American Atheist Magazine (January 1982)

8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine (January 1982)

1/32

A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

(Vol. 24, No.1) January, 1982

THE 2.50

MERI N THEIST


2/32


3/32

January 1982; Vol. 24 No. I

ISSN: 0032-43lO

ARTICLES

Scientific Atheism Centre in Moscow - Yevgeny Anisimov 6

A Comment on Compulsory Creationism - Ian R. Bock 7

The Rest of The Jim Jones Story - Steve LaPrade 15

Dictionary of Theology - Voltaire 16

The War Prayer - Mark Twain 28

FEATURED COLUMNISTS

Atheism and Justice - Fred Woodworth 8

Ghosts, Words, and Paint - Ignatz Sahula-Dycke 9

Atheists Must Fight - Jeff Frankel - 11

Some New Year's Resolutions We'd Like to See-

Richard M. Smith 14

Welcome, Dr. Strangelove - David L. Kent 18

Some People Call It War - Gerald Tholen 24

REGULAR FEATURES

Editorial: The Hydra Head of Religion - Jon G. Murray 2

Letters to The Editor 5

Poems 13

United States Supreme Court vis-a-vis

State/Church Separation - Madalyn O'Hair 20

American Atheist Radio Series:

War Profits and The Churches - Madalyn 9'Hair 26

Editor-in-Chief

Madalyn Murray O'Hair

The

American

Atheist

is published

monthly by the American Atheist

Center, 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin,

TX 78756, a non-profit, non-political,

educational organization.

Managing Editor

Jon G. Murray

Mailing address: P.O. Box 2117,

Austin, TX 78768-2117. Copyright

1982by Society of Separationists,

Inc.

Poetry

Angeline Bennett

Robin Eileen Murray O'Hair

Gerald Tholen

Production Staff

David Kent

Samuel Miller

Richard Richardson

Richard Smith

Gerald Tholen

Gloria Tholen

Subscription rates: $25/one year;

$40/two years.

Manuscripts submitted must be

typed, double-spaced, accompanied

by a stamped, self-addressed enve-

lope. The editors assume no respon-

sibility for unsolicited manuscripts.

Non-resident Staff

G. Stanley Brown

Ignatz Sahula-Dycke

Fred Woodworth

The American Atheist

is indexed in

Monthly Periodical Index

Austin, Texas

January. 1982

f

ON THE OVER

Skoal- 1982

How fast the darts of daylight fly

When hair turns silver gold

Yet slow they move in the waiting eyes

Of the restless nine year old

But a year is a year to everyone

And its fleeting, passing way

Must be treasured now by all of us

So salute each new year's day

-Ger~id Tholen

Whether or not January should be legiti-

mately called the beginning ofthe new year

is academic. We all know that the orbital

motion of the Earth around its sun is actually

without beginning or \'end. Also, it would

seem more fitting that either ofthe solstices or

the equinoxes might more appropriately be

called the starting point of a new cycle.

Regardless of outlooks, as viewed from

either the northern or southern hemisphere, it

has historically been a custom for most of

humankind to celebrate the completion of

another cycle of seasons; a time to prepare for

what might lie ahead and a time to reflect on

what has passed.

Perversions of the

various

calendared sys-

tems are quite insignificant in reality. What is

important isthat allwho view such renewals of

the time frames

have,

in fact,

survived

the trip

and

'stand

ready, for better or worse, to begin

again. In that context - may we wish you a

happy new year.

Page 1


4/32

Editorial

Jon G. Murray

THE HYDRA HEAD OF RELIGION

The American Civil Liberties Union, although doing an .

adequate job ofprotecting civilliberties in some areas (such

as criminal search and seizure, etc.), has by and large been

an organization enamored of the establishment. Their

presentation, especially on issues involving separation of

state and church, can be characterized by the oft repeated

film scene of an old Victorian crone, dressed in black,

looking over her spectacles at a pretty young thing entering

the parlor, ankles exposed, and remarking, Oh How

unseemly I guess Ishould be grateful that they notice atall.

Only a fraction ofwhat isnoticed isacted upon. This Ican

understand from a logistical perspective, knowing as I do

the cost and complexities of litigation. That desire to remain

respectable has, over the years, still cost the ACLU a lot

and the public even more interms ofthe decreasing circle of

liberty we all find closing in around us.

The tactic of the respectable fighter is to come at you,

instinctively (a product of familyand school training) within

the Marquis of Queensberry rules, only to go down swiftly

from a kick to the groin. When fighting someone or

something that is fighting for survival, it ismore prudent to

put some of those rules aside. The old adage of fight fire

with fire still has some merit.

What the ACLU should have been doing allthese years is

to strike at the core or root or radical of the problem,

especially in the state/church area. Instead they have

battled the peripheral consequences of key systemic flaws

in our social, legal and governmental system, leaving the

radical actions to groups of lesser financial ability and

groups certainly without their social connections. The

result of this has been that those more radical groups and

individuals have taken a terrible beating in the courts,

thereby laying down a foundation of bad legal precedent

that the more conservative ACLU finds a now impenetrable

obstacle. They cannot get any further now with the courts

than the groups they looked down their noses at years

earlier (and still do today) as being scruffy fanatics. Ifthe

ACLU with its superior numbers and financing had lent a

hand where itwas reallyneeded inthe '50s and '60s, itwould

not have such a hard time now.

The ACLU attitude toward Atheists isa prime example of

this. Back in 1959, when the case that eventually removed

bible reading and prayer recitation from the public schools

was in its infancy, the then Madalyn Murray went to the

ACLU for help. It was swiftly denied. They were too

respectable to get involved with Atheists then, and they are

too respectable now. When American Atheists challenged

the right of the pope to give a mass on the Washington,

D.C., mall at public expense, an ACLU attorney from the

District was right in there on the side of the roman catholic

church and the right of the pope to have free speech in

America, although the ACLU knew full well that free

speech was not the issue in the case at the time.

The only conclusion one can reasonably come to is that

the maintenance of its financial base is most important to

Page 2

January, 1982

II

the ACLU, and they therefore cannot afford to alienate

monetary support by backing unpopular issues. To the best

of my knowledge, national ACLU budget now is about

$11,000,000 ($6,000,000 in the field and $5,000,000 for the

national office) annually. One could ask, however, what is

the use of remaining silent to collect funds to do nothing

with them out ofthe fear oflosing them by doing something

unpopular?

American Atheists has reached out on many occasions to

the ACLU for help and with help, but our hand has always

been somehow too dirty to touch. We, therefore, have

forged ahead with case after case on principle and have

suffered many a defeat because we lack the ACLU level of

funding and availability of legal personnel. Those lost

American Atheist cases have been used to defeat the

ACLU in its less obtrusive actions now on several occa-

sions.

We at American Atheists willcontinue to fighton a radical

level with or without help from the ACLU or any other

organization, but they need to be put on notice and need to

realize that our loss is their loss.

Speaking about losses, we allhave a lot to lose, perhaps in

the near future, and those losses willbe across the board,

not discriminating against liberal or conservative. Just

recently the ACLU has come to a partial conclusion that the

combination of their legal snobbery and the defeats of

others has placed them in the position of needing to look

toward legislative lobbying activity inplace ofthe courts as a

A

route to halt the march of the New Right in Congress. In

fact, that realization has even brought ACLU t6-the point of

being willingto forfeit their tax exempt status, to enter into

the activation of what they call the National Bill of Rights

Lobby.

American Atheists likewise realizes the mounting futility

of legal action, but its budget does not permit it to enter into

lobbying, and its tax exempt status is crucial to its survival.

ACLU, on the other hand, can probably operate quite

effectively as a lobbying group. They have the numbers and

the established funding.base that American Atheists does

not have.

Perhaps the movement ofACLU into the lobbying area is

a good thing. Groups such as American Atheists never got

any help on the legal front from ACLU, anyway, and

perhaps now their radical style can operate unfettered while

the ACLU targets Congress, which is an entity unreachable

by the Atheist community at this stage inits development. If

ACLU action in Congress can in the least slow down the

moral majoritarians and their New Right allies, it willgive

Atheists the opportunity to concentrate on the legal front,

with the ACLU being helpful ina noncompeting area. It will

surely require a double punch of legislative and legal

pressure to counter the forces of organized religion.

