Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
is a non-profit, non- political, educational organization, dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of
state and church. We accept the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the "First Amendment"
to the
Constitution of the United States was meant to create a "wall of separation" between state and church.
American Atheists are organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning
religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices;
to collect and disseminate inforrriation, data and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough
understanding of them, their origins and histories;
to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human ethical system, stressing the mutual
sympathy, understanding
and interdependence
of all people and the corresponding
responsibility of each
individual in relation to society;
to develop arid propagate a culture in which man is the central figure who alone must be the source of
strength, progress and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
to promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance,
perpetuation and enrichment of human (and other) life;
to engage in such social, educational, legal and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to
members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and
aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method,
independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own
inherent, immutable and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that man finding his resources within himself - can and must create his own destiny. Materialism restores to man his
dignity and his intellectual integrity. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve
it. It holds that man is capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism's "faith" is in
man and man's ability to transform the world culture by his own efforts. This is a commitment which is in very
essence life asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation and impossible without noble
ideas that inspire man to bold creative works. Materialism holds that humankind's potential for good and for an
outreach to more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited .
membership
S500.00
S100.00/year
S50.00/year
S40.00/year
S20.00/year
S12.00/year
*I.D. required
All membership categories receive our monthly "Insider's Newsletter," membership cardts), a
subscription to American Atheist magazine for the duration of the membership period, plus additional
organizational mailings, i.e. new products for sale, convention and meeting announcements, etc.
(Vo1.26, No.6)
June, 1984
REGULAR FEATURES
Editorial
Dial-An-Atheist
Ask A.A
News & Comments: "Creche;" "Ronald Reagan, God's Lobbyist"
Reader Service Information
American Atheist Radio Series
Potpourri
Poetry
'
Letters to the Editor
2
4
5
6
12
25
31
36
43
SPECIAL FEATURES
Talmudic Fundamentalism And The Arab-Israeli Conflict - H.J. Skutel.
Sundays in the Dark - Joe David
The Idiopathy Of The Human Brain - Robert Ostrander
17
21
22
FEATURED COLUMNISTS
Fanaticism On-Wheels - Margaret Bhatty
A Letter From A Long Lost Cousin - Richard Smith
While Freedom Burns - Gerald Tholen
Spirits In The Material World - Michael Bettencourt
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
Alexander Stevens
BillKight
Richard M. Smith
Gloria Tholen
Non-Resident Staff
G. Stanley Brown
Jeff Frankel
Merrill Holste
Margaret Bhatty
Fred Woodworth
Clayton Powers
Michael Bettencourt
Cover Art
Roger Stewart
27
29
32
35
_
--'-
City
State
_
_
-LZip
Address
City
State
_
Zip
ARE YOU
MOVING?
Please notify us six
weeks in advance to
ensure uninterrupted
delivery.
Send us
both your old an-d
new addresses, Ifpossible, attach old label
from a recent magazine issue in the bottom address space
provided.
ON THE COVER
As we - including all nonreligious
citizens - enter this new era of "constitutional christianity" (see related Supreme Court rulings included in the
News & Comments article, "Creche,"
on page 6 of this issue), everyone would
be wise to note that state-church separation is now a "disturbing" concept in-sofar as our legal/justice system is concerned!
The Court's majority opinion, ". _. the
Constitution does not require complete
separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation ..
. of all religions, and forbids hostility
toward any," says it all! Consequently,
the wrecking ball of religion has effectively smashed that single barrier originally
designed to protect the rights of individuals. Future U.S. generations may now
be destined to become a culture of
idiorhythmic robots who, in time, will
have forgotten the art of individual
thought. If you think differently, or that
this is an unfounded fear, simply consider the circumstances of the more rabidly controlled religious nations of the
world!
The ongoing problem in America is
that people here, pampered by the security blanket of relative affluence, and
armed with a "magic" credit-card economy, have ceased to accept the conditions
of a real world. Consistently, voters have
dashed our freedoms on the rocks of
oblivion by "hiring" incompetent, windbag politicians on the basis of their
god-fearsomeness.
We must now reap the poisonous
harvest of a court system that no longer
serves a constitutionally minded public.
Recall that the judges therein are, for the
most part, the appointed Igor-like henchmen of those pompous degenerates who
think religion is the savior of an intellectually degenerate society.
It' is sad that only a handful of our
elected officials ever display the courage
to resist the massive religious onslaught
against human intelligence. It is sadder
still to watch a seemingly unconcerned
public rush "hell"-bent into the waiting
arms of religious fascism and, at the
same time, imagine themselves to be
patriots of freedom.
Gerald Tholen
Austin, Texas
June, 1984
Page 1
PRAYER AND
POLITICAL IMPOTENCE
~------------------------------------------
June, 1984
Justice say that individual voluntary prayer on the part of any student
at any time would be impermissible. Individual students have always
maintained the right under the Constitution to bow their heads and
pray before an exam, or before eating in the school cafeteria, if that
was their custom at meals at home. Any student could pray in the
halls, by their locker, or any place else on the school grounds. That
freedom is consistent with prayer as a private affair. The Court did
not desire to have the state say "you will only pray during this
particular time period of the day, in this particular setting, or with
such and such a particularly- worded prayer."
Individual voluntary prayer, as far as the leaders of every religious
community in the country are concerned, is not enough. "Volunteerism" has never been a part of the tenets of any religion. All religions
dictate that one must "pray" or suffer a list of possible consequences.
The basic nature of religion is to force prayer on everyone be it
sincere or insincere, genuine or hypocritical. The bottom line is that if
everyone is forced into prayer it will make those who do it on their
own look better and feel more comfortable in partaking of an exercise
that is simply silly. If you arrive at a party in a Bozo suit, and no one
else is in costume, you feel silly. Ifeveryone else is in costume too, you
feel at ease. The same is true of prayer. Ifyou bow your head and start
to mumble on your own, you look silly if no one else in class is doing
the same thing. Ifthe teacher forces everyone else to join with you or
observe a moment of silence while you do your thing without being
laughed at, you feel much better about it.
Prior to the 1963 decision, the majority of the states did not have
any prayers, organized or otherwise, in their school systems. This
was especially true of the Western states. Most of the persons who
grew up in states like California in the fifties and sixties never had
prayer in their classrooms. The states that did have prayer were
chiefly Eastern seaboard states and the deep South. The two cases
that led to the Supreme Court decision were from Maryland and
Pennsylvania.
In fact, this nation has had a long history of turmoil along
denominational lines concerning the issue of prayer in the schools. As
long as 130 years ago religious persons began dividing up over the
prayer issue.
In 1854 a young roman catholic student by the name of Bridget
Donahue was expelled from a public school in Maine. She was
expelled because she refused to participate in the protestant
mandatory prayer. The priest that urged her into the act of
noncompliance was later tarred and feathered by the local cornmunity. In 1859 in Massachusetts Tom Wall, age 11, had his hands
beaten severely with a rattan stick over a 30minute period to force
him as a roman catholic to submit to saying the mandatory protestant
prayer. His father sued the teacher for assault. The court dismissed
the charges saying that if the young man could legally refuse to read
the bible and say the prayer he could legally refuse to listen to it also
and that would be viewed as a "war upon the bible" by the community
which could not be tolerated. Over 100 roman catholic children were
expelled from the public schools in several states during the mid1800s over refusals to participate in protestant prayers.
Cincinnati, Ohio, between 1829 and 1860, was turned into a 19th
century Londondery (Northern Ireland), withfactions bickering over
protestant versus catholic prayer in the schools. The Ohio State
The American Atheist
This is a real fantasy world for any elected official. They all know
that in reality the social issues are just as insoluble in a political sense
as the issues of economy and foreign policy. You are "damned" by
one faction or another whichever way you as a legislator vote. Instead
of being able to live with their impotence to come to reasonable
conclusions on certain matters, they stir up the masses every few
years over issues such as school prayer that are better off left as they
stand.
To further complicate the situation prayer has been a legislative
and executive branchforeign policy issue (not just a domestic one),
since the end of World War II.Subsequent to our national leadership
deciding that the USSR was our enemy instead of an ally after the war,
religion has been used as a part of our anticommunist foreign policy
thrust on a regular basis. To substantiate our conflict with the political
system of communism, the people in power had to establish,
truthfully or not, that as human beings the people of the United States
were somehow fundamentally different from the people of the USSR.
This was done through the expediency of religion.
Page 3
tional system that would train leaders? They could not. Attempts will
continue to be made to place religious ceremonies into our public
schools so that it willbe demonstrated to the non capitalist world that
our "spiritual base" makes our economic system a better one. What
we have here is another example of legislative and executive reaction
to the problem of impotence, only spilling over into the area of foreign
policy.
We cannot do any better job under "free capitalism" (Ever noticed
how the government still controls our money supply?) of solving the
economic problems of the 20th century than can any other country
under a socialist or communist system. In order to "save face,"
though, up pops the issue of prayer and others of that social ilk as ifto
say "we can't solve our real problems either, but at least we are pure
of heart." That really does the victims of those problems a lot of good
in the meantime, doesn't it? So, getting back to the question asked at
the beginning of this editorial on why a revival of prayer as a national
issue, the answer is again clear. The Westernjudeo-christianity that is
in common in this nation is a religion based on intolerance and full
compliance. It is a belief system that simply cannot function unless
"every knee shall bow." This necessitates the forcing of prayer on the
populace again and again as the belief system, to stay alive, fights
apathy and increased access to information. The continued and
growing impotence of our legislative and executive, and now even
legal. branches of government to cope with the problems of a modern
world add to its desire to turn to a fantasy world in which the problems
simply either go away or have the lack of a solution to them justified by
demonstrating the alleged inherent "goodness" or "sincerity" of those
unable to cope with those problems.
00
Page 4
June, 1984
DIAL-AN-A THEIST
CHAPTERS OF AMERICAN A THEISTS
The telephone listings below are the various message services
where you may listen to short comments on state/church
separation issues and/or viewpoints originated by the Atheist
community.
DIAL-THE-ATHEIST
Tucson, Arizona
Orange, California
S. Francisco, California
Denver, Colorado
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Tampa Bay, Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
'Chicago, Illinois
~
Central Illinois
Evansville, Indiana
Des Moines, Iowa
Lexington, Kentucky
New Orleans, Louisiana
Boston, Massachusetts
Detroit, Michigan
Eastern Missouri
Reno, Nevada
Northern New Jersey
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Schenectady, New York
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Portland, Oregon
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Houston, Texas
Dial-a-Gay-Atheist
Salt Lake City, Utah
Northern Virginia
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
(512) 458-5731
(602) 623-3861
(714)
(415)
(303)
(305)
(813)
(404)
(312)
(217)
(812)
(515)
(606)
(504)
(617)
(313)
(314)
(702)
(201)
(505)
(518)
(405)
(503)
(412)
(713)
(713)
(801)
(703)
(804)
(416)
974-7110
668-8085
692-9395
584-8923
577-7154
962-5052
772-8822
328-4465
425-1949
266-6133
278-8333
897-9666
969-2682
721-6630
771-8894
972-8203
777-0766
884-7360
346-1479
677-4141
771-6208
734-0509
664-7678
527-9255
364-4939
280-4321
588-0118
277-4663
ASK A.A.
