It is rare enough for people to ask themselves such questions
before a project begins. But even rarer is the question: what is the
educational content of this project? What are we showing people by
our practice (as opposed to the rhetoric that we use)?
Some crude examples: (a) if we tell people that religion is just
another form of tyranny (rhetoric) and participate in a coalition with
religion around some issue (practice), most people willconclude that
religionists are just another kind of group as worthy of support as we
are; (b) ifwe tell people that preaching is phoney (rhetoric) and work
to endorse some particularly "good" preacher (practice), people will
conclude that we should avoid preachers except when they're
serious; (c) if we tell people, "Atheists of the world, unite!" (rhetoric)
and deliberately make it difficult or impossible for new people to join
our group (practice), people will (correctly) conclude we are full of
crap!
Everything we do has an inherent educational content that is
entirely apart from the articulated rhetorical rationale that we use.
Obviously what we are striving for is an ever closer correspondence
between our ideas and the content of our practical activity.

Agitation
Almost every group willbegin its public activity with some form of
agitation-education. Almost everything else we do will inevitably
involve some form of agitation-education. Ifthere's anything we ought
to be good at, it's agitation-education. So why do we do it so poorly?
Look at how religion handles this problem. When they want to
advertise some piece of crap, how do they do it?
They pick out a particular market which they believe will want to
buy this crap. They carefully weigh the language they use to sell it.
They prepare attractive and carefully printed displays. They test
various versions of their ad on portions of the market that they want
to reach. They develop all kinds of ways to measure feed-back, from
polls to skin-tests. When they decide they have a winner, they don't
The American Atheist

hold back; they go after those 20,000,000 or whatever potential

suckers with deadly seriousness. This is no dilettantish hobby. This is
real money!
How do we do it? First we write a leaflet in Atheist jargon,
automatically eliminating 99% of the North American citizens. Then
we type it up as sloppily as possible (error- free typing is religious). The
great transition from mimeograph to offset is now almost complete; I
guess I shouldn't complain that it only took ten years. Perhaps in
another decade we will begin typesetting our material, instead of
relying on a 1940 Royal with a faded ribbon. Graphics are rare and
usually crude. Finally the finished product will, in most cases, be
handed out to a random selection of people whom we willnever see
again.
On the one hand we have a professionally- run, long-range earnpaign to get 20,000,000 people to buy a piece of crap; on the other, a
one-shot unattractive leaflet in a "foreign" language to convince a few
thousand people to get rid of religion.
Are the lessons of this all that difficult to see: (a) pick a target; (b)
write in ordinary language - if you must use a rhetorical formula,
translate it; (c) typeset it and lay it out as neatly and attractively as you
can; (d) use the most dramatic/humorous graphics you can find; (e)
follow-up, try to get some feed-back and then go back to your target
with another leaflet.
As soon as your group believes it is ready to handle it, you should
try to put out a newspaper. Even ifit is small (4 tabloid pages) and can
only come out every month or two, it will be more effective than
almost any number of leaflets. You will be able to speak to many
audiences, over and over again. People willbegin to look forward to
what you have to say on matters of Atheist controversy. In time,
people willcome to you with their own stories - scandals that they
know about, struggles that are going on that the press is ignoring, etc.
People take a newspaper far more seriously than a leaflet. So should
we!

Service
Service projects, as the name implies, provide a service to our
group or a portion of our group.
When Atheists set up these kinds of projects, they generally do so
without much explicit educational content. The inherent educational
content (that every project has) is, of course: when you have a
problem, go to an "expert" and do whatever he/she tells you to do ifhe/ she tells you there's nothing that can be done, then just accept it
as part of life.Religionists like this idea justfine, which is probably why
they don't bother to make it explicit.
But, for us, this is a real problem. We want people to draw some
explicit atheistic conclusions from our projects, not just rely on us as
"experts" who willsolve their problem and then everything goes on as
before.
The only solution I can suggest - and I admit it is far from
satisfactory - is that any service-type project we engage in willhave
to include a really heavy dose of Atheist education. You will be
attempting to overwhelm the implicit content of your project with
Atheist messages (in ordinary language, of course!). You willbe trying
to get people to perceive your project as an educational act, not just a
way to get a cheaper service.
This is hard enough to do when the service is being run by your
group. To do it in a coalition of Atheists and religionists strikes me as
being impossible - they willsimply accuse you of "using" the project
for your own Atheist ends (carefully passing over the fact that the
absence of overt educational content serves their tradition-bound
superstitious ends). You will end up unsuccessful and looking bad;
they'll end up running the show and looking good.
.
Some people might say both alternatives are bad: why can't we just
set up a service or whatever and then let all the people involved run it
any way they like? If we did that on a desert island inhabited only by
Atheists, that would work fine. In the real world most people would
accept the project as just another group of fairy-tale idealists while the
people who want to be fairy-tale idealists - like religionists - would
take it over without much difficulty at all. If that is going to be the
.outcome, why do it at all? It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that at
Austin, Texas

this point in history it might well be better for us not to do it at all. But if
you disagree and think that a service-type project would be right for
your group, then go into it with your eyes wide open and realize that
you are going to have to solve these problems or end up doing a lot of
spadework while some group of authoritarian religionists gets the
harvest!

Direct Action
At some point in our group's activities, you will want to stage a
demonstration, sit-in, or some other form of direct action. I use the
word "stage" deliberately, because that's what you are really doing
here (up to the point, of course, of an insurrection - which does not
concern us at the present time).
We should look at a proposed direct action like we would evaluate a
play or movie. Is is imaginative? Or is it just another boring rerun?
Does it make a point in language that people can identify with? Or is it
over people's heads? Is it dramatic and exciting? Or dull and tedious?
Is there lots of color, music, rousing speeches? Will people feel good
afterwards, ready to fight on?
I don't know too much about them, but look how the various
Japanese student groups handle their direct actions. They almost
choreograph them, like elaborate dances. They are performances in
their own right . . . along with being dramatic political actions of
surprising effectiveness. Compare this with the anti-war rituals in the
U.S. during the 1960s - plodding marches, dull speeches that lasted
endlessly, etc., etc.
Of course, we're not prepared to do anything remotely approaching the Japanese at this point. But we can see what we should
be aiming for. Getting rid of religions is not simply a matter of
programming computers with accurate data; we are talking about
human beings who need accurate information presented clearly and
rationally - but who need to be entertained, excited, thrilled ... and
inspired. The idea of liberation of the mind is perhaps the most
exciting and inspirational idea in existence -let's don't send people
away yawning at it.
Some specifics: The one-shot demonstration suffers the same
disadvantage as the one-shot leaflet. No matter how good it is, people
willsoon forget about it. When we decide on some project involving
direct action, we should plan for a series of actions at short intervals.
Non-violence is good theater - provided you are prepared to let
someone kick the daylights out of you. During the civil rights
movement in the American South, a lot of people were impressed by
the sight of peaceful black people being attacked by violent racists.
On the other hand, militant resistance can also be good theater - but
only ifyou win, or at least avoid having to flee in disarray. You should
decide, of course, how you plan to handle this before your action, not
while it's going on.
Any direct action can lead to arrests - don't assume that you
won't get busted because you don't plan to break the law. Have your
bail money ready and your lawyer set to go into court. And, by the
way, most "movement lawyers" are incompetent assholes - try to
get one that can hit the floor with his hat. Be prepared to argue your
own case - your attorney may not show up or show up unprepared.
(This paragraph is based on painful personal experience.)
Be prepared to handle the press and TV. A formal spokesperson is
not necessary, but you should have your most articulate members
ready to rap ifneeded. Make sure some egotistical "liberal" religionist
doesn't step up in front and hog the camera - it's happened, so be
prepared to deal with the possibility. You're not putting on a show so
that some authoritarian weasel can take the bows!
Likewise, be prepared to handle goons, be they from your target or
from various religionist groups. Not long ago during a demonstration
in the Southwest, two people carrying a black flag were attacked and
beaten by a number of religious goons - while "libertarians" looked
on. This was a disgrace and should never be allowed to happen.
Demonstrations and other forms of direct action that involve
coalitions are, as you might imagine, especially difficult. You want to
make sure your ideas get across, but you don't want to look like a
sectarian asshole.
The worst problems of this sort can be avoided by simply avoiding'

November, 1983

Page 27

coalitions run by bigshot liberals. No one is going to notice an Atheist

speaker buried in a parade of politicians, preachers, bureaucrats and
similar scum. People who take those shows seriously willresent you;
people who don't take them seriously won't be there anyway.
But, there are times when a coalition simply can't be avoided.
There are people in some of the other groups with whom you want to
work, that it would be stupid not to work with them. While this is not
something for the new and inexperienced group to risk, ifyour group
has been working together for a year or two and functioning
effectively, go ahead and give it a try.

"No on is going to notice an Atheist speaker

buried in a parade of politicians, preachers,
bureaucrats and similar scum. People who
take those shows seriously will resent you;
people who don't take them seriously won't be
there anyway."
Your primary task in this event is not the action itself, though you
should do as much as you can to help it. You are trying to win the
other people in the coalition to Atheist ideas - and the best way to do
that is not with long ideological speeches, but by your own insistence
on the democratic functioning of the coalition. You want as many
people in the coalition directly involved in making decisions as you
can get. When others, out of habit or laziness, start delegating power
to tiny committees, you get up and oppose this 'with as much
vehemence as you can muster. You are, as a first step towards
winning these people to Atheist ideas, trying to make them see the
necessity of keeping policy-making power in their own hands. If you
pull this off, you can consider yourself successful- regardless of the
outcome of the action.
But, even a coalition of good folks with whom you want to work is
likely to contain a few rats - people who lack the drive to get into
mainstream religion or business but who wouldn't mind lording it over
a small group. Do not hesitate to oppose them! Give a bureaucrat an
inch and he'll take the coalition, so be prepared.