Some of the reasons why the ACLU has decided to move

into legislative action are worth enumerating. We should all

be aware, at least, of what is going on, even though our



5/32

individual ability to do something about it may be limited to

donating to the organization of our choice. Let's take a look

at some of what the legislative and executive branches are

up to.

1) President Reagan has granted pardons to FBI officials

who were convicted of illegal breaking and entering, under

the pretext oftheir acting in the name of national security.

Reagan just recently issued an executive order expanding

the power of intelligence agencies to mount some kinds of

covert operations domestically and to step up surveillance

of Americans abroad and to infiltrate domestic organize-

tions. The orders restore authority of the CIA to conduct

activities domestically as long as they do not affect

us

policies, politics or press; they authorize the CIAto infiltrate

U.S. organizations including those largely composed of

aliens thought to be acting on behalf ofa foreign power; and

they authorize shadowing of Americans abroad and moni-

toring of corporations to obtain important foreign intel-

ligence that cannot be obtained by other means.

What that really means is that if mommy is a commie,

then you got to turn her in syndrome isback with us again.

American Atheists fullyexpects to be one of the first groups

on the list to be infiltrated. That will be nothing new, of

course. The offices of American Atheists have had their

phone lines tapped so often in the past that at one point they

had the tappers taking messages when the staff was away

from the phones. That would be a welcome service again in

these days of governmental cutbacks and runaway phone

bills. -,

2) The U.S. Attorney General's Task Force on Criminal

Violence recommended a change in legislation to encour-

age law enforcement agencies to conduct unconstitutional

searches. It also proposed that judges have the power to

imprison persons they deem dangerous for a period of

time without a trial. This prevention detention could be

used against almost any individual who needs to be

silenced in his or her expression of an unpopular cause.

American Atheists president Dr. Madalyn O'Hair has

gone to jail now many times simply for being an Atheist.

These jailingshave been under a series ofbizarre interpreta-

tions of antiquated laws used simply as a harassment

procedure. In the future, however, such detention could

be done in an open and straightforward manner, although

still accomplishing the same thing, harassment.

3)A move to resurrect the House Un-American Activities

Committee has been cosponsored by 158 members of the

House. In addition, the Department ofJustice is proposing

major changes in the Freedom of Information Act to

broaden what can be exempted from public view. There is

also a campaign within Congress to reestablish an Internal

Security Apparatus, and Reagan has taken the first step in

that establishment, as mentioned above.

Too many new books and other publications, as well as

documentaries, have surfaced since the passage of the

Freedom of Information Act. An exposed intelligence

apparatus cannot function. What we see here is a repeat of

the trepidations ofour government in 1917.At that time, the

Russian revolution had every world power on edge for fear

that the revolutionary sentiment would spread.

Our government is shaky now. There are major

problems in many areas. They fear what the church fears,

which isthe estrangement oftheir constituency. Just as the

pope hopes to circle the wagons with his new conserva-

Austin, Texas

D J

tive policies and hold the flock together, our government

hopes to displace the fears of domestic failure with the fear

of external infiltration to maintain calm. Whether it's the

communists or Libya, the spook of the enemy without

keeps our minds off the enemy within, our owl) represen-

tatives.

4) Renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is facing stiff

opposition in Congress. It is quite possible that an entire

large segment of our population, the blacks, could be

disenfranchised.

5) Budget reductions have now begun to seriously

hamper administrative enforcement agencies. The Justice

Department now backs away from many civilrights cases it

at one time would have litigated. In addition, the Senate of

the United States has passed a rider to the appropriations

billfor the State, Justice, and Commerce departments to

endorse organized prayer in public schools, by removing

authorization from the Justice Department to spend public

funds to litigate against school districts violating the law in

that area. Only Senator Lowell P. Weicker opposed with a

filibuster. Asked about right-wing attacks on the Consti-

tution and Federal courts, he said, They cheapen every-

thing ... when they use the Constitution as a garbage

receptacle for everyone of their philosophical quirks. (NY

Times, 11/30/81).

Good christian activities such as arms buildup can be

financed, but not upholding the law, especially when it

comes to the Constitution. Money is no object to maintain

our national technical means (in the jargon of the State

Department, spies to all of us lay persons) for domestic as

well as foreign work.

6) The Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal

representation to the poor, isbeing fought by the Conserva-

tive Caucus and other rightist groups. Equal access to

justice has never been a real factor in our justice system.

Those who have the funding are always more represented ,

than those who lack financial strength. It may now be even

more difficult than ever before for the poor orrninorities to

fight back.

7)The Family Protection Act isnow pending inCongress.

This Act would withdraw federal funding from school

systems which do not institute periods of prayer or silent

meditation. It would require textbooks to depict women

solely indomestic roles. The purpose of the billis to create a

legal atmosphere under which a christian value based

nuclear family concept can be government-promoted,

while discouraging deviancy therefrom. It is a selective

protection Act, protecting the rights of those who choose

to conduct their personal family affairs in a particular style

only.

8) A new mood in Congress to prohibit federal courts

from even hearing claims of unconstitutionality from indi-

viduals or groups in certain subject areas. The most

prominent ofthese subject areas is school prayer, although

busing and abortion run a close second. Limiting or

excluding federal court review inany legislative area would

alter our basic form of constitutional government. What we

would have left is a two-part system with no checks and

balances. With only the executive and legislative branches

left and the judicial pushed out of the picture, a strong

personality in the White House with majority backing in

both houses of Congress could take over, Khomeini style.

The founding fathers set up a well balanced system at first,

January, 1982

Page 3


6/32

inorder to prevent such an occurrence, and it has fared well

for over 200 years now. Only Senator Edward Kennedy has

spoken up against actions to limit judicial review of Con-

gress in the Senate so far.

9)Jesse Helms and others of his ilkare pushing a Human

LifeBill, which would give a fetus fullconstitutional rights

from conception, making abortion or

birth control

methods

illegal.The Right to Life amendment to the Constitution

proposed earlier has not fared well in the states. This billis

an attempt to circumvent the mandated constitutional

amending process. Allof the concern over abortion rights is

based on biblical doctrine, rather than freedom of con-

science considerations.

10) Sen. Strom Thurmond is backing the return of the

federal death penalty and the expansion ofits application to

crimes other than homicide.

Allof the n~w right-wing religious efforts inCongress are

really nothing new. They have been going on sub rosa for

many years now. The difference today is that these actions

are flaunted instead of being carried out in closed door

meetings or during social contacts between government

officials and church leaders. The question is what can be

done about it by those of us who realize the danger at hand.

The answer to that question is a difficult one.

Currently, the liberal community is fragmented. On

one side are the respectable groups, and on the other side

the non-respectable groups, with each side claiming the

reverse. The churches, too, are rent with schisms, but with

one very important and overriding difference. Whenever

the root, or core, of their religiosity ischallenged, they can

work together and do work together. Though their petty

theological differences keep them at one another's throats

on the surface, try challenging their tax exemptions, for

example, and see how quickly they band together. The

religious community has always had a deep and abiding

solidarity and fraternity when it comes to fundamental or

radical (speaking in the mathematical sense) concepts that

form the basis oftheir beliefsystem or political or economic

strength.

The roman catholics may hate the protestants for

theological reasons, but when it comes to aid to parochial

schools, they willwork together in the ultimate analysis to

keep the money coming in. The catholics may be split

internally on other issues, but when it comes to the

celebration ofa golden jubilee for cardinal Cody inChicago,

despite the recent exposures of his misuse of church funds,

they can all stand together. Denominational differences

play no part in the ability of the religious community in

general to sit back and allow a nativity scene to be ruled as

having no more significance than a mere ornament on tile

tree, to keep iton public property. The jews can fight for the

nativity scene representing the birth of a character they no

more believe in than do Atheists, to remain on public land,

under the legal theory that it represents the nuclear

family.

In distinction to this, the ACLU defends the nazi

marchers inSkokie just to show the opposition that they are

able to stand up for an unpopular cause, even with most of

their monetary support coming from jewish persons, rather

than out of any real concern for civilliberties. Itwould have

been better for the nazis not to have been represented by

the ACLU interms oftheir own internals, and Iam sure that

they could have cared less about the nazi rights.