This new column is distinctly different from "Letters to the Editor" where you state your opinion. This column is designed to
.answer your questions as to why American Atheists does the things that it does, takes the positions that it takes, or practices the
customs that it practices. It is not a "Dear Abby" column, since it will not be giving advice. The letters being answered here, now,
are illustrative of what we consider typical: The "Ask A.A." question - with "A.A." replies.
Dear AA:
I have a serious question to ask, and I
hope you'll give me a good answer.
Why is it that Atheisfs seem to hate and
fight each other like the stupid christians do
among themselves?
For example, one woman from Colorado
who calls herself an Atheist hates a man in
California who calls himself an Atheist. He
seems to hate her. Madalyn seems to hate
both of them and both of them hate the first
lady of Atheism. The hatred is the same
between freethinkers, rationalists, agnostics, etc. Why this gawdamn hatred?
Bolder Landry
California
Dear Bolder:
No one has ever seen. in print any
American Atheist attack on any alleged
Atheist group or individual. That is not our
style. Madalyn Murray O'Hair cannot and
will not become involved in "hating" "either
christian or Atheist. It would consume her
emotionally and psychologically. Again and
again and again she has pointed out that
"The enemy is religion, not one another. "
During the last 21 years, at some time
every so-called Atheist leader in the United
States has been personally visited by Dr.
O'Hair, who went to their homes, knocked
on their doors and said, "Let's see how we
can work together." For. the first ten years
of the existence of American Atheists every
name received by Dr. O'Hair was sent to all
of the little struggling "freethought, rationalist, secularist, agnostic and humanist"
groups in the United States by her. None
ever reciprocated. American Atheists has
been invaded by persons who have stolen
state mailing lists in order to start "rump"
groups, usually having a focus other than
Atheism. There is not one alleged Atheist
group in the United States which has not
gained by the mailing list of American
Atheists.
Yet, American Atheists and Madalyn
Murray O'Hair have been the objects of
attacks by every single so-called Atheist
group in the United States, barring none.
One, for example, sent letters attacking Dr.
O'Hair to every religious editor in the
nation, and those religious editors promptly
got to Dr. O'Hair to tell her that with Mends
like the little alleged Atheist groups she did
not need enemies.
American Atheists is attacked because it
is a purist group. It is the single group in the
nation which trumpets the weltanshauung
of Atheism and refuses to hide what it
Austin, Texas
Dear AA:
I have three questions.
1. Is Madalyn O'Hair a communist? I don't
care, but when I'm asked as told I want the
answer.
2. Where do you stand on animals? I'm big
on animal rights and welfare. As you know,
christians tell me god put these animals here
for man to do with as he pleases. I cannot
buy any cruelty.
3. I ama poor cleaning lady. I would like to
join for myself and my husband. Could I
send you $25.00 for two months, and then
be signed up? I'm 49 and Jack is 50, so we
June, 1984
PageS
June,
1984
CRECHE
On March 5th of this year, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that the sponsorship of a "nativity scene" by a city is
constitutional. Although the decision was immediately made available to your editor by NoelScott, Director of the Washington, DC Chapter
of American Atheists, an analysis could not be brought to you before this time since the American Atheist magazine has a two-month "lead"
time. As you read this issue, the August issue has already "gone to press" and the September issue is being put together. The American
Atheist is an analysis magazine, not a "news scoop" journal, of which there are many in the United States, hardly any of which present news
worth the scooping. Here, then, is the analysis of Lynch v. Donnelly, using as much of the U.S. Supreme Court language as possible, both in
and out of quotation marks.
.
ach year, in cooperation with the downtown retail merchants'
association, the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island erects a
creche in a park owned by a nonprofit organization and
located in the heart of the city's shopping district. A creche has been
displayed for 40 or more years and consists of the traditional figures,
including the "Infant Jesus, Mary and Joseph, angels, shepherds,
kings and animals, all ranging in height from 5" to 5'." In 1973, the
current creche was purchased by the city for $1,365. The City alleges
that now the erection, dismantling, cartage, storage and the cost of
lighting is about $20/year. Since the minimum wage is $3.65 an hour,
this is to say that perhaps 5Yz hours of labor at that rate are involved
each year, which is stretching the minimization of the cost a bit thin,
and immediately makes one aware that prevarication and deceit were
factors in the case.
The District (or lower) Court which heard the case held that by
using the creche the City "tried to endorse and promulgate religious
beliefs" and that the "erection of the creche has the real and
substantial effect of affiliating the City with the Christian beliefs that
the creche represents." Therefore, this "appearance of official
sponsorship confers more than a remote and incidental benefit on
Christianity." The court based its decision on a finding of facts that:
(1) the creche had a religious content;
(2) the creche was not seen as an insignificant part of the display;
(3) the creche's religious content was not neutralized by the
setting:
(4) the creche was celebratory and not instructional; and that
(5) the City did not seek to counteract any possible religious
message.
In toto, the District Court found, "the City has accepted and
implemented the view of its predominantly Christian citizens
that it is a 'good thing' to have a creche in a Christmas display,
because it is a good thing to keep 'Christ in Christmas.' "
The City was, therefore, permanently enjoined from including the
creche in the display, as the Court declared such action to be violative
of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. At this point, any person would wonder why
the City did not simply sell the creche to a local church group and
have that church group sponsor it since the display was on privately
held land anyway. Why did the City, gratuitously, insist that the City
government be the sponsor of the creche, other than for political
reasons of those in power? Almost immediately political divisiveness
surrounded the issue, to such an extent that every court, and the
media, have been impressed by the magnitude of the fight.
The mayor personally made the decision to appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, which affirmed the decision of the lower
court. The mayor, then, amidst much political rhetoric, appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari (i.e. review). The
case had been a number of years in litigation (1979 to 1984).
Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme
Court, and White, Powell, Rehnquist and O'Connor joined him. That
opinion begins by reaching into older U.S. Supreme Court decisions
to take fragmentary statements to build up a thesis that separation of
state and church is impossible. "Some relationship between govern-
Page 6
June, 1984
L
,
'"
J'
'
----
~i:l.F-~--i~~
~:..~; .~~:.; __---
z.->- -
------
-?
(5) As in this case, religious displays can be erected, maintained,
disassembled and stored by religious organizations on privately
owned land. No government involvement is necessary.
(6) If taxes run with land, with stock and bond purchases, with
business enterprises, the churches and religious organizations
should pay at the same rate that any other purchaser does,
being made fully aware that they - as any other person or
entity - purchase at their peril when taxes are involved in the
exercise. There need be no "exemptions" from ordinary
taxable items or activities.
(7) Ifschools, generally, must have health and welfare standards for
children in attendance, the church schools cannot be exempted from such minimal safety standards.
(8) If teachers need to be certified as competent to teach diverse
subject areas, teachers in religious schools cannot be exAustin, Texas
Page 7
June, 1984
Not content with these premises the Court bolsters its shaky
argument with a statement that "Art galleries supported by public
revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries,
predominantly inspired by one religious faith." The National Gallery
in Washington regularly exhibits "more than 200" religious paintings
including "those depicting the Last Supper, the Birth of Christ, the
Crucifixion and the Resurrection." it neglects to note that art history
reveals that one could not be a certified "master" from any art school
or university in Europe during the period of the 15th and 16th
centuries unless one (coercively) completed works of these "events,"
particularly that of the crucifixion. This was a period of history when
the roman catholic church was completely dominant on the continent
and where any dissent away from christianity brought death.
Lutheranism, beginning in the 16th century, although subscribing
completely to christian tenets, nonetheless precipitated the devastating 3D-Years War in Germany. Only religious art could be
recognized or survive at the time.
Turning to what should be impermissible objets d'art the Court
even noted, "The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case
were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent symbol of
religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments." This should be
considered to be a blight in the courtroom which needs to be removed
rather than to be a constitutional representation of the saturation of
our political and judiciary system with christianity.
The Court reinforces its standing on shaky "tradition" by saying
that "Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious
worship and meditation." Again, this signals a failingof the congressmen, that they need to go to such chapels for "advice" from god,
instead of using their own education, political acumen, and human
experiences to assist them in making decisions in respect to
legislation which affects us all.
American Atheists have pointed out, until we are weary of it, the
statement of James Madison in his 1784 Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments, which contains the following advice:
"The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had
strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in
precedents. They sawall the consequences in the principle, and they
avoided the consequences by denying the principle." Again and again,
during the past 23 years, American Atheists have "denied the
principle" and have been called every gross name in the book by both
the "conservatives" and the "liberals" of our nation who would
protect religious precepts and the swallowing of the nation by
christianity because of their timidity and their fear that religion cannot
be confronted. Usurped religious power has strengthened itself by
exercise and entangled the question of state/church separation in
precedents and it is only by sweeping it clean that the morass can be
rectified.
"Countless other illustrations of the Government's acknowledgment of our religious heritage and governmental sponsorship of
graphic manifestations of that heritage" include the federal statute 36
USe. 169th, to proclaim a National Day of Prayer each year.
The Court almost wept that it could not "mechanically" take an
"absolutist approach" on state/church separation as it continued
down the yellow brick road to the point of denouement that god is
really a Falwellian. The Jeffersonian phrase of a "wall of separation"
between state and church means to this primarily Nixon-appointed
Court, "a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the
circumstances of a particular relationship." The lessons of history
have been lost on the old christian-indoctrinated men of the U.S.
Supreme Court. They acknowledged that, when it was convenient,
the Court has applied a tripartite test by inquiring whether a
challenged law or conduct (1) has a secular purpose, (2) whether its
principal or primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion, and (3)
whether it creates an excessive entanglement of government with
religion. However, as it has reviewed recent cases it admits that it has
not considered such an analysis "relevant," particularly when it came
to the saying of prayer in state legislative bodies. It noted, albeit
genteelly, that one of its chief tricks, "Even where the benefits to
religion were substantial," was to find "a secular purpose" to let the
exercise sneak into the culture as "constitutional." These have been:
The American Atheist
(lnd
Since the Court has already visited the largess of tax dollars and
special privileges on religion, as above indicated, it then states "We
are unable to discern a greater aid to religion deriving from inclusion
of the creche than from these (other) benefits and endorsements, ... "
Seeing that it could not deny arguendo, however, that there is some
advancement of religion from the action of the City of Pawtucket
sponsoring the creche (Why didn't the City instead sponsor a
different nonreligious symbol along with the clown in the display, the
elephant, or the teddy bear?), the Court held this to be an "indirect,
remote and incidental benefit on Christianity."