Issues
It's something of a cliche to remind ourselves that most "issues"
that people are taught to consider "important" are non-issues that
involve absurd or non-existent alternatives. Religious politicians with
help from authoritarian groups spend a lot of time trying to drum up
controversy over non-issues in the obvious hope that no one will
notice what's really going on. Whether or not a few middle class black
students are admitted to white medical schools has no relevance to
the conditions of blacks generally. Whether or not a few women rise
to top management positions has no relevance to the conditions of
women generally. Whether or not people are "free to worship a god"
has no relevance to religion's oppression of everyone when the reality
is plain that to "worship a god" means to "be a god's slave". We do not
even have to take positions on such "issues," much less become
active around them.
Thus the first point: pick an issue with real alternatives, not just any
horse manure on the front page of the daily paper.
.
It is not to be unexpected in our society that most real issues will
either be economic or willhave a strong economic component. Most
Atheists see this and make the immediate mistake of concluding that
our job is to help our group get a bigger slice of the pie. We, of course,
should know better. Our job is to convince Atheists to take over the
culture, not just a little piece.
For example, we can look at trade union struggles. Most leftists
would measure victory by the size of the pay raise. A few would
consider increased time off. They should look for more power in the
hands of the workers on the shop floor, more control of working
conditions, more control of what is produced, more control over
hiring and firing. They want to see them become more sure of
themselves, more self-reliant. It would probably be difficult to get this
idea across, but they shouldn't be discouraged. It's better to take
Page 28

small steps toward their goal than giant steps toward ... well, toward
being a better-paid wage slave, as with trade union goals now.
This point can be extended to other kinds of issues. Lots of people
think that the way to solve problems is to get the government to give
you money. In the U.S., about SO of every welfare dollar goes to
support a bureaucrat. This doesn't bother our religionists all that
much - perhaps because that's how a lot of them "earn" their living.
While it may not make us very popular at the moment, I think we
ought to tell people they should support themselves and tell the
government to screw off. And if that's a little too strong to swallow,
let's at least tell people what they're getting into when the "aid" comes
from the state.
A particularly difficult issue involves the legal defense of our own.
This issue has a stronger appeal to us than virtually any other. We
almost always yield to the impulse to throw ourselves into an all-out
effort to rescue our own from the hands of the religionists. Still, even
on something as close to us as this, we should be able to suspend our
emotions and look at it just as we would look at any other proposed
project. Can we realistically expect to organize a lot of people around
this campaign? Do we have the people and resources to implement
this campaign in a serious way? Can we get our ideas across in this
campaign? Can we keep poeple from drawing easy (and wrong)
conclusions about the nature of legal procedure? I don't really expect
any of this to stop people from going to the assistance of legally
battered Atheists, but let's try to know what we're doing. If you will,
we owe ourselves the best job we can do.
Chapters vary in numbers and abilities. If you can handle it, you
should try to be a multi-issue chapter - having several on-going
projects. Single-issue chapters tend to bog down, even when the
single project is relatively successful. A chapter of 10 or fewer may
only be able to do a good job on one project; larger chapters should be
able to do more. If you do have a small collective, you can avoid
bogging down by setting a time limit on your present project, so that
all your members will understand that at the end of a year or two
you're going to do something else. I say a year or two because that's
often a good period of time to really test a project. In that period of
time, if you recruit a substantial number of new members (the best
sign of a successful project), you may be able to keep that project
going on with your new members while your old members go on to
something new.

Leadership and Specialization

We shall have to become clear about what we mean by these
"loaded" terms. Most groups have one or more members who seem
to consistently come up with" good ideas" for activity. Most have one
or more members who are particularly skillful at articulating the
group's policies, or at motivating people to join in the activities, or at
performing some technical task with capability and efficiency. The
human race has many talents and, as our movement grows, we will
reflect the tremendous diversity of Atheists. It is silly to pretend
otherwise! No matter what evasive terminology we might choose to
employ (such as "influential militants"), such people provide what
may as well be called leadership.
This raises two problems for us: the first is that we imitate
religionists in our own heads by constructing arbitrary hierarchies of
skills. We value the "theoretician" above the "organizer" and the
"organizer" above the "typesetter." We can't do anything to speak of
about the diverse talents and inclinations of the Atheists, but we can
certainly begin among ourselves to root our arbitrary hierarchies out
into the open. The "theoretician" whom we value so highly did not
construct his/her own brain; his/her knowledge is a social product of
human society, not something that he/she created out of thin air. (A
scientist expressed this point very well when he said: "If I have seen
further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of
giants.") To put that knowledge to work, the "theoretician" needs the
assistance of others, otherwise his/her theory is useless and may as
well not exist at all. The same is true of all the other "greats" of whom
we find ourselves in awe ... their accomplishments turn out to rest on
the efforts of millions of others. Every Atheist has an important and
vital contribution to make to the needed mental revolution - our task

November, 1983

The American Atheist

is to make sure that we allow that contribution to be made ... and not
let people be intimidated into inactivity by stupid and arbitrary
hierarchies.
The second danger is an obvious product of religious ideas: people
who define leadership in terms of giving orders and who then seek to
"specialize" in this form of "human" activity. Should such an ordergiving"specialist" arise in your group, a kick in the ass is probably the
best response. It is important that you don't let matters slide, thinking
that the "leadership specialist" will get better by himself. Elitism
belongs to all Atheists and has to be struggled with and defeated; in
this society, it is like a contagious and fatal disease demanding the
strongest measures your group is capable of (if ever a matter
deserves a ten-hour meeting, this is it!). If you can convince the
person involved to abandon "leadership specialization", well and
good. Ifyou can't, you should boot that person out of your group. Half
measures won't do.

Evaluation
In one respect the end of a particular project is its most important
point. That's when you decide what you learned from it. Unfortunately, you are the only one who is going to learn anything, given our
present practice. In other words, write it down! Put everything in that
you can, including personal factors. You may have several versions,
written by various people in your group. Alltogether, this information
is more valuable to other Atheist revolutionaries than all the
theoretical works ever written put together. It is priceless!
As I have remarked elsewhere, we all enjoy ipoking fun at the
blunders of religionists. But one thing that's not funny is how serious

religionists take the process of evaluating their work. They analyze

the hell out of their projects. They don't think anything is more
important than figuring out how they screwed up and doing a better
job next time. They're right!
Indeed, that's the whole way human knowledge works. It's not
practical to learn everything first hand. Human beings depend on
each other for the accumulation of experiences that can be shared.
We must know in detail what kinds of things each of us have tried,
what kinds of failures and what kinds of successes have resulted,
what we can suggest to each other to try next time. The circulation of
this knowledge should have the highest priority!

Conclusion
This paper was written for a conference. Far from being "the last
word", it is an invitation to all of you to try to formulate practical
conclusions from your activities. Hopefully, it is a challenge to all of us
to take our practical Atheist activity seriously, to try and think
through as clearly as we can what we want to do and why we want to
do it.
What I attempted to do in this paper was abstract some general
conclusions from my own 15 or so years of activity . To other Atheists
who've "been around" for a while, I would like to extend an invitation
to do the same. Revolutionaries in the U.S. (and perhaps Canada as
well, I don't know) have a miserable history of making the same
mistakes over and over again. If we can help in a small way to break
out of some lousy ruts, well, that would be a pretty fair accomplishment. ~

DOOMSDAY PROPHETS
Repent ye! For the day of judgment is at hand! - and with this
profound statement everyone is supposed to immediately get his/her
act together and prepare for the indignities of "divine" evaluation.
Actually, this rather corny idea would have merit - except for one
little drawback: who willdo the" divine" evaluating! There is only one
person that can possibly know every facet of a particular human life.
That person would be the individual himself/herself. No other being
can accurately assess the desires, the capabilities, or the intentions of
another as effectively as can the person in question. Here again,
though, we are confronted with yet another problem - honesty! Can
anyone - coldly and deliberately - totally without bias - analyze
oneself? Probably not! Even ifone were to legitimately attempt such a
"judgment" it is doubtful that the findings would be 100% correct.
There are too many variables involved and too many unknowns. We
can only "generalize" in some areas of assessment. Whether a
particular act or thought was "beneficial" to oneself and/or society is
not always a clear and simple issue. We all know that harm can come
out of the best of intentions. And, who can say, positively, that the
opposite may not be true in some instances.
So you see - the whole idea of repenting is "out the window"
because we don't know whether repenting itself is truly in order. Why,
then, has this concept so dominated the religious history of mankind?
Why the continual dilemma of needing to be "forgiven" - and forgiven by whom?
I have noted for many years now that even non-religious people, at
some point in life, seem to acquire certain "guilt" feelings. I'm not
talking about feelings derived from deliberate anti-social activities.
Obviously, anyone should be a little disturbed ifhe/she had murdered
someone! I'm talking about the grey areas of human activity. For
Austin, Texas