Page 4

January, 1982

1/

We cannot fight a well-oiledmachine-type opponent that

has the ability to muster fraternity, solidarity, and syn-

chronization at the drop of a hat out of seeming chaos,

unless we can be fraternal and synchronized, too, when we

need to be. ,

Each organization can and should maintain and retain its

individual autonomy. At the same time, we need to be able

to strike together when the time comes. Avictory for one of

us is a victory for all of us, and a loss for one is a loss for all.

The religious community knows this, and they use it to their

advantage. Are we less smart than they?

The basic difference among the multiplicity of liberal

groups iswith respect to tactics. Why not let those groups

who desire to give the right-wing forces back some of their

own medicine do so? Other groups that want to work within

the rules solely can do so as well. As long as they realize

that in some cases, they must stand together when basic

issues on which their very freedom to operate are at stake.

Failure to do so in the past has so weakened our

collective positions now that no individual group may be

able to succeed. We have a finite base of persons in the

United States to whom upholding the Constitution, espe-

cially in the separation of state and church area, means

anything at all. Ifwe divide their support too much, it may

mean an over-all failure.

We at American Atheists, despite our strong stands on

many issues, have always known that solidarity on basic

issues is needed. We support and urge that solidarity: and

are willingto work toward it in the areas inwhich we allcan

agree and in which we all can benefit. We do, however,

remain cautious when it comes to working with other

groups who have used what they deem our nonrespecta-

bility as a recruitment incentive for their own group. We

don't even object to that, since the persons who respond to

such incentives may not be helpful in our ranks anyway.

That does not mean, however, that on an administrative ,

and executive level between groups, we cannot cooperate

on specific and perhaps mostly legal issues; where our

combined strength in terms of numbers and finances are

needed.

Even within each group the lack of solidarity in the rank

and filemembership isstaggering. Every catholic knows his

rosary and every protestant his catechism, but every

Atheist willgiveyou a different definition ofAtHeism should

you ask. Ask a religionist what separation of state and

church means, and you will get a uniform answer that it

means government not interfering with the church in any

respect. Ask an Atheist the same thing, and the answer will

vary considerably and not even be basically the same. This

internal solidarity must be fostered by each group on its

own, however, through education of its rank and file.Itwas

indoctrination that did the trick inthe religious groups, but I

remain convinced that education can do the same for us.

What can be seen from all of this is that we are under a

strong multifaceted attack in a number of areas. Though

multifaceted, the attacks are rooted in the irrationality of

religion. It is from that religious base that all of the attacks

sprang. The various liberal groups are out there facing

this hydra of religion and each cutting off one head or

putting a band-aid over one ofits bites, but they failto killthe

beast. The solidarity I speak of is the need for all groups to

realize the basis ofthe individual assaults on freedom of t he

mind, some ofwhich Ihave enumerated here, and to be able



7/32

to strike tqgether.atthe basis, the irrationality of religion, as

a combined force. Even ifwe allstrike at different times and

Iwithdifferent styles, as long as we aim for the same spot, the

heart, we should succeed. ~e are not doing thatnow; we

need to start doing, it.

Dear Madalyn O'Hair:

I am an ATHEIST and have sup-

ported Atheism for the past

45-50

years (lgave you some support while

still in

Marvland.),

Right now I am

81

and illthe past 13-14 years, and living

on a limited income does not allow

one much out of social security

checks to pay anything much more

than medication bills, fuel bills, and

other necessities. Iassure you that I

was never in the $50,000 bracket to

be able to save fora rainy day. Inever

even came up to earning $5,000 a

year. So please don't class me with .

the upper brackets. I am doing the

best I can when Isend you $10.00 to

the sustaining fund. Outside of that I

can't do any more. I wish you and

yours well.

John V . Cassman

Pennsylvania

Thank

you

for your

letter

concern-

ing contributions. You are not alone,

Mr. Cossman. The current

economic

situation of

our

nation places many

persons in the position you are in

now.

We

at

American

Atheists have

never asked ,but/or Atheists to help'

as

they

are

able. One of the things

that we don't

Ii~e

is that those Athe-

ists who are in the, $50,000+ income

bracket are those who will give

us

the least, while persons such. a s

yourself will

dollarus

to death with

small

contributions

often totaling

several hundred dollars by the end of

a

year. About 80% a/the

income

of

the organization

isjrom

donations

in .

the

$1, $3, $5

and $10 range. Doria-

tions 0[$50.00 and over are

[eui

in ,

comparison, .

.We do appreciate your help and

we stretch those donations

you

are

able to give just as far as you have to

stretch your

income

to make ends

meet.

Our

message, month after

month,

is

really more toward the

persons of higher

income

who can

afford

$25

to $50

a

month

in a

continued way and who can't see

the importance of their help

as you

can.

Jon Murray

Austin, Texas

Letters to The Editor

Gentlepeople:

I'm taking the opportunity ofsend-

ing my sustainer for November in

order to voice a picky gripe I have

with the editorial in the

(I

believe)

October issue of the magazine.

My objection is not to content,

although I know at least two people

have resigned from the organization

because of it.

MY

objection is in the

non-capitalization of words like Jew,

Jewish, Christian, Semite, etc.

These, and other words relating to

religion(s), are proper nouns and as

such should be capitalized. The non-

capitalization of such words dis-

plays, I feel, a pettiness which Athe-

ism doesn't need if it is to be taken

seriously by the non-Atheist world. I

approve ofthe capitalization ofAthe-

ist and Atheism, since we should be

proper nouns also. But I don't feel

that the cause isadvanced by playing

fast and loose with the rules of the

English language. English gets dis-

torted and tortured enough by the

communications media, politicians,

the military, and other twerps who

can't find, their way around a dic-

tionary without a guide; I believe we

don't need to contribute to the decay

of the language in order to be heard.

And we don't need to descend to

THEiR

brainless level in order to

make our point

I hope you will give my thoughts

serious consideration. Thanks ..

Christine L. Oleynichak

(Ill..Chap. Secy.)

Dear Christine Oleynichak,

I

am

writing concerning what

you

described as'

a

picky gripe you

have with the October editorial: the

non-capitalization of certain words.

We

do lower-case god, bible,

christian,

jeui,

and certain other

words used in religiousjargon. It isn't

a minor

point,

as

far

as

we are

concerned, and we do it deliberately.

We

are changing the language,

so

that Atheists will not

be

required to.

maintain religious usages when dis-

cussing

religion. It

is

because of

religion that the capitalization of

these, terms began, and we have

January, 1982

lV

decided to stop it

as

far

as

we are

concerned.

Actually, we aren't the

only ones

doing it. For

a long

time, people have

been moving from usages such

as

He,

His,

and Who, toward the

lower case, and

you

will notice it

is

becoming common usage to refer to

the christian bible

as

the bible. The

capitalization of god has been

a

christian gimmick intended to signify

something important there

or a

real-

ity behind the word, which of course

is

not there. It

is a

tradition (incor-

porated

in

style

manuals,

all right)

for which we do not care, since it

conveys a false picture of

realits

Apart from the fact that god,

jesus christ, etc., never existed, we

are doing this to' cause' what

you

could call the shock of recognition.

When you read a line in which

roman catholic church

or

god

or

jew appears without capitaliza-

tion,

a

different feeling

is

conveyed

from that experienced when reading

Roman Catholic Church or God

or

Jeu: The slight but continuous

bombardment with caps produces a

very subtle intimidation, which we

want to dispense with. ,

. In the magazine we c J 9 capitalize

non-religious

personal names and

proper

nouns

and place names, but

we do want to make people think

a

bit about what

religion

has been

up

to, and e think this

is

a good way to

do it.

A s

jar

as

respectabiiityor

being

taken seriously

is

concerned: It

comes from accomplishment and

ideas, .not from a slavish 'c'opying 'of

accepted

or

correct rul~s of

behavior or expression.'

We

are not

descending

to their

brainless level, but simpl,i'puiting

them back on the track. W e are

fostering change inthe lang~age, not

the decay of the language. It isn't

, pettiness; it isn't playing fast and

loose;

it

is a

deliberate change we

are producing. .