Austin, Texas
June, 1984
Page 9
divisiveness and O'Connor wants to make the point that this cannot
be an "independent test of constitutionality." Yet, she notes" Political
divisiveness is admittedly an evil addressed by the Establishment
Clause." My gawd! must we all vote for Reagan to avoid "political
divisiveness"? Is uniformity of political opinion a constitutional
mandate? Of what can the woman possibly be thinking? Political
divisiveness, she goes on, occurs when there is perception that
government has endorsed religion or that "institutional" entanglement is excessive.
Therefore, she wants to enquire - as if we did not know - has
Pawtucket actually endorsed christianity either objectively or
subjectively by its display of the creche? Is there a true secular
purpose? And her entire reasoning is set forth in a bald, unsupported
statement: "Iwould find that Pawtucket did not intend to convey any
message of endorsement of Christianity ... " This despite the fact that
the much conveyed message of the mayor of that city was that he
intended to "put Christ back into Christmas." Although the finding of
facts is the job of the lower court, and although that lower court had
found that:
(1) the creche had a religious content;
(2) the creche was not seen as an insignificant part of the display;
(3) the creche's religious content was not neutralized by the setting;
(4) the creche was celebratory and not instructional; and that
(5) the City did not seek to counteract any possible religious
message.
O'Connor swept this aside with "The District Court's conclusion
concerning the effect of Pawtucket's display of its creche was in error
as a matter of law." The four dissenting justices in their minority
opinion (written by justice Brennan) note: "Justice O'Connor's
concurring opinion properly accords greater respect to the District
Court's findings, but I am at a loss to understand how the court's
specific and well-supported finding that the City was understood to
have placed its stamp of approval on the sectarian content of the
creche can be dismissed as simply an 'error as a matter of law.' "
Just as the majority, whose decision she had joined, relied on the
legislative prayers, the "In God We Trust" on currency and coins, the
prayer with which the U.S. Supreme Court opens, as evidences that
"intent" is secular, she parrot-like repeated these symbolic precedents. She added: "This display celebrates a public holiday, and no
one contends that declaration of that holiday is understood to be an
endorsement of religion." American Atheists for over 100 years have
contended that the declaration of religious holidays (5. U.S. C. 6103(a)
- federal holidays include Fourth of July, Memorial Day, Washington's Birthday, Labor Day, Veteran's Day and Christmas) is understood by them to be an endorsement of religion.* We are swept off the
map!
Her brilliant conclusion: "I cannot say that the particular creche
display at issue in this case was intended to endorse or had the effect
of endorsing christianity." O'Connor's drivel is an insult to any lawyer
in the land.
*The Court's dissent noted that christmas was not even recognized
as a federal holiday until the late 19th century after the States had first
made it into legal holiday:
"Ch. 167, 16 Stat. 168 (1870). There is no suggestion in the brief
congressional discussion concerning the decision to declare Christmas day a public holiday in the District of Columbia, (emphasis
added - ed.) that Congress meant to do anything more than to put
the District on equal footing with the many other States that had
declared those days public holidays by that time (1870, ed.) (And
what was the discussion in those States about establishing this
religious holiday? The Court did not examine it. - ed.). See Congo
Globe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. 4805 (1870).
"Significantly, it was not until 1885 that Congress provided holiday
payment for federal employees on December 25. See J. Res. 4, 23
Stat. 516 (1885)."
Page 10
June, 1984
could be designated as a "Winter Celebration Day." Government officials should be able to participate in the secular event of a
holiday such as this. As the minority emphasizes, "But when those
officials participate in or appear to endorse the distinctively religious
elements of this otherwise secular event, they encroach upon First
Amendment freedoms. For it is at that point that the government
brings to the forefront the theological content of the holiday, and
places the prestige, power and financial support of a civilauthority in
the service of a particular faith."
. The minority then looks at the argument as to whether or not the
Court has officiallyacknowledged religion with "In God We Trust" on
our coins, "under God" in our pledge of allegiance, prayer at judicial
sessions and in legislative bodies, a national motto acknowledging
god and religious holidays such as "Thanksgiving;" and it sees that
" ... if government is to remain scrupulously neutral in matters
of religious conscience, as our Constitution requires, then it
must avoid those overly broad acknowledgments of religious
practices that imply governmental favoritism toward one set of
religious beliefs.
"Despite (a) body of case law, the Court has never
comprehensively addressed the extent to which government
may acknowledge religion by, for example, incorporating
religious references into public ceremonies and proclamations
and (we) do not presume to offer a comprehensive approach.
Nevertheless, it appears from prior decisions that at least three
principles ... may be identified.
"First, although the government may not be compelled to do so by the Free Exercise Clause, it may,
consistently with the Establishment Clause, act to
accommodate to some extent the opportunities of
individuals to practice their religion.
"Second, our cases recognize that while a particular
governmental practice may have derived from religious
motivations and retain certain religious connotations, it
is nonetheless permissible for the government to pursue
the practice when it is continued today solely for secular
reasons.
June, 1984
Page 11
READER SERVICE
SEND A GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONI
City'
State
-..LZip,
TO SUBSCRIBE TO AMERICAN
MAGAZINE OR TO RENEW
YOUR PRESENT SUBSCRIPTION!
ATHEIST
City'
State
Zip
o Individual; $40/yr
o 65+/unemployed*; $20/yr
o Student": $12/yr
o Info packet only; free
0
0
0
Couple**; $50/yr
Sustaining; $1oo/yr
Lifetime; $500
*Send photocopy of 1.0., etc.
**Include partners' name
ATTr:~TIf)~!
Address
(Please Print)
June, 1984
City
State
--LZip,
Page 12
Exp.Oat:ee
Date
June,
1984
RONALD. REAGAN,
GOD'S LOBBYIST
resident Reagan, muting religion somewhat as he campaigned
on the issue of reaganomics and the slogan, "Are you better
off than you were four years ago?", still held out in his 1980 bid
for the White House that he was also running as a supporter of
America's "traditional values." In the last four years he has made it
increasingly clear that these are all religious "values." American
Atheists and radical right-wing religionists sniffed that out during the
first campaign, while the media did not understand until their noses
were rubbed in it. That came when Viguerie, Falwell, Robertson,
Bakker and the rest started to demand immediate concessions from
an elected Reagan for their support in his campaign.
He never had to rhetorically ask "Where's the beef?" They had the
beef. But knowing well that he could count on their support (since
they had nowhere else to turn), Reagan deliberately kept it on the
back burner, tantalizing the hope of the radical religious right with
whiffs of the odor of a cooking theocracy during his first four years in
office. As time for re-election approached, his "Year of the Bible" (for
1983) gave them their hope for another try and his slowly moving
efforts in behalf of goals of half a dozen religious -groups ("all
constituent groups" - an aide explained) bolstered them all to a new
preparedness. For the mormons there was forced virginity; for the
evangelicals, an attack on sex education; for the roman catholics,
tuition tax credits; and for all of the nuts, all tqgether, an endorsement
of creationism, bible classes in schools, government-sponsored
school prayers, religious rhetoric bordering on the insane intruding
into domestic and foreign politics.
It was no surprise then in January that Reagan announced his
candidacy for reelection one day and the next day made it known that
his issues agenda was religio-political. The theme: in 1983 he had
proclaimed "The Year of the Bible;" 1984 would be "the year we put
its (the bible's) great truths into action." No one realized he really
meant what he said until March when the ominous issue was joined in
the Congress of the U.S. on the presidential "Prayer in Schools"
maneuvers. In this scheme of things, god was to move at the whim of
Reagan, god's special interest lobbyist in the White House.
And even before the issue got media-hot, the White House was
ready for it. In late February, a new "electronic mail system" was put
into operation with its first agenda to promote Reagan's constitutional
amendment for prayer in the public schools. On February 28th, the
Public Affairs Director shot out the first issue of "talking points" to
explain the Reagan administration position. Electronic mail is distributed to all Cabinet secretaries, agency heads and other "administration spokesmen" so that the whole team could adhere to the same
"line." Each agency then further distributes to anyone having
"appropriate upcoming speaking opportunities." The first comment
reminded senior officials of what Reagan had said in his weekly radio
talk of February 25th:
"President Reagan believes that prohibitions on school
prayer stand the First Amendment on its head. 'Ask yourselves,'he said Saturday, 'can it really be true that the First
Amendment can permit Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen to march
on public property, advocate the extermination of people of the
Jewish faith and the subjugation of blacks while the same
amendment forbids our children from saying a prayer in
school.' "
Austin, Texas
June, 1984
Page 13
~ ..
FATHER
TOM LANOR,{
(\
'(
'\
.~
.J"
Some of the first up were the coaches of one of the fiercest rivalries
in American football. This time they sat on the same side of the field,
giving their signals for prayer. Joe Gibbs, coach of the Washington
Redskins, saw that the removal of prayer from the schools had
"caused a breakdown in our schools' discipline." But Tom Landry of
the Dallas Cowboys went further to state that "when we removed
Page 14
June, 1984
God from our public schools, ... what we did was accelerate the
moral decay of our country." The Washington Times, on March 8th,
gave one fullpage to an interview with Landry. In this he revealed that
he had been a part of the "Fellowship of Christian Athletes" for more
than 20 years and that" ... the major thrust of the program has been
to get into the junior high and high schools an opportunity to get the
coaches and athletes together as a witnessing group . . . on the
campus."
But other luminaries in attendance were just as bright. They
included Rosey Grier (former defensive tackle for the New York
Giants and the Los Angeles Rams), Lenny Moore (formerly with the
Baltimore Colts and a member of the NFL Hall of Fame), Mark
Moseley (place kicker for the Redskins), and Meadowlark Lemmon
(ex-Harlem Globetrotter). Roger Staubach, who was supposed to be
among those in attendance, did not make an appearance. But
Desmond Wilson (star of "Sanford and Son") was there, his
"wisdom" showing through his prayers as he stated without qualification, "Bringing God back into the classrooms will help in putting an
end to the stabbing, rapes, drugs, alcohol and other serious problems
in the schools."