November, 1983

Page 29

instance, haven't you, on occasion, been made to feel slightly

perverse for eating a pork chop or a slice of roast beef? Right or
wrong, the historically omnivorous nature of humankind seems now
to be suspect by many. Whether widespread "guilt" results will
depend entirely on individual points of view and it is not likely that the
dietary practices of humans willchange overnight in any case.
The point I am trying to make is that numerous activities in society,
once considered "normal," are being reclassified in an accelerating
manner. Willhumankind benefit from this hastening of social scrutiny
- or willit become more auto- indicting?
Heretofore, lack of human conscience has been able, through
fantasy, to conjure up any number of "gods" on whom responsibility
could be rested. Through the imaginary act of "forgiveness" we could
erase blame for considered indiscretions. With the abandonment of
fantasy it will become more burdensome for certain individuals to
cope with their own actions or the actions of other less cornpassionate individuals in society. This idea is clearly demonstrated by
the rather sudden emergence of various conservationist groups like
"Save the Whales," etc. Certain values are changinq-> and that adds
to our credit as unique individuals in the animal kingdom. Yet, as I
suggested earlier, will we become so ethically entangled in our own
thoughts that we willno longer be able to swat a common housefly?
In any event it becomes readily apparent that a thorough
investigation of social ethics can only eventually lead us to the really
perverse areas of human indiscretion - that area of callous
disconcern for life.Four billion people are willingto register outrage at
the mention of "war" - yet, those same four billionpeople allow war's
continuation. Many are perfectly wiling to participate in its continuation, even though they must somehow "justify" their participation.
Presently there is bitter dissention on the political scene in
America. Actually, "politics" is not even slightly involved in our
foreign and domestic problems. Any form of "political" administration
is capable of solving society's problems if correctly applied! The
United States would probably fare as well today ifit had an intelligent,
compassionate, just and greedless king! For some reason (unknown
to me) certain of my "countrymen" have somehow generated an
unconscionable attitude that totally distorts any honest resemblance
to patriotism. A true patriot is "one who loves and defends his
country" - unquote. To love something (or someone) you must first
be able to admire its character! To have" character" a thing or person
must be honest! That does not imply that the person or "thing" must
always be correct! To the contrary - character is best displayed
through honest admission of fault when one finds himself or herself
incorrect. Lately, our policies and actions have been less than
beneficial to mankind and/ or lifein general. That is not to say that any
of the other nations on Earth have done much better. Yet, how many
other nations view themselves - or voice claims - that they are the
"leader of nations," as have we? I must ask myself, in what direction
are we inclined to "lead" other nations!
There are certain fundamental principles which add to the quality
of life.Certainly "freedom" is one of those principles. Yet, who can be
"free" when facing malnutrition or starvation? Who can be "free"
when - at the same time - they are suffering from some dark inner
"guilt." How can one possibly feel "free" when they will not accept'
social and personal responsibility even for their own actions? Does
this not make them a "slave" to those who must face responsibilities?
It is the interaction of people - through responsibility and
dependency - that creates "society." In order to survive, a social
community must provide for the "least" even if at the expense of the
"greatest." Our present so-called "conservative" posture is contrary
to the principles of social behavior. We have allowed certain
ambitious persons to establish economic grade marks by which
everyone is supposed to abide. Some folks simply cannot attain those
marks. Others simply don't want to. We have therefore styled a
"Monopoly game" that we call capitalism and feel that it will
automatically elevate every citizen to affluence. The truth is that in a
pure form, monopoly is designed - not to elevate everyone - but to
eliminate the less "proficient." That type of economic structure
Page 30

November, 1983

represents anything but a "free market." Freemarketing - the desire

of compassionate people - must adjust itself to fit all of the people
concerned. Otherwise it is anti-socially structured.
Of course, there will be those who disagree with this principle.
Their problem is that they have not paid particular attention to human
history. They forget the collapses of the "great" empires and nations
of the past which were all oriented to the "needs" and desires of the
affluent members of the respective communities. There is little to be
gained by fighting over "political" structures or religious systems.
Decent minds can accept this. There is a great deal to be gained by
the knowledge that the masses of people willnever - have never agreed to a single or totalitarian plan. If we continue to war over our
diversities, we wineventually squander every resource on the planet
- possibly including lifeitself. Then, surely, no one willbe "affluent."
So it is that there is only one alternative to the predictions of
"doomsday prophets"; intelligent reconstruction of economic systems through rational education. Our present attitude is that of being
the "fastest gun in the West" so as to assure our continued existence.
Some refer to it as "walk softly but carry a big stick." Yet, all of the
"fast guns" that I have ever known about were eventually "dropped"
by a shot in the back! We have no guarantees!

"Our present attitude is that of being the

'fastest gun in the West' so as to assure our
continued existence. . . . Yet, all of the 'fast
guns' that I have ever known were eventually
dropped by a shot in the back! We have no
guarantees!"
What has all this to do with Atheism? It is those Atheists who ask
this incredible question who bother me most! To them I can only say
that life is a "one-act play." Staying alive has everything to do with
everything! It has been generally accepted, among the human
community, that a quality performance during your stage appearance
is most desirable. Is villainvs. hero the only script humankind knows?
If so, why not let the bombs fall now and end - once and for all apprehension, fear, bigotry, poverty and all other "sufferings"
designed by the inadequacies of humankind. Personally, I prefer to
live and let live!History willshow that we have not used our wisdom to
elevate the peoples of the world. We cannot aid "people" by sending
them CARE packages during times of crisis. At best, this practice is
little more than temporary relief from contemporary miseries. In
attempting to improve the situation of cancerous religious hatreds in
the Middle East we have, in fact, through our own bungling and
religious insensitivities, helped them only to annihilate and hate more
proficiently. We should be receiving CARE packages for our national
mindlessness. In order to "help" people or nations out of dilemmas,
we should not expect that they willbe able to repay us or immediately
change their entire existences in order to imitate the "American way"
when, in fact, we cannot define that so-called American way in a
manner that even we can understand.
Be reminded of one thing; ifthere is to be a" doomsday" it willbe of
mankind's own making. All of us know this! I think back in time
occasionally. Lately I have been remembering the occasions when
German U-boats were torpedoing merchant ships off Galveston,
Texas and New Orleans, Louisiana during World War II - or didn't
you know? As we demand that more missiles be installed in Europe to
"protect" us from the U.S.S.R., I'm wondering if the Russian sub
commanders know how to navigate as well as did the Germans. If
they can - it worries me somewhat. I hear that they (the Russians)
have submarines that can carry nuclear missiles the same as we do!
The "day of judgment" may well be at hand! However - "repenting"
is not a solution to anything. It only signifies an acceptance of
impending disaster.

The American Atheist

REPORT FROM INDIA / Margaret Bhatty

WANTED: AN ETHIC
OF RESPONSIBILITY

If Indian society is in a state of crisis, we might take comfort from

the fact that other nations are, too. On August 15th we celebrated the
36th anniversary of independence from foreign domination. For those
of us who were young and full of hope back in 1947, each subsequent
Independence Day is an occasion for sober introspection and
extreme disquiet.
The resurrection of Ghandi through Attenborough's filmshows us
up badly as a nation torn by implacable hatreds and indulging in
appalling brutality in communal riots whipped up by unscrupulous
politicians. If anything we are becoming more and more fragmented
into communal groups which make nonsense of our claim to being
non-violent and entirely tolerant of other religions.
The argument put forward by the pious is that we have lost sight of
god. They see morality and law as of three kinds. At the top is divine
law from which all human morality draws its inspiration through the
interpretation of the uedas, koran, bible, gita and other ancient
writings. These laws are immutable. Not even the state must touch
them.
Next comes the law devised by humans to regulate society at a
secular level. And finally, there is the law of the jungle where savage
repression and injustice are inspired by the concept that might is
right, and humans have turned godless.
This simplistic view of a highly complex system is put forward as an
explanation to our moral crisis. It is argued that, secular law having
succumbed to the law of the jungle, the balance can be restored by
returning to religion and re-establishing god's immutable laws. The
crisis comes from the fact that there are too many scriptures, too
many communities, and too many interpretations.
Religions like christianity and islam might have transcended ethnic
and nationalist barriers to unite large areas of the world in a common
cause, but no just world order has emerged thereafter. Instead,
humankind has engaged in bloodier wars under the banner of religion,
beginning with two centuries of conflict between islam and christendom in the crusades. Today, in the same region, islam confronts a
judaism overtly supported by christendom.
The Indian subcontinent has witnessed some of the cruelest
conflicts between hindu and muslim. Even sects and subsects war
with each other, like the shia and sunni sects of Pakistan. In addition,
we now have strong upward pressure being exerted by low-caste and
out-caste in hindu society resulting in massacres of Harijans and
weaker communities.
Austin, Texas

These are some of the more extreme cases where divine sanction
supports social repression of the worst kind. Clearly there has to be
something badly flawed in the argument that morality derived from
ancient scripture is the divine will of some supreme being if all it
provides is a pious excuse to slaughter those who differ from us. How
can any value-system be described as worthwhile and moral which
inspires its adherents to go into temple, church, mosque and
gurudwara, to fall on one's knees in prayer, and then come out into
the streets and fall on the necks of others with swords and spears?
"But take religion away and there can be no morality," our theists
argue. "All ethical obligation is derived from the scriptures and we
cannot be moral unless we are religious."
And yet our religious ideologies have an equally black record in
their denial of justice, in genocide, torture and tyranny. These are the
most disturbing aspects of the resurgence of obscurantism and
fundamentalism in islam, christianity and hinduism in this country.
Here bigotry urges followers of the faith that the revival'of obsolete
systems of morality willnot only help us retrieve our lost innocence,
but they will help preserve the communal identity of each group
against the other. So our much vaunted Indian tolerance operates on
a 'very short fuse. The smallest unsubstantiated rumor, like the
discovery of what looks like a cow's tail thrown into a hindu temple, or
what appears to be a piece of abhorrent pork found in a muslim
mosque, sparks off an orgy of looting and killing. No remorse is felt
afterwards. Nobody searches their conscience.

"The smallest unsubstantiated rumor, like the

discovery of what looks like a cow's tail thrown
into a hindu temple, or what appears to be a
piece of abhorrent pork found in a muslim
mosque, sparks off an orgy of looting and
killing."
The pious regard conscience as a god-given virtue. But since there
is no evidence that god exists, the argument that conscience is thus
gifted becomes a precarious premise.
The truth is that conscience is a faculty, like reason and intelligence. And like reason it must be nurtured and cultivated. In such a
context morality means having a strong sense of justice guided, not
by obscure texts or by an external supernatural being, but by reason.
Morality must answer a valid and continuing need for justice and
happiness in human terms.
Customs and traditions evolved by a process of trial and error over
long ages finally arrived at the most reasonable norms for benefitting
the maximum number. When a particular concept ceased to serve
that purpose, or no longer seemed relevant to the times, it could be
discarded. This kind of flexibility made for progressive societies until
religion interposed. Thereafter all moral action stemmed from books
supposedly written by deity. And to explain this esoteric wisdom to
the unlettered, we needed a priestly class. Justice in this life was no
longer the aim of moral laws. Instead salvation was assured in some
nebulous hereafter. In place of the greatest good for the greatest
number, the greatest good was now only for the privileged few.
Obscurities of text covered over all knowledge. Devotees were told
they were too thick-headed to understand its complexities. Only