With best wishes,

D.( Kent

;;.

PageS


8/32

SCIENTIFIC ATHEISM CENTRE IN MOSCOW

Yevgeny Anisimov, Cand.Sc. (Philosophy)

Director of the Moscow Scientific Atheism Centre

American tourists visiting the USSR sometimes express

surprise upon learning that in Moscow, as well as in other

Soviet towns, nobody prevents anybody from praying to

god, that christian churches, mosques and synagogues.

function in the country and that religious literature is

published for the believers.

According to Article 52 of the Constitution of the USSR,

citizens ofthe USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience,

that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion.

The same article provides for freedom of atheistic propa-

ganda as well as freedom to conduct religious worship.

For example, there is a special Scientific Atheism Centre

in Moscow. It occupies an ancient mansion which is a

17th-19th century architectural monument. It stands next

to the assumption church in Gonchary, which was built in

1654 and continues to function to this day.

The Atheism Centre is always crowded. People of

different age groups go there to listen to a lecture by a

famous professor or to see a film. Young people are

attracted by our disco and slide programs. Older people

often drop inon us on their way home after attending divine

service in the assumption church. They like to spend some

time over a cup of coffee or take part in discussing various

questions pertaining to religion and Atheism, expressing

their own viewpoint and listening to the well-argued views of

their opponents.

Our propaganda work consists mostly of public lectures,

including over 200 main subjects, such as Jesus Christ, a

Myth or a Historical Personality?, Scientific Foresight and

Religious Prophecies, Finds around the Dead Sea, The

Emergence and Development of Judaism. Subjects

prompted by present-day situations such as Ecology and

World Outlook, Demographic .Problems and Religion,

Urbanization and the Overcoming of Religious Feelings in

the USSR, ''The State ofStress and Religiosity, Criticism

of the Eschatological Concepts of the Future, are also

popular.

Most of our talks and lectures are devoted to problems

pertaining to the people's world outlook, which now give

rise to discussions and debates among scientific circles and

in the press. Our listeners always display great interest in

such lectures as Mysterious Phenomena of the Human

Mentality and Their Materialistic Explanation, Super-

stition inthe Light ofModern Science, , Looking for Extra-

Terrestrial Civilizations.

Most of our lecturers hold scientific degrees or titles.

Among them are academicians, doctors and candidates of

science as well as people specializing in more than thirty

branches of science-primarily social sciences, philosophy,

history and sociology, though there are also biologists,

psychologists, medical workers and physicists.

It happens that former believers and even ministers who

break away from the church or sectarian communities,

come to us with the request to be allowed to speak about

the essence of religion. Such lectures have a particularly

great emotional and psychological impact on audiences

Page 6

January, 1982

II

among whom are believers. This is the opinion of eye-

witnesses.

Only a small share of our lectures are delivered in the

Scientific Atheism Centre. Most of them (the Centre

organizes more than 6,000 lectures every year) are held at

enterprises, clubs in various Moscow districts and in the

residential areas. Their range of subjects and the way the

lectures are organized vary depending upon the com-

position of the audience. FQrexample, we know that quite a

number of Tatars live in Moscow. For them we prepare

lectures about the essence of islam, the role it plays in the

national-liberation struggle in different countries of the

world, islam's attitude to women, etc.

Our lecturers can upgrade their knowledge at seminars

and in study groups, at theoretical and practical con-

ferences as well as in the University of Moscow.

No entries bearing on the citizens' religion are made in

any official documents in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless,

certain trends in religious worship in the USSR are now

being studied by sociologists. These studies, in particular,

show that about 80 percent of the believers come from

religious families. Women account for between 60 and 90

percent of the members of church and sectarian com-

munities. A special cycle of lectures about the social policy

of the Soviet state with regard to family, women and youth

has been worked out for this group of the population.

The entertainment formo f atheistic propaganda, which is

comparatively new for us, has won popularity in our work

with young people. For example, since young people like

musicals a modern rock opera has appeared on the

repertory of the drama studio set up at our centre. Pavel

Grushko, poet and dramatist, has written a piay specially

for our studio. It tells the story of mediaeval Florence, of the

monk Savonarola and Lorenzo Medici, the ruler of

Florence. The clash between the two outstanding historical

personalities reaches exceptional acuteness in the play.

The struggle of reason and human feelings against obscu-

rancy and religious reaction is shown on the stage to the

accompaniment of a pop group. There is much movement

and rhythm in the play. Our young spectators speak very

highly of our new work.

Discotheques have become very widespread in our

country over the past few years, and the interest of young

people in this active and cognitive form of recreation is

rather high. The Moscow Atheism Centre has worked out

two disco and slide programs: The Origin and Essence of

Christianity in which we use fragments from the well-

known opera Jesus Christ Superstar, and the program

God's Temple and the Children of God. What is Divine

about them? The young people met the staging of these

plays with enthusiasm, and it is by no means easy to obtain

tickets to them now.

Incidentally, we use the money we get from the sale of

tickets for our programs and lectures to pay the profes-

sional actors engaged in our plays, as well as the lecturers. It

should also be noted that about half the lectures are



9/32

delivered on a voluntary, free basis.

The Atheism Centre inMoscow has an excellent library,

a considerable part ofwhich constitutes rare publications of

religious and atheistic literature we were presented by

residents of Moscow and other cities. In a year the library

renders services to more than 60,000 people. Some ofthem

stay on in the reading hall until late at night. The library is

visited by people who want to enlarge their knowledge

about the history of the development of theological and

atheistic thought, lecturers, postgraduates and students of

Moscow higher educational establishments who study

scientific atheism, or just inquisitive residents of nearby

residential areas.

A COMMENT ON COMPULSORY CREATIONISM

Ian R. Bock

Any sane person reading reports of recent legislative

trends to force the teaching of a several thousand year old

creation mythology in school biology classes could surely

be forgiven for wondering whether we're really livingin the

latter part of the twentieth century. Is this really happening

in a country that can put men on the moon, that can explore

the reaches of the solar system, in the most technologically

advanced country in the world? In any case, the legislators

promoting the teaching of creationism in science classes

seem to have missed a rather basic point concerning

science education.

The teaching of every science consists of two inter-

dependent, indeed inseparable, parts, the theoretical and

the practical. The theoretical instruction gives the student a

background in the principles of the subject which are then

tested or demonstrated in the laboratory. This is no less

true in the biological than in the physical sciences. In the

latter, the phenomena associated with light, electricity,

magnetism, etc., are studied in the laboratory, while in the

former, practical classes are devoted to an examination of

the structure and function of organisms and their. parts

together with appropriate experiments.

In that branch of biology dealing with evolutionary

theory, new species are not created in the laboratory;

science has not yet discovered everything, and how to

compress a process that in nature takes thousands or tens

ofthousands ofgenerations into a few afternoons' practical

sessions has not (at least yet) been accomplished. But on

the other hand, the theoretical aspects of evolution are

supported by virtually everything that is done in biology

practical classes. Comparative studies of anatomy physiol-

ogy, embryology and genetics all point to the same evolu-

tionary conclusion as wellas teaching patterns ofstructure,

function, development and inheritance per se. Some birds

(ostriches, rheas, emus, etc.) do not fly, yet they possess

unused and useless rudimentary wings. What are these

structures, if not vestigial organs inherited from earlier' ----------------------

flyingancestors, no longer maintained by natural selection

because flight became unnecessary to the pattern of life

adopted by these species? Some lizards livelargely under-

ground; their form of locomotion is burrowing, yet they

possess unused and useless rudimentary limbs. What are

these structures, if not vestigial organs inherited from

earlier walking ancestors, again no longer maintained by

natural selection because walking became unnecessary to

the pattern oflifeadopted by these species? Why does man

have an appendix? Did god put it there to keep twentieth-

century physicians in business? The human embryo at one

Austin, Texas

lI

early stage of development possesses aortic arches and gill

slits; what are these, if not vestiges of very much earlier

(fish) evolutionary stages? These features are certainly

hardly essential to the embryo, and the adult arterial system

develops by a complex series ofsecondary modifications to

this primitive structural pattern. Ifthis circuitous, inefficient

system of development is the best that god can design,

many school children could do better.