The Study Committee, billed as "a legislative support group"
(whatever that means), provided the forum to the stars to accommodate 130 Republican Congressmen wanting the return of prayer to
schools as a campaign issue. The game plan by the House Republicans was to bring pressure on Congressmen to sign a discharge
petition to dislodge the prayer amendment from a House subcommittee onto the floor of the House. A "discharge petition"
requires the signature of 218 House members to.force legislation to
the floor. The prayer petition for discharge was drawn up on February
23rd, and its backers predicted that it could take months before the
necessary signatures were obtained. The Study Committee forum
was a calculated risky trick to gain those signatures quickly. On
February 28th this game plan was discussed by Falwell in a press
interview in Atlanta, Georgia. Hundreds of evangelicals were to
assemble for a prayer session in the Capitol rotunda. Afterwards they
were to hold an all-night vigilon the steps outside while Rep. Newton
L. Gingrich (D-Ga.) kept the House in session until dawn. The
marathon debate, or "testimonial" session was to be recorded in the
Congressional Record, which would later provide for the fundamentalists a SOD-page"special edition" on the school-prayer issue.
One speaker at the forum, a school teacher who had taught in
Maryland public schools for forty years, said, without equivocation,
"The choice is yours. You can vote in the affirmative and be on the
side of God, George Washington, the Founding Fathers and President Reagan. Or you can vote 'no' and be on the side of Khrushchev,
Madalyn Murray O'Hair and the millions of agnostics and atheists
who do not recognize America as 'one nation under God'. "
Meanwhile, on the same day,.Reagan was telling a conservative
senior citizens' group that "it would be nice to show the world that
America is still one nation under God."
Reagan personally presided over a strategy session of Republican
leaders at the White House on March 2nd. There, he and they
decided how to manage a session set for March 5th, when the Senate
was to begin a major debate over the Reagan-proposed constitutional
amendment which would permit organized government-sponsored
prayer in public schools. The measure had been bottled in the Senate
Judiciary Committee as prayer proponents struggled to write a
"winner." The formula was not found. Usually the Committee
reaches an agreement on competing amendments offered, but this
time in an unprecedented move the Committee simply dumped
several amendments onto the floor of the Senate without recommending any of them - an unusual procedure for a measure as
important as a constitutional amendment. One stipulated silent
prayer, the other oral prayer. Reagan's proposed amendment,
advocating the latter, read as follows:
"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit
individual or group prayer in public schools or other public
institutions. No person shall be required by the United States
or any state to participate in prayer. Neither the United States
The American Atheist
or any state shall compose the words of any prayer in the public
schools."
One of the difficulties, of course, was that this amendment was
quickly given the appellation of the "Voluntary Prayer Act" when it
concerned prayer imposed upon children who were, by compulsory
attendance and truancy laws, required to be enrolled in public
schools. The object was to convince the children that they needed to
pray, regardless of the form or content of the prayer.
III
The Reagan-proposed amendment had itself been amended at the
behest of Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), and the last sentence in the
above-quoted amendment was his. According to the committee's
majority report, the Thurmond prohibition would cover "any government official," including school board members, school administrators and teachers, "since they are all considered agents of the state."
Prayers, the Senate committee suggested, could be "offered by the
students themselves, suggested by members of the clergy, or taken
from religious literature." At issue was the fact that the Constitution'
forbids "the state" to make any laws in respect to the establishment of
religion and the word "state" includes all officers and employees of
government. Therefore a public school teacher could not possibly be
allowed to mandate the use of a particular prayer. If a prayer is to be
read, it would need to be chosen by students or parents and not
employees of the school. And, under all of the federal-aid-to-school
laws, ifCongress, or the Department of Education, or school boards,
or principals, or teachers drew up such prayers or prayer guidelines,
federal aid could be denied to the schools involved.
Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chosen to lead the Senate floor fight for
the president, quickly announced, "There are many religious people
who believe, from a public prayer viewpoint, that vocal prayer is the
only way to pray." Yet, the second proposed amendment was hiscalling for silent prayer.
The amendment would affect 39,000,000 students in 83,700 public
schools.*
In the over 200 years that we have been a nation, all the assaults
upon the idea of state/church separation have been very covert. For
example, the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of
Allegiance (flag) with few people knowing about it until after the fact.
About the same time (mid-1950s) the mandatory phrase "In God We
Trust" became our national motto and appeared on our currency and
coins as a fait accompli in those perilous times of McCarthyism.
Much of the largesse of government to the churches (gifts of land,
building and money, primarily) has simply not been reported in the
media. This is, however, the first time a direct and open assault has
been made on the First Amendment of the Billof Rights, the attack
being directly against the Constitution with the object of amending it.
The White House also interpreted the amendment as permitting a
wide range of activities in schools, such as prayer at school assembly
and and bible-study groups for interested students as well as the
*There are, additionally, 4,962,000 students in private schools. Of
these, about 1,019,000 are in non-church affiliated schools. Of the
balance, 3,138,000 are in roman catholic, 232,000 in baptist, 218,000 in
lutheran, 112,000 in "other christian schools," 85,000 in jewish, 82,000
in seventh-day-adventist, 76,000 in episcopal schools.
Austin, Texas
June, 1984
Page 15
June, 1984
H. J. Skutel
Austin, Texas
June, 1984
Page 17
Diaspora, they argued, the lives of all jews must be made consonant
with the commandments of the torah - for how else would the
ethical-religious preconditions be set for the "final redemption"?*
Though still formally antizionist, a statement by the Agudah in their
Israeli daily Hammodia, four years after the establishment of the
jewish state, prefigured the crassly ethnocentric and expansionist
doctrines which constitute the ideological core of religious extremism
in Israel today:
"The world was createdfor the sake of Israel [i.e., the jewish
people). It is the duty and the merit of Israel to maintain and
fulfillthe Torah. The place where Israel is destined to live and,
therefore, to maintain the Torah, is the Land of Israel. This
means that the raison d'etre of the world is the establishment of
the regime of the Torah in the Land of Israel. The foundation of
this ideal has been laid: there are now Jews living in their
homeland and fulfillingthe Torah. But completion has not yet
been attained,for all Israel does not yet live in its land, not even
the majority, and the greater part of the Promised Land is still in
the enemy's hands." (My emphasis)
It was the Six-Day War of June, 1967 which gave decisive impetus
to the mobilization of the fanatically inclined. Divine intervention, it
was believed, was responsible for the return to the jews of their
ancient patrimony of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Golan and the Sinai.
"The entire country is ours," rejoiced rabbi T zvi Yehuda Kuk, son
of Abraham Kuk, spiritual mentor of the religious extremists. "There
is no Arab land here, only Jewish land, the eternal land of our
forefathers - and that land, in its original Biblical borders, belongs to
the sovereignty of the jewish people."
No less miraculous, to the fundamentalists, were the military
reversals which befell the attacking Egyptians in the 1973Yom Kippur
War.
In a decided show of support for extremism, the first act of
Menachem Begin after winning the 1977 parliamentary elections was
to attend a torah scroll dedication ceremony at the "illegal" West
Bank settlement of Elon Moreh, established by the hitherto reviled
orthodox zealots of Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful).
~-
i~f!f~<:"
~(~~;:r'
1?>,'::'.~
,?},
~~
;;~t:M<"~
.!~~~~
......::r\
,
MOSHE
LEVINGER
*The over 100,000 member satmar hasidic sect, with some 5,000
followers in Israel, staunchly refuses to cooperate on any level with
the jewish state. During his visit to Jerusalem last June, New Yorkbased sat mar leader, rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum, allegedly distributed
$3 million to sat mar schools, institutions and individuals to reaffirm
the sect's commitment to complete independence from the "seeularists.'
June, 1984
Page 18
MEIR KAHANE
Unlike rabbi Levinger, who is still largely unknown outside Israel,
Meir Kahane has been a media attraction in North America for at
least a decade. His vociferous, sometimes violent Jewish Defense
League (JDL). which he founded in 1968, has often been seen
confronting the Klan and Nazis with raised fists and chants of "Never
again!" - a reference to the jewish victims of German fascism.
Recently, past critic of Israel and Black aspirant to the U.S.
Presidency, Jesse Jackson, has come under attack from Kahane's
JDL-organized "Jews against Jackson" movement
In 1971 the New York rabbi emigrated to the occupied West Bank,
convinced that jewish dominance in the newly acquired territories
would expedite the "final redemption." Three years later he founded
Kach (Thusl), a militantly ultranationalist movement seeking the
expulsion of all Arabs from Eretz Israel.
Since then, the movement, which garnered a few thousand votes in
the June, 1981 elections, has been implicated in numerous acts of
violence against Arabs and muslim holy places, and the 50-year old
Kahane himself has been arrested more than 100 times for charges
ranging from sedition to conspiracy to commit murder. During his
unsuccessful 1981 election campaign, he seemed to draw inspiration
for the Kach platform from the 1935 Nuremberg Laws:
"With God's help, the very first bill that I willintroduce in the
Knesset will be one that calls for compulsory five-year prison
sentences for any non-Jew found guilty of sexual relations with
a Jew."
In fact, Kahane's racism is predicated on the 5th century
Babylonian talmud wherein non-Jaws are often regarded with
contempt, and which is the authoritative guide in biblical interpretation for orthodox jewry. "... when Orthodox Jews today (or
all Jews before about 1780*) read the Bible, they are reading a very
different book, with a totally different meaning from the Bible as read
by non-Jews or non-Orthodox Jews. This distinction applies even in
Israel, although both parties read the text in Hebrew," explains
Professor Israel Shahak. "Many Jews in Israel (and elsewhere), who
are not Orthodox and have little detailed knowledge of the Jewish
religion, have tried to shame Orthodox Israelis (or right-wingers who
are strongly influenced by religion) out of their inhuman attitude
*The beginning of the reform movement
June, 1984
Page 19
June,
1984
"I
<OY;~~
Atheist
Joe David
1i7.'
preacher was the only person that the boy had ever known who could
paint death so vividly and who could turn one's consciousness from
life to death with such brutal force that life lost all meaning and one's
entire focus became fixed on something no one could verify.
Remembering the preacher's sermons - his macabre preoccupation with hell and damnation - made the boy suddenly leap from
the bench in a sudden jolt of terror. Could god - ifhe existed - be so
cruel? Could life be so transitional that it has no meaning except as
preparation for death?
He didn't have time to ponder this. Fear had taken hold of him, fear
of punishment and eternal damnation. Images of people burning in a
huge furnace obscured reality, and all he could think about was being
subjected to a holocaust of burning flesh and cries of pain - eternally!
- because he now dared to seek pleasure!