November, 1983

Page 31

priests and prophets understood the texts they themselves had

written.
But to the Atheist, "true knowledge" is quite different. Premnath
Bazaz in his book Seculqr Morality (Vantage Press, New York) sees
intelligence which seeks true knowledge as the faculty of "critically
examining matter, especially one's behavior, and intelligently grasping the core of a problem. It transcends current prejudices, detests
inequality, opposes evil traditions, spurns superstitions, checks
passions, regulates emotions and refines moral laws."
Inevitably, even as a faculty, conscience becomes strongly
coloured by one's social milieu. Therefore a just and moral
environment is needed to produce just and moral people. At this point
the quality of education imparted to the young has particular
significance.
However, our Indian system is based largely on making children
learn indigestible chunks of information by heart. It makes no
pretence to cultivate a child's mind. Nor are young people taught to
think in terms of moral challenge. In fact, any questioning of ancient
traditions, religious ritual and irrational beliefs is regarded as
antisocial inspirit and quickly stifled.
As a result we have a morality based on duty and rooted in taboos.
This absolves people from bothering too much about others'
suffering. Poverty and disease are ascribed to a person's sins in some
former existence. He is therefore suffering retribution and will earn
merit again for the next lifeby manfully enduring his misery in this life.
The pervasive theory of karma explains why individuals believe they
can accumulate merit, or generate moral good magically by selftorture, long and arduous fasting, sexual abstinence, ritual purity,
food taboos, caste loyalty, total abnegation and much else.
The present malaise which afflicts our young is that the futility of
such exercises soon becomes evident to them. They also see that a
good deal of hypocrisy is practiced by the most pious among us. And
those who preach abnegation and detachment from worldly things
are the ones who perpetually seek money and material gain. Since
emotion rather than reason has inspired their morality since
childhood, their religious base is quickly eroded by cynicism.
In an effort to stem this rot among our students, the University
Grants Commission decided that universities must include papers on
morals and ethics - though not the ethics which is regarded as a
branch of philosophy.
Moral education was to be taught to the young! - through a study
of the lives of great Indian saints, through yoga, transcendental
meditation, daily assemblies with readings of scriptures, lectures by
religious leaders and seminars. Students displaying outstanding
moral values were to be given special recognition.
Only Bombay University made a half-hearted attempt to act on this
directive, and from the few lectures given there by people from the
Rajneesh ashram it was evident that no critical inquiry was expected
from the young. No dynamic confrontation was to take place
regarding the incredible problems we face as a multireligious nation.
The scheme envisaged large numbers of students being systematically subjected to a barrage of "inert ideas" in the confident hope that
it would make them actively virtuous.
Absolutist systems of morality spawn fanatics. And when large
numbers are indoctrinated, a herd mind emerges to which new ideas,'
new ways and other cultures are anathema. Morality merely reinforces prejudice.
Herd morality is demonstrated through the well-known fable of the
country where everybody walked lame and people were brought up
to believe that this was how all decent self-respecting citizens should
walk. Then along came the traveller who walked without defect and
appeared to manage excellently. Instead of learning from him they
laughed him to scorn. The-herd mind cannot admit to the superiority
evident in those who are different, so it implies that it could only have
been achieved through a drastic loss of virtue.
This, in part, explains why Indians are so xenophobic and ready to
see all cultures as vastly inferior to their own. It comes over strongly in
our films where the emancipated foreign woman (usually white) is
projected as decadent, but the socially restricted and pious Indian
Page 32

November, 1983

heroine is declared full of virtue.

In the same way, the enlightened and the different are sneered at as
"modern" (cheap), and those who refuse to go along with the cultural
identity of the herd are accused of being un-Indian (lacking in
patriotism).
The purpose of education should be to provide young people with
an unfettered critical intelligence leading to creative self-actualization.
They should be allowed the courage to question, challenge, change,
and discard. Such autonomy provides complete scope for developing
potential and using their minds. In the final analysis the roots of a
workable morality are not found in religion, but in our interpersonal
dependence as social animals, where the greatest good for all inspires
all moral action.

"May I remind you, son, that when you

attack religion, you set yourseii.aqainst morality,
against honorable tradition, against scholarship
and against the only thing that
stops you from becoming a curry."
In such a dynamic system of ethics there is no place for narrow
sectarian loyalties. Children cannot be raised to be "good" sikhs,
"good" hindus, "good" muslims, "good" christians in the communal
sense of goodness. Instead, they will be raised to be worthwhile
humans.
While religion has served humanity when it has sincerely concerned itself with a search to civilized alternatives to the law of the
jungle, true spirituality has really come from a cultivation of the
intellect.
In India today we need a morality which is free of organized
fanaticism and superstition. It must be a morality which can exorcise
the fear and hate which tears apart the fabric of our society so that
every community can love the other as passionately as they now pray
for each other's destruction.
Such secular morality offers better dividends than that which is
based on obscure texts. It is possible, without the benefit of dogma, to
nurture in the young the universal qualities of love, truthfulness,
compassion, courage, self-sacrifice, brotherhood and much else.
Spiritual culture here does not mean a mindless ritualism, blind belief
and irrational emotion. It is a self-actuated system of ethical judgment
which is proof against cynicism because it touches one's personal
self-image. Our young people earnestly need to be taught to rise
above the many narrow loyalties ~f religion and culture that divide u~
The American Atheist

END OF THE TUNNEL / Michael Battencourt

ON TOLERANCE
AND ILLOGICALITY
A staple tenet of why American democracy works is that it expects,
and gets, tolerance for the differences of others. Full acceptance of
the other person is not necessary, only the recognition that everyone
has the right to be left alone and that no one need suffer for being
different.
Yet this ban against force in the creed of tolerance is most sorely
tested when what has to be tolerated is irrational. And it can well nigh
disappear when what has to be tolerated is not only irrational but
claims the affection of someone one cares about. The cachet of
noble-rnindedness that high-spirited tolerance carries is not so easily
maintained, and the rightness of the principle itself is not so readily
defended, when one's guts are involved, beyond the assent of reason.
My sister-in-law recently moved from a rather secure if not wellpaying job and the closeness of her family to Boston where she will
soon go on staff at the church of scientology. Her officialposition will
be Technical Secretary, or "Tech. Sec." in the assonant jargon of
abbreviation favored by the church; she will be in charge of
"auditing," the church's secular version of confession and psychoanalysis.
It would be an understatement to say that her move has caused
hard feelings, especially with her mother, who sees the move as a
move of desperation and unfinished adolescent rebellion. (My sisterin-law is thirty and a recent divorcee.) My mother-in-law, normally a
rather dowdy Republican in her thoughts, has found not one iota of
tolerance in her heart, not even to the point of saying simply that it is
her daughter's right to mangle her life if she so chooses. The case
strikes too closely to the heart and she will have nothing to do with
high-mindedness. Ifthe church were to disappear tomorrow because
of government harassment, IRS audits, vilification in the press, and
vigilante action, she would have no democratic guilt that civil rights
had been traduced. And many would not think her wrong and would
not think the church's demise a lessening of the pluralism of American
society.
Anyone who knows anything about the church's history, or the
biography of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard ("Ron" to the devotees),
will certainly conclude, even after rounding up the usual humble
demurrals that we mortal human beings don't know one-tenth of one
percent about anything, that the church is the worst science fiction
garbed in the mythology of religion. It claims scientifically to be able to
pinpoint the malaise of the spirit and improve it through scientific
technques. And if anyone has bothered to read about any of the
church's activities - its near subversion of the town of Clearwater,
Florida, its civil suits against writers who dare to publish against the
church, its covert spy activity within the government - will clearly
see that the church has no intention of giving to the rest of the society
in which it lives the same uncontested tolerance accorded it through
the Constitution. It is, by any analysis except that of confirmed
believers, a snake-oil show, a pseudoscientific enterprise buttressing
outrageous religious claims, an organization whose sole purpose
seems to be garnering peoples' money and exercising an abortive
control over their lives both in and out of the church. (Much of the
information collected in the auditing sessions is often used to gag
potential challenges by disaffected members.)
My sister-in-law's response to something like the preceding paragraph is to assert her right to ignorance: How do I know that the news
stories and interviews and other information were not trumped up,
Austin, Texas

are not out-and-out lies to discredit the work of a great man? This is
part of the siege mentality that makes being a member of the church
mean not being a member of the usual community of thinkers. A
person who is fully involved in the church's activities cannot, by
definition, give in to the radical doubt that is the basis for all learning.
They must act from first principles, that certain things are right
without question, and from these principles deduce hermeticallysealed conclusions, conclusions whose internal integrity provides no
ingress for verification from the outside world. They create the world
in their own image and then let the mind atrophy, keeping it nourished
solely on the collected fat of an ersatz theism.
But here's the rub. In a democracy we are supposed to let this sort
of thing go on. If the IRS were harassing the organization with no
apparent motive than to do so because it is the church of scientology,
we would have to ask it to desist if we are as good democrats as we
think we are. We must accord it the right to say what it wants, to
whom it wants, when it wants to, just as we claim the right for
ourselves. Yet it is an apparently shyster organization, and our denial
of interference means that some people willruin their lives and bank
accounts. Do we owe these people some measure of protection, even
ifit means divesting them of some of their rights? Or do we let the free
market of tolerance operate regardless of the results? My mother-inlaw would disagree with the latter point when it concerns her
daughter, agree with it when it relates to people in the abstract. Her
nobility is provisional, and understandably so.