The point isthat theoretical scientific teaching goes hand

in hand with practical classes and that as far as biology is

concerned, practically everything learnt in the latter points

towards evolution. An attempt at a creationist interpreta-

tion leads to the type of absurdities just mentioned.

If, now, creationism is to be taught as a theory in

competition with evolution inschools, what should be done

in the laboratory to supplement it? Should a plague of frogs

be conjured up upon the land? Should allthe nation's cattle

be afflicted with a murrain? Should 5,000 students lunch on

a few loaves ofbread and a fishwhile transmuting water into

wine? Perhaps a billshould be passed to order the latter: it

would not only provide evidence for the theoretical side of

the subject, but would also be popular with students and ,

hold their interest, a valuable bonus for the instructors

charged with running the class. Ifnone of these experiments

is considered suitable for practical classes, I trust that the

creationist legislators have something appropriate to

suggest. The scientific community is waiting.

Important notice

The second paragraph of Dr. Ian R. Bock's article Some

Thoughts on Evolution (The American Atheist, Vol. 23, No. 12,p.

4) should read: Simply stated, evolution is the concept that

similar but different species are related bydescent from a common

ancestral species. Thus man and the gorilla, different species

showing numerous similarities, are both believed to be derived

from a common ancestral species. The potato and the tomato,

again species showing many similarities [etc.]

January, 1982 Page 7


10/32

The Match

Fred Woodworth

ATHEISM AND JUSTICE

In Danbury, Connecticut not long ago, defense argu-

ments were made in court on behalf of one Arne Johnson,

accused in the stabbing death of another man. A routine

case? Not when Johnson's attorney Martin Minnella began

trying to introduce evidence involving demonic posses-

sion and objecting to not being allowed to ask jurors if they

believed in the devil. According to Minnella, his client

deserves to be judged not guilty of this crime because at the

time of the act Johnson was under control by an evil power

which had, as it were, taken over his neurological apparatus

without his consent and had utilized his body to perform

various actions, including this murder.

Fortunately, in this case, Judge Robert Callahan of the

Superior Court disallowed any testimony pertaining to

demons or devils, and so the particular trial cannot be cited

as favorable precedent in future cases where the religious

attempt to evade guilt by placing responsibility on unseen

forces. However, such is the climate of the times, we cannot

doubt that some such precedent will be established before

long. Already cases have been seen in which astrological

signs and charts found their way into the courtroom as

occasional determinants of use in sentencing, or as miti-

gating factors introduced or attemptedly introduced by

defendants.

The system and tradition of courtroom precedents may

exclude a certain tactic innumerable times, but once it gains

a single entry it sets the stage for use and re-use by those

who cite its appearance as an instance of acceptable

strategy. The idiotic must therefore be defeated a thousand

times, because it has only to win ONCE to ensnarl and

poison justice forever after.

While many have observed and remarked on various

instances in which supernatural influence has been pro-

posed as a defense in charged crimes, so far a terrible

consequence of such defenses has escaped notice by these

commentators. Legal precedent, like law itself. is a two-

edged sword; what may be used as defense may be used as

well as prosecution. The acceptance in court of some

defense position involving demons, elves, or jesus christ,

might therefore have profound consequences when later

proceedings ACCUSE this or that person of acting under

the influence of these non-existent causes. What a short

step we have really come from the barbaric witch trials of

puritanism or the catholic inquisition

That justice has progressed such a little distance is really

no news to the Atheist who attempts to utilize the judicial

system, or to defend himself or herself from some charge.

Testimony from each witness is elicited in an aura of mystic

certainty-of swearing, and archaic phrases invoking

something called god. The reasonable person who enters

these proceedings with testimony he knows to be true, may

discover he is barred from uttering a single word because of

his refusal to acknowledge supernatural, religious entities.

Page 8

- January. 1982

IY

And yet the prevailing belief is that modern life has

attained a plane qualitatively different from what has ever

gone before. Justice, as the average person peers backward

into the past, is perceived as having been crude and

arbitrary. In civil cases or formal disputes the party who

prevailed usually had more wealth or

power-than

his

adversary, and could force the outcome that suited him. In

cases of criminal charges, the defendant might bd'.'put to a

test that reflected his physiological reactions and-fear, the

assumption being that the innocent had nothing at all to be

afraid of. Persons accusedof crimes might even be tortured

to force them to confess, and sentencing was likely to

impose severe or fatal penalties on the convicted.

Now, of course, civil disputes are decided by an impar-

tial court which hears the arguments of lawyers, hired at

great expense to the litigants, who secure a bold and

energetic presentation in direct proportion to the amount of

money they can afford to pay. Criminal cases are no longer

assisted by procedures such as the Chinese used, in which

the defendant was given dry bread to swallow, a fear-

parched throat being prima facie evidence of guilt; today,

such modern products of ingenuity as the polygraph

measure body secretions and register the accused one's

fear on gauges where drops of sweat and thudding pulse are

meticulously counted -amazing progress in quantification.

Meanwhile, no prisoner is ever tortured to extract an

admission of guilt; the modern procedure is to confine

persons accused of serious crimes in bleak/-ciepressing,

unhealthful cages where they are likely to be harmed by

fellow-prisoners while waiting a long-deferred trial. After a

time these accused people are offered the choice of quicker

release in exchange for their acknowledgement of guilt to

some slightly less grave charge ....

It is actually shocking to reflect how little difference exists

between justice today and yesterday. True. there has been

a change in degree. with a softening of some of the former

harshness as mankind has almost imperceptibly grown

wiser and more humane, but there is no difference in kind.

Open divination. for instance--the reading of patterns in

animals' entrails or tea leaves. the interpretation of omens

and signs- now has no place in the courtroom. but appeals

to god to direct proceedings toward truth are still found.

dangerously creating the supposition of unknowable influ-

ence on these affairs, and lessening the tendency for

accusers. judges and juries to contemplate the real proba-

bility of their error and its awful results.

.Iustice. at its best, should be an earnest and logical

inquiry. yet religion is not earnest but

abject.

and is in no

case logical, as even its supporters are sometimes com-

pelled to admit. Religion has no business mixing itself with

justice, as religion is necessarily productive of arbitrary

results. At some point even the most watered-down belief in

god turns up as fallacies in thinking in some other broad



11/32

areas that have significance as a social manifestation. -

Where there is an improvement in justice at all, the

advancement is toward secularization.

It is now so widely believed as to have become a set

phrase, that a person is innocent until proven guilty. On

the other hand, religious people are fond of ordenng the

Atheist to prove there is no god, not recognizing that the

burden of proof which is on the person positively alleging

something is always on the person who asserts a positive

proposition. To be in accord with the philosophical premise

of religion, therefore, justice would necessarily be in the

position of ordering the accused to prove themselves

unguilty,

a familiar bit of Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning.

What actually corresponds with the assumption inno-

cence pending proof of guilt is the assumption that there is

no god, pending religionists' proof otherwise. (As Sebastien

Faure said, Cease to affirm, and we will c ease to deny ) A

civilization that holds that it is proper to believe positively in

something for which there is no evidence at all, perverts the

fundamental structure of logic upon which human

civilize-

tion itself rests, and no real justice can exist in such

conditions.

In addition to illogicality, a further personality trait of the

religious believer is authoritarianism, the firm conviction

that the believer's ideas, being divinely

inspired.

need to

hold sway over all people, whether they believe in them or

not. This belief, which is once again sweeping across the

United States as well as a number of Western

nations.

is

contributing to a resurgence of the worst outbreaks of

censorship and attempts to enact moralistic laws.

Now, having said all this about the consequences of'

religion, what are the consequences of its opposite, Athe-

ism') Atheism does

not

attempt to tell anyone what to do,

nor does it make any statement that must be taken on faith.