He raced from the park, past the sleek skyscrapers which boldly
defied ignorance and headed for the gothic church covered with
medieval symbols. But he suddenly stopped when he reached a
construction site, his curiosity overtaking fear, and he stared through
a window in the wall around the site. "Is that only how deep the hole
has to be dug to secure a building?" he asked himself. He then
observed other details, which provided him with more clues to more
questions about how a lOS-story building was erected. Each answer,
each clue, brought more questions.
He didn't know how long he remained there studying what he saw
for answers, but as so often occurred at school, he was too deep in
thought to care.
"Johnny," a voice called to him. And he turned and saw his mother
standing nearby. There wasn't any anger in her expression. Instead,
she had that alert look which always suggested to him that she was
going to measure carefully what he said for the truth. "Weren't you in
church today?" she asked.
"1- Well, I was going." He lowered his gaze, overtaken again by
some nebulous fear of death and damnation. "But then I," he
stuttered. "Well, I wanted to check something and- "
"Check something?" she asked, somewhat surprised. "What were
you checking?"
"Well, 1- " He hesitated, not certain of how she might react,
nonetheless too smart to dare lie. "I wanted to know how skyscrapers
were built," he finally gushed out.
"And did you learn anything by looking through that window?" she
said with reserved respect.
And his voice filled with excitement, and it all came out with a rush.
When he spoke about what he discovered - what he was coming to
understand - he forgot completely about church, eternal damnation, the sabbath, and all the other morbid thoughts haunting him
earlier. As swiftly as he had metamorphosed several years ago from a
problem to an industrious student when his mother placed him in a
special school for the gifted, he again metamorphosed - now from a
boy a moment ago filled with guilt for a missing church to a boy who
was satisfying his intellectual curiosity about the exciting world in
which he lived.
His mother smiled, pleased. "I see you have learned a lot today,"
she said. "Come, let's have a soda and you can tell me more about
your discoveries." 00
Joe David's writings have appeared in a wide variety of
publications including the Chicago Tribune and L.A. HeraldExaminer newspapers, and in education, family and other
variety of magazines. He is the author of the controversial
novel about education entitled The Fire Within.
June, 1984
Page 21
Robert Ostrander
THE IDIOPATHY
OF THE HUMAN BRAIN
T
Joel, "Memory
Page 22
CATECHOLAMINES
DOPAMINE
NOREPINEPHRINE
v
NATURAL
STIMULATORS
TRANQUILIZERS
A~
~
r-
ENKEPHALINS
ENDORPHINS
OPIATE PEPTIDES
It appears that illness in many people is chemically caused and may be
chemically improved or eliminated via the neurochemical process
direction. The "natural opiate peptides seem to function in the
interface between pain and feeling," says Dr. Fredric K. Goodwin,
Chief of Chemical Psychobiology at the National Institute of Mental
Health. Dr. Goodwin continues, "How we feel emotionally has a lot to
do with how much we can tolerate physical pain." Also, "Depression
is an inability of the brain to produce a good feeling." How we feel is
closely related to our actual physical condition.!
The factors show a sort of "yo-yo" effect that can guide us upward
toward better health or downward to severe illness, typically
idiopathic.
3Greenberg,
of Behavior,"
Science
June, 1984
~.oo
",
Studies now show that in response to the proper signals the brain
cells are triggered to produce all the natural substances required to
produce "natural highs" resulting in maintaining good health,
overcoming illness, eliminating pain or to cause a person not to care
about it.
The discovery of the brain chemical, dopamine, lends credence to
the idea of "natural highs," for example, the religious experience, the
promise of some anticipated great pleasing event, or the promise of a
faith healing experience.
Endorphins are being tested extensively on persons suffering from
depression and schizophrenia as well as other complicated illnesses.
Indications seem to point to control or balance of the emotional states
as a result.
0
e
Austin, Texas
June, 1984 .
Page 23
~
Robert Ostrander is a sculptor, painter, graphic artist, and
student of science. He received his college education at
Colorado State and in California. His interests centered on the
impact of science and technology on the American culture.
After serving in the U.S. military he conducted extensive
investigation of religious teachings in search of truth. He found
the answer in Atheism. His conclusion: "These (Atheists] are
the people who appreciate nature and the only life we shall
probably ever know - the here and now on this planet."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cherry, Laurence, "The Power of the Empty Pill" Science Digest,
September 1981.
Dyer, Dr. Wayne W. Pulling Your Own Strings, Avon, New York,
1977.
Fried, John J., "Mind & Body: The Inseparable Link," Science Digest
Special, Spring 1980.
Guillemin, Roger, "Beta-Lipotropin and Endorphins: Implications of
Current Knowledge," Hospital Practice, November 1978.
Guillemin, Roger, M.D., Ph.D., "Peptides of the Brain," Resident &
Staff Physician, September 1979.
Hales, Dianne, "Psycho-Immunity," A Special Report, Science
Digest, November 1981.
Newsweek, February 7,1983, "How the Brain Works."
Oldendorf, William and William Zabielski, "The World Divided: Your
Brain's Split Universe," Science Digest, January 1982.
Science News, "The Brain" A Special Issue, Vol. 114, No. 22,
November 25, 1978.
'1Fhe [X1o~e.s+~inis+~"
SnOW
II
LET ME BE FRANK ... SEND AN'1 DONATIONS TO M'1 FAVORITE CHARIT'1OPERATORS ARE STANDING B'1 TO TAKE 'lOUR CALL.
M'1SELF.
II
Page 24
June, 1984
When the first installment of a regularly scheduled, 15-minute, weekly American Atheist radio series on
KTBC radio (a station in Austin, Texas owned by then-president Lyndon Baines Johnson) hit the airwaves
on June 3, 1968, the nation was shocked. The programs had to be submitted weeks in advance and were
heavily censored. The series was concluded on October 18, 1975 when no further funding was available.
June, 1984
Page 2S
were going on for possession of some of these relics and in that year a
French ruler pledged securities to the amount of 10,000 solidi for the
production of the relics of saint Just and saint Pastor. He fought his
legal battle with the archbishop of Narbonne. The emperor of
Germany on one occasion demanded the arm of saint George as a
pledge for the establishment of a city market. The body of saint
Sebastian brought enormous wealth to the abbey of Soissons. Rome,
Canterbury, Treves, Marburg ventured very considerable sums in
the purchase of relics. It would have been expecting too much of
human nature to imagine that pontiffs who derived large revenues,
wealth, honor from cures wrought by shrines under their care would
have favoured the development of any science which undermined
their interests.
When the popes could sell for high fees small blobs of wax onto
which were stamped the figure of a lamb, the agnus dei, knowing that
one kiss of the wax preserved the person with the wax from falling
sickness, apoplexy and sudden death for seven days, why should they
stop their own income?
Medical science was immediately checked by christianity. It came
to an instant stop and remained there. Perhaps one of the largest
obstacles was the idea of the resurrection of the body. The human
body was the temple of the holy spirit. It was to be resurrected. The
body could not be mutilated for this would interfere with its final
resurrection on that last day. And, then, in the Middle Ages came the
final incredible claim, when in 1248, the Council of Le Mans forbade
surgery on the basis that the "church abhors the shedding of blood"
- and this from an institution which had caused the greatest spilling
of innocent blood in human history. Surgery and medicine were
crippled for two centuries from this one decree. For over 1,000 years
surgery was considered dishonourable. The greatest monarchs were
unable to secure an ordinary surgical operation. It was only in 1406
that emperor Wenzel of Germany ordered that dishonour should no
longer attach to the surgical profession.
In spite of every opposing force the surgeons and medical science
continued, and of all places, often in the various monasteries,
June, 1984
Behind all this was the idea that since supernatural means of
healing are everywhere so abundant, it was irreligious to seek a cure
by natural means. Bernard declared that monks who took medicine
were guilty of conduct unbecoming to religion. The School of Salerno
was held in aversion by multitudes because it prescribed rules for diet.
Pope Innocent decreed that no physician, under pain of exclusion
from the church, could undertake medical treatment without calling
in ecclesiastical advice. Two hundred and fifty years later, pope Pius
V was renewing and enforcing this with penalties. Not only did Pius
order that all physicians before administering treatment should call in
a "physician of the soul" on the ground that "bodily infirmity
frequently arises from sin," but he ordered that if at the end of three
days the patient had not made confession to a priest, the medical man
should cease his treatment, under pain of being deprived of his right
to practice, and of expulsion from the faculty if he were a professor.
This brings us to 1963, in America, for it was in that year that the
American Medical Association, meeting in Atlantic City, New Jersey,
decided that religion would help to cure disease and that they should
start to explore the possibility of union between physicians and god.
On January 6, 1964, reporting on the progress of this in their
magazine, The A.M.A. News, that society stated that there were then
forty-two state medical associations which had approved formation of
Committees on Medicine and Religion. I have been watching with
interest the development of this since, and noted that in 1965 the
movement had come to the point that doctors were having ministers
accompany them on the daily rounds in hospitals in many cities; and I
project that very soon we will have reached the time of pope Pius
again when no doctor will dare to be present without a physician of
the soul, as he treats his illpatient.
Because we do not know history we are doomed to painfully refight
all of the battles again.
Because of the animosity of religion to medicine at one time, the
medical men were the foes of religion; but now in our times we find the
medical men courting the religious foe who held back their science for
1,500 years. The Bullarium Romanum of Naples, 1882, issued by
Pius V, said simply "Ubi sunt tres medici ibi sunt duo athei,' which
translated from the Latin means "Where there are three physicians,
there are two Atheists," and the pope classed scientific men with
sorcerers and magic-mongers. Medicine was full of anatomy and
physiology with doctrines that the increase and decrease of the brain
is with phases of the moon; the ebb and flow of human vitality with the
tides of the ocean, the use of the lungs was to fan the heart, the
function of the liver was to be the seat of love and the function of the
spleen was to be the center of wit.
Closely allied with this was the religious doctrine of signatures. The
almighty had set his sign upon the various means of curing disease,
which he had provided. Hence bloodroot, on account of its red juice,
is good for the blood. Liverwort, having a leaf like the-liver, cures
diseases of the liver. Eyebright, being marked with a spot like the eye,
cures diseases of the eyes. Celandine, having a yellow juice, cures
jaundice. Bugloss, resembling a snake's head, cures snake bite.
Bear's grease, being taken from an animal thickly covered with hair, is
for persons who are bald.