"The higher morality is found in tolerance; the

more worthwhile purpose is found in the
reasonable mind."
But the nobility, in the end, cannot be provisional, no matter what
the pain or private reservations. The apparent rottenness of a cause is
no warrant for its destruction or intimidation. But the nobility need
not be passive. If the church proselytizes, then so must those who
believe in the power of reasonable common sense and the true
method of science, with its reliance upon doubt and conditional truth.
The cost of giving way to the emotional need for vengeance will,in the
end, be more destructive than allowing the exercise, however wrongheaded, of one's right to associate with whom one wants to associate.
Yet we must, ifthe need for vengeance is still there, work in the arena
of our own lives to make common sense more common, to convince
people of the need for intellectual humility; in short, to try to
ameliorate those currents in human lifethat carry us beyond the limits
of good sense into a superstitious arrogance that enfeebles the will.It
is a shame that my sister-in-law believes that she can only find herself
through the church, and one can commiserate with her mother's
vindictive desires. But ifwe trade in education for righteousness, love
of freedom for emotional vengeance, we get nothing in return but the
ashes of superstition. The higher morality is found in tolerance; the
more worthwhile purpose is found in the reasonable mind. We must
remember this at all times, for it is the only thing that makes the fight
worth fighting. ~

November, 1983

Page 33

_THE

ANGRY YOUNG ATHEIST / Jeff Frankel

FACTS ON THE SUNDAY FUNNIES

Just how big are the audiences of the television evangelists who
pollute the airwaves on Sundays? Are their audiences growing as they
would lead you to believe? Have the video vicars gone beyond being
simply a phenomenon of the southern "bible belt"? These are the
questions to which Jeffrey K. Hadden and Charles E. Swann set out
to find answers in researching their 1981 book Prime Time Preachers.
Even though the authors are christians (Swann, in fact, is an ordained
. presbyterian minister), they have managed to do a creditable job of
impartially organizing the facts about those charlatans of the cathode
tube. Little factual information on statistics regarding religious
programming had been available to the public prior to the publication
of their book. What was revealed is extremely interesting.
As mentioned in a previous column, Jiving Jerry Falwell has
claimed audiences ranging from 25 to 50 million for his weekly
television program. Hadden and Swann checked with the Arbitron
ratings service and found statistics that were quite a departure from
Falwell's claims. According to February 1980 ratings, Falsehood's
program was drawing a weekly audience of just under 1.5 million,
good enough only for sixth place in the religious top ten. The total
viewing audience for all sixty-six syndicated religious programs was
estimated at 20.5 million -less than the total claimed by Falwell for
his program alone. (Keep in mind that total audience size is not
synonymous with the total of different people. Since many individuals
view more than one program, they would be counted in the overall
ratings more than once. So the actual total of individuals viewing
religious programming would be much less.)
How does religious programming stack up to secular programming, ratings-wise? Not very well. M*A *S*H, the extremely successful prime time comedy-drama which recently ended its network run,
drew a weekly audience larger than the combined viewers of the
various video vicars. Donahue, the leading variety talk show at the
time of that survey, was commanding an audience three times the size
of that attracted by Oral Roberts, whose program led the religious
ratings race with 2.7 million. In comparison with prime time network
programming, the ratings of religious programming are paltry. In fact,
they reach only a minority, not just of the nation's population, but of
the evangelical community, the very audience they are targeted
toward.
The televangelists claim their audiences are growing by leaps and
bounds. The Arbitron ratings show that, ifanything, they are showing
a downward trend. Audiences for syndicated religious programming
more than doubled from 1970 to 1975, peakingat22.8 million in 1976.
Since then, there has been a steady decline. The ratings showed a loss
of over two million viewers from 1978 to 1980. The biggest loser was
Oral Roberts, who lost 1.5 millionviewers from 1977 to 1980. Roberts'
decline was caused by various factors. One of the those involves
former Roberts employee Jerry Shoals, who published an attack on
the integrity and lifestyle of Roberts as well as an indictment of his
fund raising techniques. Around the time 60 Minutes came to Tulsa,
Oklahoma to do a story on Roberts' operations, Shoals was attacked
and badly beaten. It was implied quite strongly in the 60 Minutes story
that someone connected with Roberts was responsible. This, along
with Oral's revelation that he saw a 900-foot image of jesus, has
helped destroy Roberts' credibility and drive away a mass of viewers.
Fundamentalist-evangelical style religion is basically associated
with the South. During the 1980 election campaign, Falwell stated
that televangelists are no longer just a southern phenomenon. He
claimed that his program's top five markets, in total audience and
financial support, were Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, New
Page 34

<-

November, 1983

York, and Chicago, and that a southern city isn't found until the
sixteenth position. The Arbitron figures tell quite a different story.
Only Los Angeles and Philadelphia appear in the top five, and a total
of eight southern cities are found before getting to the sixteenth spot.
On an Arbitron chart showing audience percentage by region, it is
revealed that most religious programs draw a disproportionate
percentage of their audiences, in some cases over 50%, from the
South. The televangelists attract a fair amount of viewers in the
Midwest, but have only very sparse followings in the Eastern and
Western regions. Overall, the Arbitron ratings show that those who
view the electronic church are, like those who attend regular church
services, a minority - not an insignificant one, to be sure, but it
certainly isn't a formidable one.
Hadden and Swann did a fine job in researching their project. A
certain amount of mainline religious bias shows through in spots,
especially when the topic of discussion involves fundamentalist
extremists. But that is to be expected. It does not diminish the quality
of the work in any way, nor does it detract from its interest to Atheist
readers. Every avenue of religious broadcasting is explored; its
history, its method of operation, its fund-raising techniques. There is
also an in-depth study of the moral majority, the christian right, and
"born again politics." Any Atheist wishing to be more informed on the
methods used by televangelists and their involvement in the American political scene would profit from reading Prime Time Preachers.

"SHOWBIX'
The American Atheist

A THEIST MASTERS / Emma Goldman

THE FAILURE OF CHRISTIANITY

oisoners and counterfeiters of ideas, in their attempt to

obscure the line between truth and falsehood, find a valuable
ally in the conservation of language. Conceptions and words
that have long ago lost their original meaning continue through
centuries to dominate mankind. Especially is this true if these
conceptions have become commonplace, ifthey have been instilled in
our very being, from infancy, as great and irrefutable verities. The
average mind is easily content with inherited and acquired things, or
with the dicta of parents and teachers, because it is much easier to
imitate than to create.
Our age has given birth to two intellectual giants, who have
undertaken to transvalue the dead social and moral values of the past,
especially those contained in christianity. Friedrich Nietzsche and
Max Stirner have hurled blow upon blow against the portals of
christianity, because they saw in it a pernicious slave morality, the
denial of life, the destroyer of all the elements that make for strength
and character. True, Nietzsche has opposed the slave morality idea
inherent in christianity in behalf of a master morality for a privileged
few. But I venture to suggest that his master idea had nothing to do
with the vulgarity of station, caste, or wealth. Rather did it mean the
masterful in human possibilities, the masterful in man that would help
him to overcome old traditions and worn-out values, so that he may
learn to become the creator of new and beautiful things.
Both Nietzsche and Stirner saw in christianity the leveler of the
human race, the breaker of man's willto dare and to do. They saw in
every movement built on christian morality and ethics attempts not at
the emancipation from slavery, but for the perpetuation thereof.
Hence they opposed these movements with might and main.
Whether I do or do not entirely agree with these iconoclasts, I
believe, with them, that christianity is most admirably adapted to the
training of slaves, to the perpetuation of a slave society; in short, to
the very conditions confronting us today. Indeed, never could society
have degenerated to its present appalling stage if not for the
assistance of christianity. The rulers of the earth have realized long
ago what poison inheres in the christian religion. That is the reason
they foster it; that is why they leave nothing undone to instill it into the
blood of the people. They know only too well that the subtleness of
the christian teachings is a more powerful protection against rebellion
and discontent than the club or the gun.
No doubt I will be told that, though religion is a poison and
institutionalized christianity the greatest enemy of progress and
freedom, there is some good in christianity "itself." What about the
teachings of christ and early christianity, I may be asked; do they not
stand for the spirit of humanity, for right and justice?
It is precisely this oft-repeated contention that induced me to
choose this subject, to enable me to demonstrate that the abuses of
christianity, like the abuses of government, are conditioned in the
thing itself, and are not to be charged to the representatives of the
creed. Christ and his teachings are the embodiment of submission, of
inertia, of the denial of life; hence responsible for the things done in
their name.
I am not interested in the theological christ. Brilliant minds like
Bauer, Strauss, Renan, Thomas Paine and others refuted that myth
long ago. I am even ready to admit that the theological christ is not half
and the same as the ethical and social christ. In proportion as science
takes the place of blind faith, theology loses its hold. But the ethical
and poetical christ myth has so thoroughly saturated our lives that
even some of the most advanced minds find it difficult to emancipate
themselves from its yoke. They have rid themselves of the letter, but
have retained the spirit; yet it is the spirit which is back of all the
crimes and horrors committed by orthodox christianity. The fathers
of the church can wellafford to preach the gospel of christ. It contains
Austin, Texas

nothing dangerous to the regime of authority and wealth; it stands for

self-denial and self-abnegation, for penance and regret, and is
absolutely inert in the face of every indignity, every outrage imposed
upon mankind.
Here I must revert to the counterfeiters of ideas and words. So
many otherwise earnest haters of slavery and injustice confuse, in a
most distressing manner, the teachings of christ with the great
struggles for social and economic emancipation. The two are
irrevocably and forever opposed to each other. The one necessitates
courage, daring, defiance, and strength. The other preaches the
gospel of non-resistance, of slavish acquiescence in the willof others;
it is the complete disregard of character and self-reliance and
therefore destructive of liberty and well-being.
Whoever sincerely aims at a radical change in society, whoever
strives to free humanity from the scourge of dependence and misery,
must turn his back on christianity, on the old as well as the present
form of the same.

"... whoever strives to free humanity from

the scourge of dependence and misery, must
turn his back on christianity, on the old as well
as the present form of the same."
Everywhere and always, since its very inception, christianity has
turned the earth into a vale of tears; always it has made of lifea weak,
diseased thing, always it has instilled fear in man, turning him into a
dual being, whose lifeenergies are spent in the struggle between body
and soul. In decrying the body as something evil, the flesh as the
tempter of everything that is sinful, man has mutilated his being in the
vain attempt to keep his soul pure, while his body rotted away from
the injuries and tortures inflicted upon it.
The christian religion and morality extol the glory of the hereafter,
and therefore remain indifferent to the horrors of the earth. Indeed,
the idea of self-denial and of all that makes for pain and sorrow are its
test of human worth, its passport to the entry into heaven.
The poor are to own heaven, and the rich willgo to hell. That may
account for the desperate efforts of the rich to make hay while the sun
shines, to get as much out of the earth as they can, to wallow in wealth
and superfluity, to tighten their iron hold on the blessed slaves, to rob
them of their birthright, to degrade and outrage them every minute of
the day. Who can blame the rich if they revenge themselves on the
poor, for now is their time, and the merciful christian god alone knows
how ably and completely the rich are doing it.
And the poor? They cling to the promise of the christian heaven, as
the home for old age, the sanitarium for crippled bodies and weak
minds. They endure and submit, they suffer and wait, until every bit of
self-respect has been knocked out of them, until their bodies become
emaciated and withered, and their spirit broken from the wait, the
weary endless wait for the christian heaven.
Christ made his appearance as the leader of the people, the
redeemer of the jews from Roman dominion; but the moment he
began his work, he proved that he had no interest in the world in the
pressing immediate needs of the poor and the disinherited of his time.
What he preached was a sentimental mysticism, obscure and
confused ideas lacking originality and vigor.
When the jews, according to the gospels, withdrew from jesus,
when they turned him over to the cross, they may have been bitterly
disappointed in him who promised them so much and gave them so
little. He promised joy and bliss in another world, while the people
were starving, suffering, and enduring before his very eyes.