It does not postulate unseen demons or spirits: it does not

lea d

Its adherents to think that someone besides

th em-

selves is responsible for their action. Atheism holds no

promise

of escaping consequences by appealing to

super

natural agencies, nor does it portend the danger of the

innocent being accused of acting out the wishes of the

devil. Atheism leaves the individual where he or she needs

to be --in charge of one's own behavior

It is indeed sobering to see with what pas' the irrational

On Our Way

Ignatz Sahula-Dycke

GHOSTS WORDS AND PAINT

If charity is a heavenly virtue-- as says religion-then

conclusive evidence of religion's essential harm rests in the

way its doctrine ignores charity and heaven,

11 1

committing

to hell anyone who differs with or rejects religion's com-

mands. None of these are more than mere opinions

disguised as truths which, when taken seriously by the

believer, make him weaker, and the religion more harmful

than before; and for this reason religion continues to stand,

ifsomewhat wobblingly, on a foundation of both heaven and

Austin. Texas

II

have appropriated material benefits of science after earlier

hindering in every conceivable way the effort to explore

natural and physical laws. Within the Iifetirne of most of

today's

adults, exploration of space was branded against

god's will by outcries from major churches. But more

recently, when exploration of the Moon was taking place,

astronauts determinedly read bible verses in space. It is as if

the clear-thinking and productive part of humanity has a

disreputable brother

- - - a

bum, a lout, who consistently

disparages everything new, and at times works up to a

frantic rage of zeal-driven hatred for products of the mind;

yet later, when he has lost the battle to annihilate these

things, he calmly takes them up for his own use.

Religion is that loutish antagonist, a hypocrite who will

bounce messages and bible sermons off satellite com-

munications relays---messages that only twenty or thirty

years ago were filled with mouthings about jesus's or

ichovah's prohibitions against probing beyond the

atmosphere. Religion is that sleazy, cunning renegade who

sends its wounded pope to a modern hospital for treatment

by competent surgeons, after earlier setting a stern No in

the way of medical innovators who wanted to dissect

human cadavers.

And now religion, on the heels of thousands of years of

backwardness, of utterly fdTcicdl justice, of monstrous

tortures in the name of god, of persecutory inquisitions

and foul, barbarous acts of every kind, dares to take credit

for the existence of codes of ethics and for civilized behavior

itself After having opposed the slow growth of even such

justice as we now have, imperfect by far as it is, religion now

grasps once again the benefits to it of slowly taking it over

for its own purposes.

A justice system that can be perverted to the point of

using astrology to determine a convict's sentence, or of

setting up a defense based on demonic possession, can

easily go the next step, to prosecutions and

entire trials

based on superstitious interpretations. It is important to

keep religion entirely out of t he courtrooms (not to mention

classrooms and a

number

of other

vital

spots), where it can

work

far-r eechinq

and profound harm. Religion, the

bastard, sponging, unwelcome visitor, needs to be firmly

ejected from the places where civilized people carryon their

business.

heil.

Only the undisciplined mind of a fool would permit

anyone to erect on a rock foundation a structure intended

to demonstrate the foundation's shortcomings. Yet pre-

cisely so, every religion attempts to show that the world into

which we've been born is the wrong place to search for

happiness, and that religion's promised heaven is the goal

that all of us should strive to reach. People by the millions

are every day confused by this tawdry religious ploy, but

.Ianuary, 1982

Page 9


12/32

anyone aware of the whimsical temperament of nature-of

her cosmically prevalent caprice-sees very little that in the

foolish behavior of human beings ought by rights be called

unusual or surprising. Just like other creatures, man is the

product of nature, of her mutable activities, of her self-

unknowing though seemingly intelligent entity. That's why

today's scientist continues to find ever new cosmic marvels

which by contrast make the smallest item known to date

look large, and the largest known look small. Nature will

always retain control, always fascinate us.

Inconstantly surprising us, nature betrays that she has an

inexhaustible supply of everything and anything that the

mind of man aided by his senses tempts him to expropriate

and utilize. But man, to his shame, doesn't invariably use

knowledge of this kind for his benefit. He repeatedly

employs it destructively; and whenever nature chastises

him-as she usually does-for such infractions, he calls her

punishment unjust, and himself clear ofblame. Ifthe history

of man's evolution from a cell randomly palpitating in the

world's seas, to a position commanding its land masses

constitutes an-encyclopedic record, it's also a compendium

that his weakly contradictory disposition prompts him to

ignore and blithely contravene.

Man, ever since he first assumed the leading place among

the world's creatures, had turned into a perennial puzzle

hard for man himself to solve. Man could have easily

succeeded at it had he not set against it countless obstacles

that make it appear. hopelessly impossible to him. Man

always hates to admit this to himself because, as a creature,

he instinctively and subliminally respects nature but con-

sciously and emotionally strives to subdue her-patently an

impossibility. And this is why he created a god, an idea

whose inexplicability is sufficiently capacious to hold all of

his guilts and doubts. He had fabricated a safety valve for

relieving his stress-prone temperament. .'

This ghost-god, ever present but invisible, was an idea

that one day occurred to man while fantasying about

nature-about her sun, wind, water, stars, snow, heat, cold,

and other whimsies-and has from the day of the god's

invention entranced man as something that he ranked

omnipotent. Here man was on the right track but didn't

know that in nature's visible and invisible entity alone is

omnipotence-and that, in the ghost he visualized, he was

inhismind reflecting nature's tauntingly ineffable character.

Some things take more time to realize than others; but he in

that reflection had an item for inducing the many to serve

the few-with which his priestly descendants gradually

persuaded the many: to accept this ghost -god as the

motivator of 111,.1l11anctivities. The god, said the priests,

demanded periodic appeasement; was a martinet who in

various religions held the position of predestinator of life

-;-and in time was by the priests made known as the author

of any and every rule and taboo at alleffective for keeping

docile all those who remained unconvinced ofhis existence.

And though this nightmarish ghost-god was nothing but a

figment, the weary and exploited masses eventually wor-

shiped even images they thought might please him, or

anything at allthey thought resembled him or harbored him.

Speculating of this kind could be stretched to book length

-but should by chance a moral be found hiding in these few

lines, let it be that man is by nature compelled to bean

inveterate dreamer and visualizer: all because he finds

Page 10

January, 1982

J

sequent thinking upon any subject exceedingly difficult.

Our human thinking is inconstant, often vague. A picture

helps elucidate it. This notwithstanding, the god-idea was

always represented as a doctrine that would sooner or later

bring joy and pleasure to man. But the claim alone was

never enough. Hence religion never passed up any available

means to attract converts, and this finallyfocused priestly

attention upon the sundry help to be obtained from art.

In this .connection I was given an interesting lecture on

religious art a few years ago by a friend who had just

completed a lengthy essay about it, and consequently felt

that in my Atheism I was ignoring the contributions to art

made by religion. I countered, saying that itwasn't the love

of art that moved into action the architects, sculptors,

goldsmiths, painters, printers, and artisans hired by reli-

gion, but purely and simply the church's necessity for

retrenchment. The widespread apostasy faced by the

popes of the 14th and subsequent centuries impelled them

to try and obtain, through art, what they assumed would

enable their dynastic religionism to dominate more effi-

ciently the guilt-fraught humanity they were in those

centuries pledged to control.

As to the quality of the art then being produced for the

purpose, no impartial critic of today would sincerely

pronounce it beautiful except, perhaps, historically and

sentimentally. Only in relatively few cases is it better than

adequate, and even more rarely a masterpiece. But the

dedication, devotion, ingenuity, and patience of the sundry

artists engaged in this project isn't in any way being decried

here. For clearing the air that in further discussion of beauty

in religious art might end in smog, let's review Immanuel

Kant's dictum upon it in his Critique of Judgment:

Everyone must admit that a judgment about

beauty, in which the least interest mingles, is

very partial and is not a pure judgment of taste.

We must not be in the least prejudiced in favor of

the existence of things, but be quite indifferent in

this respect, in order to play the judge in things

of taste. Taste is the faculty of judging of an

object or a method of representing it by an

entirely disinterested satisfaction or dissatisfac-

tion. The object of such satisfaction is called

beautiful.

The fact remains that religious art, no matter how

produced and on view today was, and is, propagandistic. It

is therefore by no interpretation altruistic or humanistic. Itis

pity-evoking, lachrymose, concerned with man's cruelties

to man; is in revoltingly poor taste, and wholly dedicated to

the perpetuation of the tyrannic ambitions of the hierarchy

engaged in the unholy, money-grubbing, and power-thirsty

enterprise I long ago dubbed the god business. The people

of the Western nations, for whose iron control and indoc-

trination such art was being produced after the 4th century,

are worse off because of it, and would undoubtedly have

been a better people without it than they currently are.