Another theory was that if the demon in the body could be
disgusted it would leave. So the patient was made to swallow or apply
to himself the most odious of remedies: livers of toads, blood of frogs
or rats, fibers of the hangman's rope, ointment made from the body of
gibbeted criminals. The ingredients were prepared while nine masses
were sung, or they were mixed over an altar, boiled in sheep's grease,
laced with holy salt, and applied with the sign of the cross. The blood
of a donkey could expel poison; the touch of the hangman could cure
sprains. Water in which the single hair of a saint had been dipped was
used as a purgative. St. Valentine cured epilepsy. St. Christopher
cured throat diseases. St. Eutropius cured dropsy. St. Ovid cured
deafness. St. Gervase cured rheumatism. St. Apollonia cured
toothaches. As late as 1784 one bitten by a mad dog was to repair to a
shrine and pray to saint Hubert. ~
June, 1984
Page 27
organisers are selling small plastic bottles (50 cc) of Ganges water for
ten rupees (one dollar).
Because of Nagpur's strategic importance, we were able to witness
the arrival and departure of the three main yatras which crossed each
other here at the end of November. Nagpur is also the nerve centre of
the organisation called the Rasthriya Swyamsevak Sangh (RSS)
which was behind the assassination of Gandhi and whose political
philosophy is described by many as distinctly fascist. The RSS has set
up the Hindu Vishva Parishad, World Hindu Council, for rousing the
hindu conscience. Needless to say, wherever the VHP has succeeded
in doing so, there have been bloody communal riots between hindus
on one side and christians, muslims and untouchables on the other.
The whole circus on wheels has therefore been watched with some
nervousness by minority communities along the routes. Passing
through minority areas as far apart as Assam and Kashmir, hindu
chauvinists travelling with the yatras have indulged in muslim and
christian baiting in their speeches.
For the poor who cannot afford to pay ten rupees for the sacred
water, other water is doled out from a tanker which is replenished by
vessels drawn from sacred rivers in each region. So each tanker will
end up with a potent mix of Ganges water and every other river in the
country.
Nobody knows why the Ganges is given such importance in hindu
belief. The first Aryan settlers revered the Indus more. But today all
hindus worship the Ganges. As Ganga Mata (Mother Ganges) she
washes away all sin. Even to take her name from a long way off atones
for one's sins up to three previous existences. To have one's ashes
strewn on her broad bosom after death takes one straight to heaven.
Great merit is accumulated ifone carries away the water for future
consumption and worship. Some devout hindus will drink no other
water but that drawn from the Ganges. Indian "scientists" testify fo its
remarkable shelf life of a year. A professor from McGill University is
quoted as having said "A peculiar fact which has never been
satisfactorily explained is the quick death, in three or fivehours, of the
cholera vibrio in the waters of the Ganges. When one remembers
sewage by numerous corpses of natives, often cholera casualties, and
by the bathing of thousands of natives, it seems remarkable that the
belief of hindus, that the water of this river is pure and cannot be .
defiled and that they can safely drink it and bathe in it, should be
confirmed by means of modern bacteriological research."
This claim is pure myth. What bacteriological research has
established is that the Ganges is the most heavily polluted river we
have. Industrial effluents, raw sewage, dead cattle, half-cremated
corpses and disease and pestilence germs are responsible. A team of
scientists travelled down the river and tested samples along the way.
Their report was horrendous, but it didn't change a thing for the
pious.
The belief persists that so miraculous are the properties of this
water that the bones of the dead thrown into the stream dissolve in
three days. Cholera is not carried by the river because it travels
upstream each year, clearly proving that pilgrims and not the water
spread the disease!
However, for the current exercise in hydropathy being staged by
the hindus through the ekatmata yatras, the plastic bottles of water
have been drawn from the very source of the Ganges for the added
magic. The river rises in the Himalayas at 12,770 feet from a cave at
the foot of the Gangotri Glacier. The cave is called Gomukh or Cow's
Mouth.
It is estimated that the three main yatras and countless smaller
ones will cost the organisers Rs 60 lakhs (a lakh is one hundred
thousand). But this six million rupees willbe recovered from the sale
of sacred water and bright-coloured prints of Bharat Mata. In all, the
campaign will net them 2.5 crores (25 million).
But whether it willfetch as many votes for the hindu parties remains
to be seen. The entire circus proves once more that the current
upsurge in communalism in this country is not a religious but a
political phenomenon. ~
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
IMPORJilNT
ft)IZ RtPE',vV1NGE
'1~
/15
Of PtlST 51"'5
AtJ1)
paSS 18t..Y
WOA.11t1 Of UV/N~
50M-/iOtV
])fSl(NY
Of A
IJ-ND }l\1s1AI~es )
AAl(E:
,{OL{
A.GItIN ,
f?iS~
RseLf
to
YOtA
UNbEA.5TIfNb,
DEA~1
10
'{OlAR...
L.}A:;IlME
Of
5 ufFElZ.INGr -- -
Page 28
June, 1984
A LETTER FROM
A LONG LOST COUSIN
I
will see just how much support I will be able to draw. On April 9th, I
may have to get out of town fast, so look around and see if you have
any ideas as' to possible employment.
* * * * *
Dear Rich,
Thanks a lot for the information package, I have already put much
of the material to good use! (Living one block south of Northwest
Nazarene College, it isn't hard to do.) I have been wondering what
had become of you for some time. No one seemed to know where you
were, or even ifyou were stillalive!You can imagine the great surprise
and relief I felt, when I saw your name in the Writer s Digest!
I got out of the Army on Sept. 27, 1982, and went right to work for a
solar research, development and manufacturing group in the area.
That job lasted until about a year ago, when the owner left town with
all the cash he could beg, borrow, or steal. I then went into the
legislature for a few weeks, while we attempted to get my mother to
resign from it. It was really sad, but she couldn't function anymore.
(Since that time she has been diagnosed as having Alzheime~'s
Disease.) As I couldn't find any other form of work, Iwent to work as a
talk show host, which lasted until the station changed its format to
all-Spanish-Ianguage programming. The one saving chip I had at that
time was my membership in the Reserves.
As I mentioned to you over the phone, I have written a couple of
books. When you have nothing but time on your hands, and the drivel
on TV starts to get to you, you have to do something. None of them
have been published as yet, but at least they are as good, ifnot better,
than what you see on the tube or pick up at the local bus station.
I have been thinking lately about running for the House. I know it
willtake a lot of money, and I'll have every church group in the area
against me, but it is something that I really want to do. Sometimes it is
best to fight the battle you know you can't win, in order to effect
change on those who will.At any rate, between now and April 8th, we
Austin, Texas
June, 1984
Page 29
14. is a total failure, yet feels he has the right to tell everyone else
how to live
15. has a very obvious sheep fetish
16. runs around putting his hands on everybody (especially those
too sick to say or do anything about it!)
17. wishes to be beaten, humiliated and nailed to a cross
18. insists on being called "Master"
19. has delusions of grandeur
20. advises people to give the government all their money
21. tells children to hate their parents, yet professes love
22. loves to be around dead bodies
23. is obsessed with the idea of death giving p1easure
24. seemingly never has to go to the bathroom?
Why, the son of god, what else?
For those of you who wish to find some connection between this
and the "devil," allow me to point it out: Twenty-four lines which can
be divided by two numbers, 8 and 6. Eight goes into twenty-four three
times, and if you take the number 3, and place it under the other
number 6, and multiply you will arrive at 18 - or 6, 6, 6. (Eat your
heart out, Falwell, I beat you to it!)
If god created everything, why does he want my money, why
doesn't he simply throw together a printing press and make his own?
If god stands for peace, why would he need a "Salvation Army"?
Build a world? He can't even use a hammer
If they are the chosen ones, why do they need an army?
God is love; sooner or later the believer gets f-d.
If god is light, why did it take an Atheist to invent the bulb?
If jesuchrist is truth, why didn't he take the stand?
Well, so much for a few laughs. I think that I had better get busy.
The end of the month is at hand, and I haven't had a single short story
accepted this month. IfI don't hurry up and get some trash in the mail,
I think that I'll be living in the desert pretty soon! ~
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
by DECAY
Page 30
June, 1984
POTPOURRI
I Pledge Allegiance. I have been pledging allegiance to the same flag and the same country with unremitting fervor for seventy years, but the
words have become different and the rhythm has consequently become flawed.
onSider
the simple beauty of the original:
I pledge allegiance to the flag
And to the republic for which it stands
One nation, indivisible
~
.
With liberty and justice for all.
That was lovely in its simplicity and served well during the 1910s and 1920s, the two decades when I first attended school. But then came the
doubters and the zealots.
"What flag?" inquired the doubters, wondering whether the millions of pledgees in these United States were pledging allegiance to the flag of
Transylvania, even though the flags in the fronts of all the classrooms and auditoriums where the pledges were given were obviously the stars
and stripes.
The zealots were even more strident in their criticism. By adding "under god" they could promote allegiance to their deity. A person who
refused to make the pledge would obviously be a traitor. Here was a method of coercion that would force the doubter to proclaim belief to avoid
a charge of treason - or stand out exposed to ridicule for eccentricity of belief, a cardinal sin.
So a compliant congress - what congressman, looking to election day, would defy god or country when held up in the glare of a record vote
- passed bills changing the pledge:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands
One nation, under god, indivisible
With liberty and justice for all.
Well,not pure liberty or complete justice for the Atheist, the humanist, the agnostic, the buddhist who doesn't believe in god and many more;
these lose some liberty and some justice by the very element of coercion slipped into the pledge by those who changed it.
In fact, in the light of this diminution of the ideal through thought control, the destruction of the once lordly rhythm seems a lesser
loss.
Harry Winton
Piety. The religion dogmateer who fashions for himself the notion of an oversized omnipotent god who has forged and flung out into the
universe this planet earth, is the same sanctimonious earthworm who solicits comfort from the bond he synthesizes between himself and some
imagined creator.
The earth he sees is a rotund undifferentiated mass, accidentally discarded into space: inversely proportionate in significance to its distance
from that "producer."
This earthworm is vilely cursing his own planet when he nurtures the delusion of a supreme discus thrower.
To accredit anyone with the creation of earth is to raise the notion of "god" to sculptor, and to reduce the notion of earth to
mudpie.
Barber Marion Sinclair
'Taint Da Trut 'Na Whole Trut. Let us suppose an acquaintance was telling you about an event, and during the telling they periodically
interrupted the story with a remark such as, "That's the truth," or "You may not believe this," or "So help me, it's just like I'm telling you." It
wouldn't be long before you'd begin to doubt the veracity of ALL the details, right? Let's go further and imagine that you checked out a few
points that had sounded funny and found them to be exaggerated - once or twice they were outright falsehoods. Would you believe his next
story was not a fabrication, at least parts of it? If parts of a story are untrue - which parts can be truth?
Each one of us has been in a similar situation and to say the least, it is uncomfortable. That individual is then classified as a iiar of some
proportion: a slight exaggerator, a moderate liar, or an impulsive prevaricator. Does that sound reasonable?