November, 1983

Page 35

It may also be that the sympathy of the Romans, especially of Pilate,

was given christ because they regarded him as perfectly harmless to
their power and sway. The philosopher Pilate may have considered
christ's "eternal truths" as pretty anemic and lifeless, compared with
the array of strength and force they attempted to combat. The
Romans, strong and unflinching as they were, must have laughed in
their sleeves over the man who talked repentance and patience,
instead of calling to arms against the despoilers and oppressors of his
people.
The public career of christ begins with the edict, "Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Why repent, why regret, in the face of something that was
supposed to bring deliverance? Had not the people suffered and
endured enough; had they not earned their right to deliverance by
their suffering? Take the sermon on the mount, for instance. What is
it but a eulogy on submission to fate, to the inevitability of things?
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Heaven must be an awfully dull place if only the poor in spirit live
there. How can anything creative, anything vital, useful, and beautiful
come from the poor in spirit? The idea conveyed in the sermon on the
mount is the greatest indictment against the teachings of christ,
because it seems in the poverty of mind and body a virtue, and
because it seeks to maintain this virtue by reward and punishment.
Every intelligent being realizes that our worst curse is the poverty of
the spirit; that it is productive of all evil and misery, of all the injustice
and crime in the world. Everyone knows that nothing good ever came
or can come of the poor in spirit; surely never liberty, justice, or
equality.
' .
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." What a
preposterous notion! What incentive to slavery, inactivity, and
parasitism! Besides, it is not true that the meek can inherit anything.
Just because humanity has been meek, the earth has been stolen
from it.
Meekness has been the whip which capitalism and governments
have used to force man into dependency, into his slave position. The
most faithful servants of the state, of wealth, of special privilege, could
not preach a more convenient gospel than did christ, the "redeemer"
of the people.
"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they
shall be filled." But did not christ exclude the possibility of righteousness when he said, "The poor ye have always with you"? But then,
christ was great on dicta, no matter if they were utterly opposed to
each other. This is nowhere demonstrated so strikingly as in his
command, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to
god the things that are god's."
The interpreters claim that christ had to make these concessions to
the powers of his time. If that be true, this single compromise was
sufficient to prove, down to this very day, a most ruthless weapon in
the hands ofthe oppressor, a fearful lash and relentless tax-gatherer,
to the impoverishment, the enslavement, and the degradation of the
very people for whom christ is supposed to have died. And when we
are assured that "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for
righteousness, for they shall be filled," are we told the how? How?
Christ never takes the trouble to explain that. Righteousness does
not come from the stars, nor because christ willed it so. Righteousness grows out of liberty, of social and economic opportunity and
equality. But how can the meek, the poor in spirit, ever establish such
a state of affairs?
"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and
say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be
exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven."
The reward in heaven is the perpetual bait, a bait that has caught
man in an iron net, a strait-jacket which does not let him expand or
grow. All pioneers of truth have been, and still are, reviled; they have
been, and still are, persecuted. But did they ask humanity to pay the
price? Did they seek to bribe mankind to accept their ideas? They
knew too well that he who accepts a truth because of the bribe will
soon barter it away to a higher bidder.
Good and bad, punishment and reward, sin and penance, heaven
and hell, as the moving spirit of the christ-gospel, have been the
Page 36

November,1983

stumbling block in the world's work. It contains everything in the way

of orders and commands, but entirely lacks the very things we need
most.
The worker who knows the cause of his misery, who understands
the make-up of our iniquitous social and industrial system can do
more for himself and his kind than christ and the followers of christ
have ever done for humanity; certainly more than meek patience,
ignorance, and submission have done.
How much more ennobling, how much more beneficial, is the
extreme individualism of Stirner and Nietzsche than the sick-room
atmosphere of the christian faith. Ifthey repudiate altruism as an evil,
it is because of the example contained in christianity, which set a
premium on parasitism and inertia, gave birth to all manner of social
disorders that are to be cured with the preachment of love and
sympathy.
Proud and self-reliant characters prefer hatred to such sickening
artificial love. Not because of any reward does a free spirit take his
stand for a great truth, nor has such a one ever been deterred
because of fear of punishment.
"Think not that I come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfill."
Precisely christ was a reformer, ever ready to patch up, to fulfill,to
carryon the old order of things; never to destroy and rebuild. That
may account for the fellow-feeling all reformers have for him.
Indeed, the whole history of the state, capitalism, and the church
proves that these have perpetuated themselves because of the idea "I
come not to destroy the law." This is the key to authority and
repression. Naturally so, for did not christ praise poverty as a virtue;
did he not propagate non-resistance to evil? Why should not poverty
and evil continue to rule the world?
Much as I am opposed to every religion, much as I think them an
imposition upon, and crime against, reason and progress, I yet feel
that no other religion has done so much harm or has helped so much
in the enslavement of man as the religion of christ.
Witness christ before his accusers. What lack of dignity, what lack
of faith in himself and in his own ideas! So weak and helpless was this
"savior" that he requires the whole human family to pay for him, unto
all eternity, because he has "died for them." Redemption through the
cross is worse than damnation, because of the effect it has on the
human soul, fettering and paralyzing it with the weight of the burden
implaced through the death of christ.
Thousands of martyrs have perished, yet few, if any of them, have
proved to helpless as the great christian god. Thousands have gone to
their death with greater fortitude, with more courage, with deeper
faith in their ideas than the Nazarene. Nor did they expect eternal
gratitude from their fellow men because of what they endured for
them.
Compared with Socrates and Bruno, with the great martyrs of
Russia, with the Chicago Anarchists, Francisco Ferrer, and unnumbered others, christ cuts a poor figure indeed. Compared with
the delicate, frail Spiridonova who underwent the most terrible
tortures, the most horrible indignities, without losing faith in herself or
her cause, Jesus is a veritable nonentity. They stood their ground and
faced their executioners with unflinching determination, and though
they, too, died for the people, they asked nothing in return for their
great sacrifice.
Verily, we need redemption from the slavery, the deadening
weakness, and the humiliating dependency of christian morality.
The teachings of christ and his followers have failed because they
lacked the vitality to liftthe burdens from the shoulders of the human
race; they have failed because the very essence of that doctrine is
contrary to the spirit of life, exposed to the manifestations of nature,
to the strength and beauty of passion.
Never can christianity, under whatever mask it may appear - be it
new liberalism, spiritualism, christian science, new thought, or a
thousand and one other forms of hysteria and neurasthenia - bring
us relief from the terrible pressure of conditions, of ignorance against
reason, of darkness against light, of submission and slavery against
independence and freedom, of the denial of strength and beauty
Qgainst the affirmation of the joy and glory of life.~
The American Atheist,

A THEISM ABROAD

MOUVEMENT HUMANISTE ATHEE

The American Atheist Center recently received news of a new, and aggressive, Atheist group in France. The European
Atheist movement has long been crippled by the overwhelming lack of state / church separation in most countries there. It
has hid under pseudonyms, barely daring to say anything ill of religion. But times are changing, and it looks like Old World
Atheists arefinally coming out of the closet. Thefollowing statement, issued by the Mouvement Humaniste A thee, isproof

(reprinted here in both English and French).

.

QU'EST - CE ,QUE L'ATHEISME?

L'ATHEISME EST LE REFUS DE TOUTE AFFIRMATION SANS PREUVES. C'EST POURQUOI NOUS
N'ADMETTONS L'EXISTENCE, NE D'AUCUNE AME, NI D'AUCUN DIEU, NE DE DIEU AVEC UNE .
MAJUSCULE.
,

I~ N'EXISTE PA,S D'ESPRIT NI D'INTELLIGENCE SANS MATIERE VIVA~TE. AME, POUR EsPRIT, VIE
ETERNELLE, RESURRECTION, NE SONT QUE DES TENTATIVES CHIMERIQUES DE SE CONSOLER DES
PEINES DE LA VIE, QUAND CE NE SONT PAS DES FABLES DESTINEES A PERPETUER LES VIEILLES
DOMINATIONS.
RESPECTEUX DES SENTIMENTS D'AUTRUI, CAR L'ESPRIT HUMAIN EST FAIT DE RAISONMAIS
AUSSI
D'AFFECTIVITE, NOUS YOULONS QUE CHACUN DfFINISSE LES PRINCIPES QUI ,LUI PE~METTENT DE
VIVRE DIGNEMENT, DEGAGE DE TOUTE PEUR MET APHYSIQUE, DE TOUTE CREDULITE, SOU MISSION,
DE TOUT DOGMATISME ET FANATISME.
,

"

CET HUMANISME, BASE SUR LE RESPECT DE L'ETRE HUMAIN, ET ATHEE PUISQUE SANS DIEU, DOlT SE
SUBSTITUER AU PLUS TOT AUX RELIGIONS, A QUIE DES slEcLES D'HISTOIRE ONT DONNE L'HABITUDE
DE REGENTER LES LOIS ET LES MOEURS, DE DIRIGER LES CONSCIENCES ET DE CENSURER LA VIE
PUBLIQUE.