From The Victoria (Texas) Advocate of 13November 1981:

Church news is third class mail, but because of its nature

and the fact that many people await it each week, all local

church news gets first class handling, declared the local

USPS manager of consumer services.



13/32

The Angry Young Atheist

Jeff Frankel

ATHEISTS MUST FIGHT

Greetings, fellowAtheists. This is the first inwhat I hope

willbe a long series of

The Angry Young Atheist

columns.

I hope to add a new dimension to this magazine by

'presenting ideas and opinions on Atheism from the per-

spective of the proverbial angry young man (Iam

24).

Recent commentaries on the subject of closet Atheists

basically summed up my life prior to 1981. I was one who

would argue with those who attempted to foist religion onto

me, but that was all.I simply glided along, making no waves

and unknowingly helping to maintain the status quo.

That was until I saw the rise of the new fundamentalist

right. The actions of the moral majority and their megalo-

maniacal counterparts angered me. My tolerance towards

religious fanatics fell to zero. I wanted to fight. I began

researching religion and Atheism. I discovered the Amer-

ican Atheist Center and became a member, thus discarding

the agnostic label I had worn for so long.

Having come to the realization that being an Atheist

means taking a stand, fightingthe fight,and refusing to back

down, I was quite disappointed to read in Jon's column

about .those who compartmentalize their Atheism.

THIS

MUST STOP

As Atheists, we are members of a team. As

with any team, the members must pull together iUtisto be a

winner. Ifeach individual goes ina different direction, losing

is inevitable.

WE

DO

NOTWANT TO LOSE WE CAN

NOT AFFORD TO LOSE

If you will not respond .to behavior modification tech-

niques, perhaps you willrespond to your own pride. Take a

good look at the moral majority (ifyour stomach willallow

you to). Like them or not, you mustrespect their ability to

work together towards getting the results they desire. Are

you willingto let a group of pompous zealots take over and

make 1984 a reality while you stand back and rationalize

some selfish excuse for not getting involved? Are you willing

to concede to the christians that they are better team

players than we are? If you 'have the courage of your

convictions, your answer should be a loud resounding

NO

To see what can be gained by coming out of the closet,

one only needs tolook at the gains made byblacks, women,

and homosexuals over the past few years. How did they do

it? Bystepping forward bravely, identifying themselves, and

demanding their rights. They didn't turn and run the first

time, Orany time somebody said no. They, stood and

fought, and fought some more. The fightisby no means

over for any of those groups, but the advancements they've

.made are proof that their efforts have not been in vain.

I,for one, am tired ofthose whose only action toward the

injustices, of life is empty complaining. ,lJnfortunately,

apathy is becoming the new national pastime. The last

election wasaperfect example. We now have a president

who won election by gaining the votes ofa majority oJthe

Austin, Texas

...

52% of registered voters who actually got out and voted

(and halfof those were probably moral majority supporters).

The attitude of many of our nation's voters and, unfortu-

nately, Atheists, isbest summed up by songwriter John Kay

of the band Steppenwolf in their 1968song The Ostrich :

There's nothing you and I can do; you and I are. only

two

What's right and wrong is hard to say; forget about it

for today

We'llstick our heads into the sand; just pretend that all

is grand

And hope that everything turns out okay.

Atheism has no place for selfish, bigoted indifferent

people. Those who fitthat mold may as wellgojoin a church

so they can be with their own kind. (It 's just as wellthis type

ofAtheist keeps a low profile. That keeps them from being

an embarrassment to sincere Atheists.) Atheism needs

those who are intelligent, caring and direct to stand up and

be counted without the fear of offending someone or

suffering reprisals. You must realize that when you sub-

scribe to an unconventional philosophy, you willmost likely

alienate some people. It goes with the territory.

Ifyou are going to be-outgoing with your Atheism, you

must do considerable study so you will be knowledgeable

enough to deal with those who challenge your stand.

Through my own experiences, I have found that you need

sufficient understanding of these three areas: '

(1) The bible: This. book is its owl worst enemy.

Everything you need to discredit itis contained within. Read

it, along with the many fineatheistic analyses ofit which are

available. Showing knowledge of their scriptures will be

enough to deflate most critics, since knowledge of the bible

issomething most christians are lacking (that's why they're

christians).

(2) Atheist history: Learn about the great Atheists who

contributed to the history of our nation, as well as other

historical figures who did not accept christianity. This will

enable you to educate others in regard to the respectable

non-religious heritage of our nation.

(3) Evolution: As soon as you say you've rejected the god

concept, someone willusually ask, How did you get here?

(This is a question you can -play a number of semantics

games with.)

Ifyou are one ofa majority ofAtheists who accept evolution

as the explanation of how life came about, you shouldbe

informed enough on the subject to defend it properly.

Itdoesn't hurt to admit your Atheism. The reactions you

get may surprise you. Most of those I'vegotten have been of

sincere interest. I have an American Atheist shirt which

has raised a few dirty looks, but has also caught the eye of

those curious enough about Atheism that they've asked

January, 1982

Page 11


14/32

what it's all about. As it has previously been stated in The

American Atheist, we must draw this kind of attention to

. ourselves in order to expand the ranks of Atheism.

Let's quit hiding behind Madalyn Murray O'Hair and

stand beside her in the fight for Atheist rights and the

restoration of the separation of state and church. Remern-

ber, it willtake

ACTION

Hoping things willget better is as

useless as praying. One person can do a lot, and that person

is YOU

How many times have you heard the old story of a

person's life being improved by acceptance of god and

christ? It's a well-worn rags to riches tale which priests

never failto bring up in an attempt to prove how great it is

to be a christian. They never mention those who went

insane trying to livetheir lives by the contradictory rules of

the bible. Nor do they mention those whose lives were

ruined by the fanatical dictates of their church.

Ihave no doubts that many people's lives have been made

easier because oftheir acceptance ofchristianity. Itmust be

nice to be relieved of the responsibility of thinking and

reasoning and no longer having to be concerned with the

now. But I feel the world should know that one's lifecan be

improved by RENOUNCING religion. Such has been the

case with me, and I feel Ishould present my story for all to

see.

I was raised as a christian. I was saved (spelled d-e-

c-e-i-v-e-d)at age seven. Iwas taught that beliefinthe Hokey

Babble was necessary for a fulland wholesome life,and that

prayer was essential for one's well being. Enjoyable sum-

mers attending vacation bible school and nice people inmy

church leftme with a very favorable impression of religion.

(Ah, yes, get them while they're too young to know better.)

My family later moved to another city, so I had to leave the

church I loved so much. Still in all, I maintained my faith

(spelled d-e-l-u-s- i-o-n), I read the bible and tried to under-

stand it, but found it difficult. I felt itmade no difference, as

long as I continued to believe.

As a youngster, Iwas far more intelligent than my peers (I

finished the first four grades in school in three years) and

also taller and heavier (over six feet talland inexcess of200

Ibs.at age twelve); The jealousy others showed towards me

because of my intellect and the ridicule I received because

of my size prompted me to plunge even deeper into the tar

pit known as religion. I developed a very self-righteous

attitude. I felt those who put me down were of the devil. I

would draw pictures of my enemies burning in hell as

satan danced with glee, jabbing their burning flesh with his

pitchfork. I felt that since I was with god, Iwas right, and

would be rewarded with heaven, while my detractors would

certainly go to hell. Ifelt secure in that because I had plenty

of scripture to back me.

My snobbery and contempt for those who didn't believe

as Idid grew as Igrew older. Iwould only speak to those who

I thought believed as I, ignoring the rest. My only school

activity outside class was attending a prayer room which

was open in the morning prior to the first bell. Then, the

prayer room was abolished after a parent complained to the

school board about it. I was very angry about this, and

urged god to punish this infidel.

Ihad many problems during my adolescence (as I guess

all people do during that period of life),but instead of trying

to deal with them, I simply tried to pray them away. The

Page 12

January, 1982

attitude troubles I had culminated in my becoming a high

school dropout. There Iwas: A fat blob of ignorance and self

pity, wishing jesus would come and make my lifebetter.