Now that you've agreed, let's pose another question. When one is reading an article in a newspaper, magazine, a book of ANY kind, would
not the same" good judgment" prevail as to the believableness? How many times have you tossed a story to one side because it was getting to
be ridiculous? Any other tale by that same author would automatically be questioned, true also?
A most unfathomable situation exists in our midst. Slowly (VERY SLOWLY) it is being elucidated. As education improves, the general
public is becoming more 'hep,' as the younger generation might say. A larger segment of the population is NOT attending church services
where superstition, magical formulas, fear, dogmas of every kind prevail. As prayer is found to be wishful anticipation, healing is proven a farce,
and predictions are proving unreliable, people are turning away.
These remarks are referring to the bible's many discrepancies, naturally. Which bible, one must ask? There are so many, you know:
Confucianism, King James, koran, krishna, judaism, the old testament and the new testament - bibles galore. Hardly any wonder there is
. confusion, as Confucius would say.
To sum it up: IF, when the bible is read, EVERY part would be digested - contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, immoralities, indecencies,
obscenities - THEN and ONL Y THEN willone's eyes be opened as to how ridiculous sham has and IS being perpetrated on the public. E.B.
"Mr. C" Cummings
Austin, Texas
June, 1984
Page 31
June, 1984
June, 1984
Page 33
~
Text for the LIFE-STORY
OF A UG USTE COMTE
ad:
June, 1984
Of Au~~~1~u,~OMTE \
"
of"
With A Digest ~e~te": "
A net,"ent"RebgtoUS,
"
h
and "Modern" Pht\osoP Y
.
IntrodUchons
by
CAREEROf A
THE DRAMAc~~
PROfOUND
GREATTEA
. NAIVE
THINKER AN~ TRIED TO
cHARAB~~:~IOUS
IDEAS
TAKE JUT Of REUGION
---:all"
I~l
June, 1984
Page 35
POETRY
BRAINWASHING
'
OBEDIENCE
Jorjanna I. Meeks
MY CHRISTIAN NAME
The christian party line states:
No THOMAS (he who suffers doubt) may be saint.
No cause which requires consideration may be truth.
What sacrifice is worthy which may not sacrifice its youth?
tommy toledo
POLYTHEISM, MONOTHEISM,
AND ATHEISM
When man was a babe
His urges were tidal
To get what he wanted
He worshipped idols.
You think
I
want to go
to hell?
Irv Barat
Page 36
June, 1984
Jim Austin
The American Atheist
GOD'SLOBBVlST
(continued from p. 16)
perversion of the intent of the Constitution's authors."
But Senator Lowell Weicker (R-Ct.) immediately laid out the issue.
The nation did not need the amendment, "Let's make it very clear - a
child can pray right now. He can pray at lunch hour; he can pray when
he gets up to bat; he can pray during a math class." He characterized
the proposed amendment as "... the greatest threat we've ever had
presented to the government. If freedom of religion goes, the rest of
the First Amendment (protecting freedom of press, speech and
assembly) willgo too."
Baker rejoined, "The issue here is ... the free exercise of religion
and speech which Americans in every generation have struggled to
secure .... The time has long since come to set this matter right. The
question is not whether religion is better practiced in the home and in
places of worship than in the school. The question is whether
government can prohibit the free exercise of religion anywhere. The
Constitution plainly says it cannot, yet the court decisions have had
precisely this prohibitive effect in the public schools of America."
Weicker wanted to make it clear that the proreligious proponents
had had a year or more to plan their strategy and that the general
public had had no idea of the maneuvering. He proposed that a
healthy debate would bring the issue home to the ordinary voter and
notified that he would insist on a vigorous and thorough dispute, no
matter how long it would take.
Tip O'Neill (D-Mass.), the House Speaker, caustically commented
about Reagan, "There's a man that (sic) doesn't go to church and he
talks about prayer." Senator George McGovern (D-S.D.), then still in
the Democratic presidential race, bitingly added to'O'Neill's remark
with, "I would feel a little more impressed about it if he'd turn up in
church once in a while." As for Reagan's call to "get God and
discipline back in our schools," McGovern added, "God does not
need a loudspeaker to hear the prayer of a child, nor does he need
Ronald Reagan to be admitted to the classroom." He added, "He
(Reagan) has politically and cynically exploited religious sentiments of
the American people for his own personal gain."
The White House press office then confirmed that Reagan had last
attended Sunday church services in June, 1983. Other than that his
"church attendance," if it could be called that, included one service
when he visited U.S. troops in South Korea in November, 1983,
another when he participated in a video taping of a christmas gospel
show at a Black Georgetown church in D.C. (in the same month)
which consisted of a service commemorating the 20th anniversary of
the assassination of President Kennedy, and a third when he went to a
memorial service at the Washington Cathedral in September, 1983
for victims of the downed Korean Air Lines jet, "Flight 007." All of the
appearances were, in fact, politically expedient showings of concern.
As far back as could be reached, the only other appearances in a
church were for the funeral services at a catholic cathedral for
newscaster Frank Reynolds in July, 1983. The last church which
Reagan attended regularly was a presbyterian church in California. A
caustic remark of House Speaker O'Neill ended the references to
Reagan's own religion. Citing the sermon on the mount and its
blessing for "peacekeepers," O'Neill said, "When you mention the
peacekeeper, the president thinks it's a missile. That's not what the
Lord meant."
Reagan's own personal retort was "I represent too much of a threat
to too many other people for me to be able to go to church." One
reporter actually felt the need to explain that the remark referred to
Hinckley's assassination attempt on Reagan.
By March 6th Senator Baker was predicting that the prayer forces
were very close to the needed votes, and he saw that the measure
would pass, although much publicity was given to a possible filibuster
(a term later changed by the media to "a talkathon") by Weicker.
Weicker was making it known that he simply wanted to continue the
debate long enough for the American people to catch on to what was
plotted by the pro-prayer group.
To add levity, Sen. Weicker showed a special telegram which he
had received from Elmhurst, Illinois: "Senator Weicker, You are
doing a great job. Keep up the good work. Have room for you and
yours. Your pal. Satan."
RONALD REAGAN.
Austin, Texas
~~
Telegram
"A3022(20ll)(I-OI908IC066)P~
ICS IPIWGI/f
Ol/C6/8~
2028
IISH
r~
4-0'!843Sn66 Ol/06/!4
tes IP'I3'Gl
CSP
l12!l26040 T~al [l~URST
II
. P~ S~ATOR 1IICKER.
SUATE
CAPITOL
3lDG
HILL De
y:)U~ DOUG
A GREAT
Joa
KUP
UP lIie: GOO~
WO!1K.
riAIiE
Rao"
rOR YOU AU
~CIO ;;ST
UM1
."t ..
June, 1984
Page 37
,.
By the end of the day, Sen. Baker was backing away from his "quick
test." He conceded that he lacked the 2/3rds vote necessary and that
he was considering a compromise which would require school
officials who choose to set aside time for spoken prayers to provide a
place students could go if they do not wish to participate in the
prayers. What was under consideration was "praying" and "nonpraying" sections in classrooms. Almost everyone was giving a pencil
to the writing of compromise bills and situations.
On March 8, approximately 250 students from Jerry Falwell's
4,000-student Liberty Baptist College paraded from the Capitol to the
Supreme Court, carrying signs reading "Kids Need to Pray." When
photographers arrived, they were willing to dump their signs, hold
hands, screw up their faces, clinch their eyes shut, and pray. While
UP! identified the students properly in its photo release, AP merely
captioned the picture as "students from around the country." Other
pictures taken from another angle were captioned, "students representing the 50 states." U.S.A. Today characterized the single slim line
as "prayer chain." Often the pictures were full of faces to imply a
crowd, but a head count showed that there were no more than 15 to
25; the picture was just "tight" on the faces to give an impression of
more.
By then Gary Hart, campaigning in Alabama, answered questions
posed by reporters and stated that the president was using the school
prayer amendment to divert attention from his failures in the White
House: "This administration is going to do its dead-level best from
now on to raise divisive social issues like school prayer, abortion,
.
and a lot of things like that." He said the issues would be raised"
in
order to distract the people of this country from addressing the $200
billion Reagan deficits, a destructive imbalance in our trade, declining
factories and manufacturing capabilities, and more people out of
work than there were when Ronald Reagan took office."
Meanwhile there was singular activity as senators argued as to
what constituted "prayer," and the Judiciary Committee issued a
report quoting from several books of the bible and from roman
catholic church fathers dating back to Augustine and Gregory of
Nazianzus to resolve the issue. The Committee also commissioned a
Page 38
June, 1984
LOWELL WEICKEQ
Weicker was against anything, noting that even this new language
would continue to permit government sanctions for religious observances in the public schools.
The American Atheist
June, 1984
<
Page 39
June, 1984
stated, "We have just begun to fight." Both sides predicted that the
vote would be used as ammunition in the presidential and congressional campaigns this year. Moral Majority, Inc. called for
retribution at the polls against those senators who helped defeat the
proposals. Richard Viguerie, publisher of the Conservative Digest,
warned, "The school prayer vote willbe remembered. Conservatives
will not give up the fight on the issue of school prayer." More
moderate representatives of religion, however, praised the Senate for
rejecting the amendment. And, cynical political analysts reiterated
that Reagan and Baker had only wanted November smear tactic
ammunition against Democrats who "voted against prayer."
The National Council of Churches came in with "(the) council is
grateful the Senate has upheld and protected the free exercise of
religion through its vote." And, the ACLU expressed "hope (that) this
also puts an end to the wave of fervor of those who wish to impose
their values on everybody else." The American Jewish Committee
was gratified by the vote which would "give the American people time
to think more deeply about the dangers of changing the First
Amendment protection of religious liberty." One rabbi in Detroit
could hardly be civil, "It seems all the Senate debate focused on was
that we are a christian nation. Why should one separate belief be
pushed down the throats of everyone else? Prayer is too important. I
don't want christians to have to take christ out of their prayer, nor do I
want to take what's jewish out of my prayers." The Lutheran Council
issued a statement that the Senate vote sent "a clear and powerful
signal to all those in and out of government who would confuse
politics and prayer. Obviously there is a time and place for both," and
that the "rightful distinction had been made."
But, the International Christian Education Association was furious:
"T 0 deny us the opportunity to pray is making us a more atheistic and
pagan country."