"
DES RELIGION ARROGANTE, SI AVIDES DE PUISSANCE ET DE PROFIT, SONT, AU FOND, DE MEME
NATURE QUE LES SECTES, LA PARAPSYCHOLOGIE, L'ASTROLOGIE, L'OCCULTISME ET AUTRES
SUPERSTITIONS
DEUX OU TROIS slEcLES DE METHOPE SCIENTIFIQUE, NOUS ONT APPRIS SUR LES PHENOMENES
NATURELS, TOUT CE QUE DES MILLENAIRES DE PRATIQUES MAGIQUES, DE RITES RELIGIEUX au
D'AFFIRMATIONS IRRA,.TIONELLES, NOUS INTERDISAIENT DE CQMPRENDRE. TOUTEFOIS, LA SCIENCE,
CONNAISSANCE ET MAITRISED~S FORCES NATURELLES, PEUT-ETRE UTILISEE SOIT AU PROFIT, SOIT
AU DETRIMENT DE L'HUMANITE. IL FAUT DONC Y AJOUTER UNE PRISE DE CONSCIENCE DU DROIT ET
DU DEVOIR DE CHACUN. OR IL EST POSSIBLE DE SE DONNER UNE ETHIQUE, SANS FAIRE REFERENCE
A LA NOTION DE DIVINITE.
LES ATHEES CONSTATENT QUE LES RELIGIONS SE SUCCEDENT, SE CONTREDISENT, ET QU'EN
DIVISANT LES HOMMES ET EN SACRALISANT LEURS CON FLITS, ELLES SONT TO UTES NEFASTES.
AU CONTRAIRE DES CROYANCES QUIE INFANTILIS,ENTET
ALIENENTL'HOMME,
L'ATHEISME EN FAIT
UN ETRE PLEINEMENT RESPONSABLE DE SA VIE, DE L'ORGANISA TION DE LA SOCuhE ET DE L'A VENIR
DE L'HUMANITE.
L'ATHEISME DOlT DONC ETRE RECONNU ET OBTENIR ACCES

A TOUS

LES MOYENS D'EXPRESSION

POUR CELA, IL FA UT QUE LES ATHEES SOIENT NOMBREUX

SPECIFIQUES.

A SE REGROUPER

EN ASSOCIATIONS

Those wishing to contact the Mouvement Humaniste Ath~e may do so by writing care of:
The American Atheist Center
P.O. Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117
Austin, Texas

November, 1983

Page 37

A THEISM ABROAD
WHAT IS ATHEISM?
ATHEISM IS THE DENIAL OF ANY ASSERTION WITHOUT
PROOF. THAT IS WHY WE ADMIT NEITHER THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL, NOR OF ANY GOD, NOR OF GOD
WITH A CAPITAL LETTER.
THERE IS NO MIND OR INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT LIVING
SUBSTANCE. THE SOUL, THE PURE MIND, ETERNITY,
RESURRECTION, ARE JUST IDLE DREAMS TO COMFORT
ONESELF FROM THE HARDSHIPS IN LIFE, OR TALES
USED TO PERPETUATE OLD RULING CLASSES.
RESPECTFUL OF EVERYBODY'S FEELING - BECAUSE
THE HUMAN MIND IS NOT ONLY MADE UP OF REASON
BUT ALSO OF EMOTIONS - WE WANT EVERYONE TO
DEFINE THE PRINCIPLES WHICH ALLOW US TO LIVE
WITH DIGNITY, DELIVERED
FROM METAPHYSICAL
FEAR, CREDULITY, SUBMISSION, DOGMA, AND FANATICISM.
FOR CENTURIES OF HISTORY, RELIGIONS' HAVE BEEN
USED TO CONTROL LAWS AND MORALS, MANAGING
CONSCIENCES AND CENSORING PUBLIC LIFE.
THIS IS WHY HUMANISM WHICH IS ATHEIST, FOUNDED
SOLELY ON A RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN BEING, MUST
TAKE OVER FROM RELIGIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

TWO OR THREE HUNDRED YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC METHODSHAVENOWTAUGHTUSABOUTNATURALPHENOMENA, WHICH CENTURIES OF MAGICAL PRACTICES, RELIGIOUS RITES OR IRRATIONAL ASSERTIONS FORBADE US
TO UNDERSTAND.
HOWEVER, THE SCIENCE, KNOWLEDGE, AND MASTERY
OF NATURAL FORCES CAN BE USED EITHER TO THE
BENEFIT OR TO THE DETRIMENT OF HUMANITY, SO IT IS
NECESSARY TO ADD THAT WE HAVE TO BE AWARE OF
EVERYONE'S RIGHTS AND DUTIES TO EACH OTHER.
WE SA Y IT IS POSSIBLE TO GIVE ONESELF ETHICS, WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE NOTION OF DIVINITY.
THE ATHEISTS OBSERVE THAT RELIGIONS REPLACE
EACH OTHER, CONTRADICT EACH OTHER, AND BY DIVIDING MEN AND CONSECRATING THEIR FIGHTS, THEY
ARE ALL BAD.
RELIGIOUS FAITHS ALIENATE MAN. ON THE CONTRARY,
ATHEISM MAKES HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS LIFE, FOR
THE ORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY, AND FOR THE FUTURE
OF HUMANITY.
THIS IS WHY WE MUST AFFILIATE OURSELVES
SPECIFIC ATHEIST ORGANIZATIONS.
~

TO

ARROGANT RELIGIONS, SO AVID FOR POWER AND

PROFIT, ARE REALLY NO DIFFERENT FROM SECTS, PARAPSYCHOLOGY, ASTROLOGY, OCCULTISM AND OTHER
SUPERSTITIONS.

DIAL-AN-A THEIST

CHAPTERS OF AMERICAN ATHEISTS

DIAL-THE-ATHEIST
Tucson, Arizona

(512)458-5731

(602) 623-3861

Phoenix, Arizona

(602) 267-0777

Eastern Missouri
Reno, Nevada

Orange, California

(714) 771-0797

Northern New Jersey;

(201 ) 777-0766

S. Francisco, California

(415) 974-1750

Albuquerque, New Mexico

(505) 884-7630

Denver, Colorado

(303) 692-9395

Schenectady, New York

(518) 346-1479

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

(305) 584-8923

Charlotte, North Carolina

(704) 568-5346

Tampa Bay, Florida

(813) 577-7154

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

(405) 677-4141

Atlanta, Georgia

(404) 962-5052

Portland, Oregon

(503) 771-6208

Chicago, Illinois

(312) 772-8822

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

(215) 533-1620

Evansville, Indiana

(812) 425-1949

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

(412) 734-0509

Des Moines, Iowa

(515) 266-6133

Houston, Texas

(713) 664-7678

Lexington, Kentucky

(606) 278-8333

Dial-a-Gay-Atheist

(713) 457-6660

New Orleans, Louisiana

(504) 897-9666

Salt Lake City, Utah

(801) 364-4939

Boston, Massachusetts

(617)969-2682

Northern Virginia

(703) 370-5255

Detroit, Michigan

(313) 721-6630

Virginia Beach, Virginia

(804) 588-0118

Page 38

November, 1983

(314) 771-8894
(702) 972-8203

The American Atheist

AMERICAN A THEIST RADIO SERIES / Madalyn Murray O'Hair

AN EARLIER (19005) EFFORT

TO TAX THE CHURCH
Program57 - June 30. 1969
Hello there, this is Madalyn Murray O'Hair, American Atheist,
back to talk with you again. Nothing can bat down a person's ego
more than reading a few books from prior times. I have been crediting
myself with a fight to tax the church and as I delve more and more into
the history of free thought, I find that I am really a "Johnny-comelately" to the field.
I have here, for instance, a curious little book published in 1916
titled Exempting the Churches and on a frontspiece there is a
quotation from Robert Ingersoll to this effect: "To relieve the property
of a church from taxation is to appropriate money, to the extent of
that tax for the support of that church .... To exempt the church
from taxation is to pay a part of the priest's salary."
.
A little advertising blurb on the back of the book gives this
intormation: "The census of 1890 gave the United States church
property worth 679 million dollars ($679,426,489). T~e 1906 census
showed one and a quarter billion, ($1,257,575,867). The value has
nearly doubled in sixteen years, church membership would not
doublein seventy years, for the 36 million members in 1911 gained but
a half million in 1912. Church progress, then, is not counted in
converts, but in dollars accumulated through an exemption which in
New York equals the cost of caring for all the city's poor."
.
I had not thought about it in that way - but since 1906, a period of
about sixty years church property has now risen in value to at least
$100 billion dollars ... and 125 million members which the church
claims to have. Claiming to have members is different from having
them, and that is another picture.
But, for now - in 60 years, church land has increased 1000% because it is tax free, while membership in churches increased about
450%the churches claim. (Actually, church membership has not even
doubled.)
Milwaukee's tax commissioner is so angry about this that he has
proposed a service tax, equivalent to 60% of the regular property tax
on everything that the churches own, including the church buildings
themselves. He says the tax would pay for "fire, police, traffic costs,
street maintenance, snow and ice removal and sundry local services"
for which the church should be paying. He singled out as a horrible
example the protestant Home for the Aged, in Bradford Terrace in
Milwaukee, which is completely tax free because church groups own
it. Residents pay from $8,000 to $15,500 as an entrance fee to get into
the Terrance and then pay charges of $150 a month to stay there.
Right now, today, from the businesses that they own, churches
derive an income of at least $21.5 billion dollars. Ifthey were forced to
pay the regular income tax on this which other businesses, or you,
pay, the revenue to the nation would pay for the cost of the war in
Vietnam.
Stratford Retreat House of White Plains, New York, listed as a
non-denominational protestant church, operates a number of
commercial enterprises, including a lighting-equipment manufacturing company. At Rochester, Minnesota, a twelve-story nursing
home affiliated with the roman catholic church goes completely
untaxed although it charges up to $19,000 for a patient to enter its
doors - and accepts no charity patients at all. It is called Madonna
Towers. Some madonna that is!
The American lutheran church owns downtown property in
Minneapolis with a market value of $2,650,000 which would bring in
taxes of $107,000 to that city from the one church alone each year if
they would pay their fair share of taxes - but, of course, they are tax
. free. They ameliorate their conscience by occasionally giving the city
Austin, Texas