I decided to begin studying on my own so I could later

obtain a GED degree. I also began an extensive reading of

the bible so I could become an even more knowledgeable

christian. This was the turning point.

Reading and analyzing the bible as one would any other

piece of literature was a far cry from simply looking up a

quote a preacher used in a sermon. By the time I'd finished

genesis, I was beginning to doubt the wisdom of god.

Reading the gospels made me look upon christ as some-

thing less than perfect. Other books I read in both the old

and new testaments came across to me as just plain stupid.

Around this same time, I was beginning to study logic,

and was reading a book which contained a list of logical

fallacies. I began to apply that list to my bible study. To my

horror, Ifound that the bible simply does not stand up under

serious scrutiny. I didn't know what to think.

The only thing I couldn't find fault with at that time was

the resurrection. Then I found a book entitled The Jesus

Scroll by Donovan Joyce, which used evidence found

within the gospels to show that christ did not die on the

cross, and showed the crucifixion and the resurrection

could have been faked by christ and his followers. That was

enough for me. I renounced christianity as a fraud.

Iwas very angry that I had been led into believing a-false

religion by people Iloved. Then Irealized that they had been

deceived even more than I. That taught me an important

lesson: To develop a satisfying personal philosophy, one

must not look without, but look within. I'd spent so much

time trying to understand the bible that I'd spent virtually no

time trying to understand me. The time had come for that to

change.

I turned my mind inside out attempting to understand ..

myself. Use of psychology and logic replaced the empty ~

prayers I'd been saying for so long. A fulfillingphilosophy

evolved from this-one based on common sense, not

common belief. I evolved from deist to agnostic to Atheist.

At the time Iabandoned religion, Iwas 17years old, out of

school, unemployed and living in an uninspiring environ-

ment. I weighed over 400 Ibs. and was a sickly weakling,

lacking in self-confidence. My social life was limited to

contacts with those whose lives and ideas were as narrow as

mine. As time went on, my life improved. My thinking

became more rational as I conditioned and disciplined my

mind. I applied equal conditioning and discipline to my

body, slimming down to a trim 260 Ibs. on my 6'5 frame. My

health problems disappeared, and I am now going on four

consecutive years without missing a day of work. I have a

good job with a nationally known company, my own home,

and the best friends anybody could ask for. I've developed

my writing skills to the point where I've had several pieces

published. My self-confidence and take-charge attitude

have been a positive influence on many people. I am at

peace with myself and the world. I livefor the moment, and

am not concerned with any concept ofafterlife. Death does

not bother me, and is certainly not the terrifying spectre it

was when I was a christian, because I have no fear of hell.

I'm sure that many religionists would read this and claim

that the behavior I exhibited in my youth was simply the

result of having a neurotic attitude which had nothing to do


1 . 1


15/32

with religion. Iadmit Iwas indeed neurotic, and that some of

my behavior was not connected to my christian faith. But I

feel that the fires in my neurotic mind would not have

burned as hot without the even more neurotic doctrine of

christianity to fuel them. I'm sure they would also say that

with proper christian counseling (spelled b-r-a-i-n-w-a-s-h-

ion-g)I would have overcome my problems and kept my

faith. Idid talk to a minister who became a very good friend.

We studied the bible together and talked about life. Even

though he'd been through three years of bible college, Iwas

pointing out scripture to him that he was not aware of. In

regard to personal problems, Iwas more helpful to him than

he was to me. He'd had a history of mental illness, and

would suffer from severe depression at times. He'd been

treated by christian therapists, but ithad done littlefor him.

He'd often call ME to ask for help and advice. So much for

proper christian counseling.

Had I remained a christian, I could never have developed

the positive mental outlook I have now. As a christian, I

could never have felt I was worthwhile as a person, with

ministers constantly preaching how evil and sinful we

humans are. I would never have felt comfortable question-

ing those in authority, even ifI knew they were wrong, for

fear of punishment. I'd still be a fat slob because I would

believe that the body is secondary to the spirit. Plus Iwould

never have discovered all of the glory of this wonderful

world, because I'd be too busy thinking about a next one.

This was not an easy column to write because I had to

reveal some rather painful memories ofmy past. But stories

like this seldom surface, and Ifeltthat itwas something Ihad

to do. Becoming an Atheist was a highlight in my life; and I

see Atheism as the wave of the future. As people come to

relyon logicand reason and develop their philosophies from

within instead of without, Atheism will become more

prominent in our society.

Poetry

The

Shroud

The eager eyes of a soldier's son

Ablaze with the tales of war

While a boastful dad brags of battles won

And flaunts his hero's scar

Little wonder when he comes of age

That a youth should somehow crave

To relive his hero's gallant page

As the flags begin to wave

Full proud he'll followglory's trail

And rush to the battle's din

No thought his valiant cause might fail

He willfight to the bitter end

Undaunted so he'll man the lines

Where he'll face some foreign sons

Or charge unwarned by the danger signs

Now flashed by the pounding guns

A sudden fear willseize the boy

As his buddies scream in pain

Soon he'll be just a battle toy

Little glory then to gain

But time has passed to wonder now

That seas of blood must run

Mid thundering shell and smoke filledsky

Itwillflow tillthe killing's done

Now one by one the young men fall

And sounds of death grow loud

And the treasured flag that once waved tall

Becomes a funeral shroud

Gerald Tholen

Austin, Texas

OH NO NEUTRONS

You've heard of the Neutron Bomb,

Climax of man's absurdity ...

Regardless - our leaders approved.

We have atom bombs,

Nuclear missiles, poison gases,

Planes, ships, submarines,

Rockets, guns, cetera, cetera,

And never ending fear of wars

They allare dirty killers,

But the neutron's clean and kind.

It kills but doesn't leave

A bloody mess behind; it's gentle,

Won't scratch the fender

Or dent the heavy tank,

Doesn't destroy the buildings

Or touch the money in the bank.

Neutron kills all livingthings

Fries them soft and done

Same as you would roast the meat

In your Micro oven

But who is gonna kill the tank

If the driver is dead?

The tank keeps going, not knowing where,

And it won't stop till nothing's left

Standing

anywhere.

Bertha Goodall

Ohio

January, 1982

Page 13

IY


16/32

Toward More Intelligence

Richard M. Smith

SOME NEW YEAR S

RESOLUTIONS WE D LIKE TO SEE

It is customary at this time of year for many people to

make resolutions to change their personal behavior.

Usually these resolutions are so petty that nobody takes

them seriously. I, for one, resolved long ago to ignore the

whole custom, and that isprobably the only resolution that I

kept. However, recently I thought ofsome resolutions that

major people could make that would force me to reconsider

my attitude toward New Year's Day resolutions.

The pope resolves to tell the truth. He admits that the

catholic church has been wrong all along. He apologizes

sincerely for allof the needless pain the church has caused

to humanity throughout the centuries. To rectify the wrong

he abolishes the papacy, turns over allrelics to museums or

garbage dumps, and converts churches into music halls and

auditoriums. All propaganda money is diverted into educa-

tion of the still-believingmasses by explaining to them what

a huge mistake the whole business has been and how the

Atheists had been right all along. He acknowledges that

birth control for every human being is the most important

project facing humanity. By so doing the ex-pope earns

himself the honor as the greatest pope of all time and a

genuine man of peace.

The president ofthe mormon church, taking the cue from

the ex-pope, promptly does the same. The church's welfare

system is made completely autonomous. The head of the

church admits he has no ability to prophesy. He makes

special apologies to Native Americans for ever having

suggested that they were descendants of a cursed race

and to women for the inferior status that the church had

conferred upon them.

Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Oral

Roberts make a joint announcement to confess that the

U.S. was not founded as a christian nation and that allof the

founding fathers rejected bible stories like resurrection,

virginbirth, angels, etc. They appeal to young people to turn

away from the ministry.

Everyone agrees there's nothing wrong with private

schools if they aren't run by god-pushers, and a major

struggle is ended. Americans United, freed from the task of

fightingthe catholic church, promises to divert its money to

aiding American Atheists abolish the last of all the uncon-

stitutional laws which promote god and prayer in govern-

ment.

The supreme court of the U.S. admits that it has been

bowing to religious pressure for years and promises to

review all cases involving s

American Atheist Magazine (January 1982)

Documents