Lowell Weicker was the single giant to stand out as the champion of
civil libertarian rights in the nation. Almost single-handedly he has
fought, lobbied, campaigned and filibustered to stop proposed
constitutional amendments on school busing, on abortion, and on
school prayer. He first came to prominence in 1973 when he was a
junior member of the special Senate committee investigating Watergate. He was the senator who refused to work with a resolution
commending Reagan for the invasion of Grenada: "It may be one
thing to look the other way when a president violates the law," he
shouted on the Senate floor. "But I'm not going to commend him for
it." Weicker, a man from a family of great wealth, whose great-uncle
was the archbishop of Canterbury, a faithful episcopalian himself, has
nothing to feat. The next day, after a televised in-the-heat-of-the-fight
debate with Pat Boone, he characterized Boone as a "garbage
collector." Boone's entire argument was billed "Don't let the atheists
rob us of our rights." The only thing he had to say was, "In the early
'60s, atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair badgered some Supreme Court
justices into 'protecting' the rights of a tiny splinter group, while
depriving the vast majority of Americans of their rights. Nobody was
forcing her atheist children and friends to pray, but she was
determined that no one would pray publicly, and she had her way."
He concluded that, "The good people of America have been robbed
and straitjacketed long enough by atheists, humanists, and modernists. Polls say 80% of citizens agree with me. Let's pray fervently
that God will instruct our elected representatives to do our will and
his, or show us how we can elect representatives who will."
Confronted with the Gallup poll that alleged that 82%of the people
wanted prayer in public schools, Weicker simply roared, "If80%of the
American people want that, then 80% of the American people are
wrong! And it's our job to tell them that. We're not supposed to be a
big finger to the wind around here. We're supposed to stand up for the
Constitution."
On March 20th Rita Warren, a fanatical roman catholic - who
almost drove the entire Massachusetts legislature crazy with her
demands for prayer in that state - appeared on the steps of the U.S.
Congress with a mannequin of jesuchrist taller by a foot than she is.
And perched on his shoulder was the "snow white dove" of
contention and strife about prayer in schools.
Austin, Texas
Jurie, 1984
Page 41
Page 42
DEMOCRATS (19)
Lloyd Bentsen, Tex.
David Boren, Okla.
Robert C. Byrd, W.Va.
Chiles Lawton, Fla.
James Exon, Neb.
Wendell Ford, Ky.
Howell Heflin, Ala.
Ernest Hollings, S.Car.
Walter Huddleston, Ky.
Bennett Johnston, La.
Russell Long, La.
John Melcher, Mont.
Sam Nunn, Ga.
William Proxmire, Wis.
David Pryor, Ark.
Jennings Randolph, W.Va.
Jim Sasser, Tenn.
John Stennis, Miss.
Ed Zorinsky, Neb.
Nays (44)
REPUBLICANS (26)
Mark Andrews, N.Dak.
Rudy Boschwitz, Minn.
John Chafee, R.I.
William Cohen, Me.
John Danforth, Mo.
David Durenberger, Minn.
Dan Evans, Wash.
Barry Goldwater, Ariz.
Slade Gorton, Wash.
Mark Hatfield, Ore.
June, 1984
Editor,
Iwas quite surprised - no, even shocked
- to find in the December American
Atheist the use of "a. d." (anno domini, "in
the year of our lord") and "b.c." (before
christ).
The accepted secular terms are "c.e."
(common era) and "b.c.e." (before common
era). They are widely used in the multi.religioned Middle East wherever English is
used, and Americans of all beliefs would be
wise to adopt them as well.
Josh Karpf
New York
Josh,
All our reference works define "common
era" as "christian era," so we don't see how
"c.e." and "b.c.e." would be better than
"a.d." and "b.c." In fact, those terms might
be worse since they Imply that acceptance
of the jesuchrist's existence and signifi
cance is common and worldwide.
We don't like "b.c." and "a.d." any more
than you do. See the letters to the editor
section of the April issue of American
Atheist for more on this subject.
Editor
Editor,
The purpose of this letter willbe to inform
you that there are members of the religious
community in this country who support you
in your efforts to separate the church from
the state. Iam just such a person! Iam a
born- again christian, and I praise god for
you, but curse the devil for Jerry Falwell!!!I
saw you make an appearance on the
"Cherington" talk show recently, in which
you made some very good points. The men
who supposedly were representing the
christians were the poorest excuse for a
debating team Ihave ever seen! When Isee
Austin, Texas
Editor,
The cover of American Atheist, Nov.
1983 pointed up important motives for
maintaining an active membership in this
organization. I am a human being and I
accept the responsibilities that implies. The
statement by Madalyn Murray O'Hair about
what an Atheist is, and a human being
should be, printed on the reverse side of the
cover, sums it up very well.
But in the letter and editorial "Reply to a
Small Town Atheist" overriding issues were
neglected. Noting that today in Lebanon,
Iran, Ireland, Central America - yes and in
Afghanistan - people are killing each other
over religious issues, how could you possibly omit the dangers inherent in emotions
aroused by ancient and modern superstitions? Even a casual look at history
reveals that conflicts, tyranny, torture and
suppression of knowledge are inevitable
when religious leaders gain power.
More, however, should be said about
Reason versus Emotion. It is not inconceivable that an Atheist could become
bigoted and emotional to the extent that he
becomes as dangerous as an ayatollah
Khomeini. How else can we explain Soviet
belligerence? On the other hand human
emotions have positive values too. Without
them we would not have Beethoven symphonies, Van Gogh sunflowers, New York
skyscrapers or the precious love of a
mother for her baby. It is a balance between
Reason and Emotion that we must strive for
in our personal lives. But in dealing with the
heavily charged subject of religion, or
Atheism, the dispassionate intellect must
prevail.
Harry R. Le Grand
Florida
Page 43
Editor,
I often hand out Atheist brochures in New
York City and thought I might share that
experience with our readers (in the hope
that other Atheists willfollow suit).
When meeting the public directly one
finds that the only problem encountered is
convincing the typically suspicious pedestrian that you are handing out quality
literature he would really like to read. Many
pedestrians have been conditioned (by
numerous encounters with the religious, I
suspect) to think that pamphlets offered to
him on religion will contain the same
christian propaganda he has heard at least a
hundred times before. I find if you spend
several hours on the same corner word gets
around that "An Atheist is offering literature," and people become less hesitant and
enthusiastically take the literature.
Initially I was afraid of the inevitable
encounter with your standard religious
fanatic (who believes it is his duty to be rid of
me). Meeting such religious fanatics is the
best encounter you can possibly have.
Because our literature is taken as a direct
assault on his beliefs, he proceeds to scream
and rave on the "horror" of our position.
Instead of scaring people away he does you
a much welcomed favor. Pedestrians who
tended to take you casually and avoided a
pamphlet now rush to you in groups to read
the "devilish" literature that instigated the
outcry.
Such has been my experience.
Arttie Gomez
New York
Editor,
The style of writing in your magazine is
repetive (sic). An editor with a sharp eye and
a ready pair of sissors (sic) would be able to
reduce the whole thing by at least two
pages. It is also boring and trite. Compaired
(sic) to the majority of articles Bunyons (sic)
"A Pilgrams (sic) Progres (sic) is simulating
(sic). The only thing that could could (sic)
keep anyones (sic) interest is your Groucho
interview. Thirdly, it is insulting to' the
intellegence (sic). You proclaim "freedom of
Choise (sic)" and yet you blast everyone
who does not agree with you. The vatican
decree on nonbelievers was literete (sic),
tolerent (sic), and understanding - not
desiring to "eliminate" nonbelievers but to
understand them. You sound like a Hitler
who desires to destroy all believers, and
Page 44
Editor,
I just received my second issue of American Atheist, although I officially have been
an Atheist since about 1966, when I severed
al\ ties with the russian' orthodox church
outside of Russia (while I was still a junior in
high school). In the March issue the key
sentence that caught my attention appeared
in Jeff Frankel's article on page 28: "Atheists, generally speaking, do not attempt to
convert others to Atheism." I agree with
Jeff, and would like to share with other
Atheists the hurdles faced by me when I
enter into a discussion about religion with
my friends.
I'm not talking about communicating with
a 90-year old grandmother who is "set in her
ways," but communicating with people who
psychological\y are most receptive to me by
virtue of their trust in me and our friendships. Religious topics suddenly turn my
peers in age (I am 35), and more important
my friends, into defensive, antagonistic
cornered animals. I, like Jeff, am very open
about Atheism and my mental awareness of
reality. The reason I get involved in religious
discussions with my peers is my alarm and
concern over the fact that they are now
subjecting their own children to involuntary
indoctrination, as was practiced on us by
our parents.
I always am confronted with the same
arguments: "Oh, you are so narrow-minded
that you can't accept our point of view." I tr~
to tell them that I have been in their shoes,
that I evaluated the religion of my parents
from a psychological and anthropological
perspective, that I. have disassociated myself from my culture to take a look at it as an
outsider, and I can't find any validity or
virtue in christianity or any other gods or
belief systems. I have even tried to convey to
iny friends in the most simplistic correlation
of what Atheism is: that Atheism is a state of
awareness and mental sophistication where
one becomes aware of the reality that
supreme beings are pure fabrication, sort of
like a child reaching that level of maturity
where he realizes that Santa Claus doesn't
exist. I am always confronted with the same
blank stare.
Their other argument is that they "have
read everything there is to read about other
June, 1984
NOTICE
Letters to the Editor must be either
questions or comments of general concern to Atheists or Atheism. Submission should be brief and to-the-point.
Space limitations allow that each letter should be 200 words or (preferably)
less. Please confine your letters to a
single issue only. Mail them to:
American Atheists
P.O. Box 2117
Austin, TX 78768-2117
Thank you.
rSpoiled
Priest~
\
1
The Autobiography
~
of an Ex-Priest
i
1
I
I
I
\ Gabriel Longo
252 pp. (hardbound)
Examine the degenerative perversions included in one of the more primitive and fundamentalist superstitions now
widely accepted by the world community - roman catholicism! In the words of two ex-priests, Emmett McLoughlin
and Gabriel Longo, see the fallacy of catholic "celibacy" and of the anguishes intruded into human lives by this and
other such unnatural practices - how crime, "immorality," anxiety, frustration and neurosis are fostered by the
inhumane teachings of the papacy in Rome.
Compare the dilemmas of today's world, its uncontrollable population explosion and a general prevalance of
ignorance concerning human sexuality that is the end result of such psychotic behavior.
You will wonder how the human race can allow itself to be a part of such insane practices and how people can
possibly attribute any "normalcy" to such a decadent system of mind control.
o Send
TOTAL $
Make checks/money orders payable to: AMERICAN ATHEISTS. PO Box 21 17. Austin. TX 78788
Name
Address
City
State
[ ] VISA
Number
Expiration date
Signature
_
_
Zip
[ ] MASTERCARD
_
Bank No.z't.etters
_
_
AMENDMENTI
CONGRESS
,.