some funds in "lieu of' taxes, and twice in the many years of their
ownership have grudgingly given $6,700 ... instead of the $107,000
they ought to pay every year.
But I keep wandering into the present when I did want to tell you
about this old fight to tax the church in the early 19OOs.
This little booklet makes so many good points that I want to repeat
them to you tonight. Here is one quotation:
"Starting from the premise of the equal rights of all men and
women, it necessarily signifies the paramount importance of
the individual, and next to the individual, the rights of the
collective community. It (our government) must protect the
individual to the fullest possible extent in his 'inalienable right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' but when one alleges
that the pursuit of these rights can be used as a pretext for
meddling with the equally fundamental rights of his fellows ...
we fall upon the idea of speical privilege. The antithesis of
democracy is special privilege. This is the extension of certain
powers to one or more individuals, at the expense of one or
more other individuals, without proper compensation and in
'violation of equal jusice. Each should have fullliberty to spread
respective doctrines at its own cost. Whether one or any
particular religion thrives or declines is none of the business of
the state. All the state should do is to give a free field to all, and
then let them succeed or fail in proportion to their own merits
and their ability to convince men and women of their truth, and
of the merits of their claims to monetary support at the hands of
the individuals thus convinced.
"Each religious denomination, at its best, is a rival establishment to another such denomination. Any exemption from
taxation is primarily assistance toward the spreading of the
doctrine of the particular church with the tax exemption.
"There is talk of the educational and ethical attributes
claimed by the church, but this is wholly beside the question. It
is not the business of the state to raise its revenue only from the
'baser elements' of the population. Our great scientists,
inventors and educators are not exempt from taxation on the
ground that they are doing good for the general population or
that they are moral examples. We do not tax private citizens in
relation to their virtuous characteristics, or the lack thereof,
and neither should we give tax relief to a religious institution
upon this premise.
"No amount of sophistry can disguise the fact that the
church is primarily a doctrinal organization. No theories of
supernaturalism are needed in order to teach a pure morality,
founded on the social relations of human beings. If the church
really existed primarily for ethical purposes, as they claim, we
would not have the spectacle of the hundreds of struggling
sects each loudly proclaiming itself as the great repository of
fundamental truth.
"All tax exemptions violate the fundamental doctrine of
democratic neutrality and impartiality by the government. It
favors a portion of the community at the expense of the rest. It
is the worst form of taxation without representation. It places a
premium on dogmatic faith. It is an establishment of religion in
direct defiance of the spirit of the Constitution and the founding
of the nation. It places the state in the position of formally
endorsing the proposition that religion' is a public function and
not an affair of the private conscience. It differs from

November, 1983

Page 39

And, since I live now in Austin, Texas, and since the headquarters
of Atheism of our nation is there with me - I was particularly
interested in seeing what a Texas newspaper had to say way back
then. Those persons who livein Texas are well aware of the capturing
of certain political entities here by one church-affiliated constellation
of ideas or another, and the good baptists who ordinarily have
dominated the state of Texas are struggling with the insurgence of the
roman catholic church here. One of the towns in which that church is
quite powerful is San Antonio, Texas. So, let me read to you what the
San Antonio Express newspaper had to say in respect to taxing of the
church back in 1915 in an editorial in that paper.
"The Express is not antagonistic to the churches. It believes
that many of them are doing a great and noble work; but it does
not believe in exempting sectarian property from taxation in a
land of alleged religious liberty at the expense of men who
regard the church as a brake on the wheels of progress, an
incubus on civilization, the preservator of antique ignorance,
the storehouse of foolish superstition. It does not approve of
the church posing as an almoner while the thin purse of labor is
annually mulct to make it a present of several milions. Let it be
just before it attempts to be generous. Let it assume its due
proportion of the public burdens and perchance there willnot
be so much need of its dole. The church should not profit at the
expense of the poor; it certainly should not fatten at the cost of
those who despise it."
I have time for just a few more gems from the old classic work, here
taken at random:
"The church cannot be heard to claim that it is a public or a
quasi-public institution. It is not in any sense commissioned by
the state or by the people. Why then should it be funded by the
state, or the people in the state through taxation?
"We are making it possible now for hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of property to be insidiously withdrawn from the
community, and from the tax base, and tied up in the hands of
great religious corporations. We estimate that with the present
trend the churches will own as much as $50 billion dollars by
1950."
The estimate was far off - for we see that they now have 103 billion
dollars in property alone, and this does not count business interests.
I close with one last quote, a lament from back in 1915: "Out of the
immense margin of wealth which the churches have, they could well
afford to bear their honest share of civic burden." To which I can only
say, Amen, Amen. ~

medievalism only in degree, but not a whit in kind. This is much

worse than robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is robbing Peter and
Paul to pay Judas!
"This is not a mere matter of coercing persons to pay for that
which they feel is positively pernicious, it is not a matter of
making individuals pay for that toward which they are
indifferent, it is a direct and deliberate violation of the
fundamental rights of conscience to be free therefrom, of the
burden of the costs through coercive excessive taxations that
others may be free of that tax. For exemption from taxation is
as palpable a subsidy as direct appropriation of funds for the
propagation of the doctrines of the exempted institution."

"Let me read to you what the San Antonio

Express newspaper had to say in respect to
taxing of the church back in 1915: ... 'The
church should not profit at the expense of the
poor; it certainly should not fatten at the cost
of those who despise it.' "
I don't know when I have seen the argument put any better than
that.
The issue was so heated in that time, that in 1915 there was a
hearing before the Committee on Taxation of the New York
Constitutional Convention in June. The Evening Post newspaper in
New York City, then edited by William Cullen Bryant, had this to say
of the arguments:
. "The Evening Post has long been of the opinion that the
American theory of a self-supporting church ought to be
carried out to its full and legitimate conclusion, and that the
separation of church and state ought to be complete. It should
include the total discontinuance of contributions of public
money, direct or indirect, to the support of any religious
establishment. We have never been able to see the slightest
difference in principle between the appropriation of a certain
sum of money raised by tax to a particular church and a release
of that church from a tax on its property to the same amount.
The cost of the act in either case falls upon the taxpayers
generally."

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

Radisson Plaza Hotel

Lexington, Kentucky
.Featured Speakers:
Dr. Madalyn Murray 01lair
Founder, American Atheists
Ms. Barbara Smoker
President
National Secular Society
London, England
Mr. Larry Flynt
Publisher
Hustler Magazine
Page 40

November, 1983

WRITE:
Gloria Tholen
Convention Coordinator
Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117

REGISTRA nON
$20.00
$35.00/ couple
$10.001 student or 65 and over
- with I.D.

The American Atheist

SUGGESTED AMERICAN ATHEIST

INTRODUCTORY READING LIST
Knowing that Atheist material is very hard to find in most public library sources in the United States, American Atheists suggest
the following publications which are available from us as an introduction into the multifaceted areas of Atheism and state/church
separation. These by no means represent our entire collection of Atheist and separationist materials. A more complete
catalogue is available upon request for $1.00.

All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists with All of the Answers
by Jon Murray and Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [paper, 359 p.]
Freedom under Siege, The Impact of Organized Religion on Your Liberty And Your Pocketbook
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [cloth, 282 p.]
Separation of Religion and Government
by Frank Swancara [cloth, 246 p.]
Why I Am An Atheist, including a history of materialism
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [booklet, 40 p.]
What on Earth Is An Atheist! (A collection of programs from the American Atheist Radio Series)
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [paper, 287 p.]
The Bible Handbook (All the contradictions, absurdities, and atrocities from the bible)
by G.W. Foote, W.P. Ball, John Bowden, and Richard M. Smith [paper, 364 p.]
The Case against Religion: A Psychotherapist's View
by Dr. Albert Ellis [booklet, 17 p.]
Pagan Origins of The Christ Myth
by John G. Jackson [booklet, 30 p.]
'
Sex Mythology
;.
by Sha Rocco [booklet, 55 p.]
Ingersoll The Magnificent
by Joseph Lewis [paper, 342 p.]
A Few Reasons for Doubting the Inspiration of The Bible
by Co\. Robert G. Ingersoll [booklet, 30 p.]
Atheist Truth vs. Religion's Ghosts
by Co\. Robert G. Ingersoll [booklet, 45 p.]
The Logic and Virtue of Atheism
by Joseph McCabe [booklet, 58 p.]
An Atheist's Bertrand Russell
ed. by Jon G. Murray [booklet, 50 p.]
Essays in Freethinking, Vol. I
Essays in Freethinking, Vol. II
Essays in Freethinking, Vol. III
Essays in Freethinking, Vol. IV
by Chapman Cohen [booklets, 112 p./bklt]
$4 each, or set of four vols:
The Best of Dial-An-Atheist
Edited by Newton Berry [paper, 148 p.]
Nobody Has a Prayer
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [booklet, 100 p.]
Women and Atheism, The Ultimate Liberation
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [booklet, 22 p.]
Fruits of Philosophy
by Charles Knowlton, MD [booklet, 58 p.]
History's Greatest Liars
by Joseph McCabe [paper, 179 p.]
The Peril of Faith
by Martin Bard [paper, 151 p.]
:
War in Vietnam - The Religious Connection
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [booklet, 83 p.]
An Atheist Epic: Bill Murray, The Bible and The Board of Education
by Dr. Madalyn Murray O'Hair [paper, 316 p.]
Essays of An Atheist Activist
by Jon G. Murray [booklet, 67 p.]

Order from:

American Atheist Press

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

$6.95
10.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
6.95
2.00
3.00
3.00
6.95
3.00
3.29
3.29
3.29

12.00
3.95
$3.00
3.00
$4.00
$4.95
3.95
$4.00
3.95
3.29

AMENDMENT I

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING

..,
::t

m
rn

..,

C/)

);>

t:tl

C/)

:r::
~

rn
Z

..,
o

."

:;N

m
r

;,

o
CJ

"The most malicious kind of hatred

is that which is built upon a theological foundation."
George Sarton
(1884-1955)

o
:;N
"1j

:;N

o
::t

--..,
-

(American authority on history of science)

t:tl

Z
CJ
-l

:r::
m

.":;N
m

m
rn

rn
:;N

n
C/)
iil

~O ~O 'HJ33dS

~O lAJOa33~~

3H.l

aNIaaI~8V

~O ~~03~3H.l